Talk:Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic star Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light is part of the Main Fire Emblem series series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 20, 2016 Good article nominee Listed
June 5, 2017 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article

Comment[edit]

99% of the article comes from the original Fire Emblem article - Thanks people for this great snippet

The other 1% is the release date, taken from Gamefaqs.com --ren 00:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Title?[edit]

Fire Emblem: Ankoku Ryū to Hikari no Tsurugi or Fire Emblem: Ankoku Ryuu to Hikari no Tsurugi? I think we need to come to a consensus on the use of the "ū". Other Fire Emblem articles use the "ū" or the related "ō" in their titles as necessary so why is this one different? Axem Titanium 02:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally prefer "ryuu," but "ū" is more commonly accepted than "uu" for that sound and it would probably conform best to Wikipedia policy if the title was changed. Brutannica 21:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Characters[edit]

I feel that it is important to make a page with the characters from Fire Emblem one so we can clarify the comparisons like how Seth is the Jeigan. I do not know enough about the characters and enough about the works of Wikipedia yet to currently contribute this exact article, but I'd be happy if someone would acknowledge that. David Martin Chao 22:28, 01 December 2006 (Pacific Coast Time)

Official English name[edit]

According to the Smash Bros. DOJO!!, the official English name for this Fire Emblem title is "Shadow Dragons and the Blade of Light". Parrothead1983 (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Source please? If this is true, then the article may be moved to the official English name. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Right here, just scroll down to "Castle Siege". Paradox7 (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It's on an official Nintendo site, so that's about as legit as it could get.--75.92.186.211 (talk) 07:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll post a meesage at this wikiproject to query whether a move is appropriate. Ashnard Talk Contribs 07:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Following advice from User: X201, I've redirected that page to this page. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ken vs. Tsurugi[edit]

The anon's edit is correct; it's "hikari no ken" according to ja:Wikipedia. Should the page be moved?—Loveはドコ? (talkcontribs) 08:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Places like IGN seem to indicate otherwise. I don't know enough about Japanese to know where the confusion has came from. That could be right—an official Nintendo source is needed. In the meantime, I'll revert the anon's changes as there's no evidence yet. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Just so you know, the confusion rises from the kanji for "sword" (剣) can be read both tsurugi and ken. Reading the kanji article might help, if you want more information on why such a thing is possible.—Loveはドコ? (talkcontribs) 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, a Japanese article would seem more reliable than IGN. The true name is probably "Ken"—the best thing to do now is to look for some Japanese website to verify this. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Initially I thought changing was the only way to go. However I now suggest sticking to "...Hikari no Tsurugi". For two main reasons: 1) As said Tsurugi and Ken are interchangeable so it doesn't make any difference whether you call it by either name and 2) More people know it as "...Hikari no Tsurugi" anyway. Also the game calls the Falchion (the Sword of Light in quesiton) using the tsurugi form. Finally there's the UK Smash Dojo page, which refers to the Japanese title as "...Hikari no Tsurugi". Aveyn Knight (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, that settles it then! (Although I think it's strange that the US Dojo would use translations while the UK Dojo would use Roma-ji.)—Loveはドコ? (talkcontribs) 00:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note that sites like IGN and GameFAQs geneally have no clue at all when it comes to Japanese titles for games. I've seen countless wrong Japanese titles on those sites when the game box has giant furigana explaining the correct spelling/pronounciation. Just because a site is big doesn't mean it's correct, and if a Japanese site claims the title is something other than what GameFAQs/IGN claims, then it should just be changed right away with no need for "sourcing". The incorrect title was never sourced, so why does the change have to be? AdamantBMage (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, I'd honestly rather trust Japanese people over some British Nintendo employee to know the actual name of a Japanese game. AdamantBMage (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I was just made aware of the fact that the UK dojo changed the title to "Hikari no Ken". "Tsurugi" was obviously a mistake. I'm changing the title of the article.AdamantBMage (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I was just looking at the Japanese article for this game. The title has been changed to "tsurugi" (in bold, even), and there is a note at the bottom that explains why "tsurugi" is the official reading, although it also admits there is a lot of confusion about this issue. It also states, the the official title of the new remake of the game for Nintendo DS has "ken" instead. --87.48.59.150 (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Merging Marth[edit]

Marth currently does not have enough information to warrant an article, so this is the best place for it to be covered. It needs real world information in order to exist otherwise. TTN (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Marth was the original main character for Fire Emblem, and he is recieving a revival on modern day format. I think for now, his article should be left alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.4.204.47 (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

But there are no real-world sources that really comment on him to give him real-world notability. If, by some unlikely chance, there becomes an upsurge in the media that discusses Marth independently, then the old article can always be revived. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There is exact 0% that says it shall be merged, with his appearances in other games. 90.228.241.157 (talk · contribs) 20:48 GMT +01 February, 2 2008

...Excuse me? Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
....I think he is referring to the fact that Marth has appeared in Super Smash Bros. Melee and Brawl, and his appearance has led Fire Emblem to become released internationall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.4.204.47 (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that much could've been inferred...it's just still so nonsensical. Exact 0% that says it shall be merged!—Loveはドコ? (talkcontribs) 06:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
So, does anyine feel strongly that the article shouldn't be merged, with reasons to justify it? Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, why not? Marth is the main character of three games in his respective series (including the very first game and a major upcoming game), an anime adaption of said series and a playable character in two very notable fighting games. There are no doubt a bunch of sources for "reception" citing his popularity in Super Smash Bros, and I'm sure there are a few more that are nigh impossible to find because the Fire Emblem games he has a role in haven't been released in the Western world. This subject has almost all the same credentials as Link and should be allowed an article. - 4.156.54.96 (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

But there is no out-of-universe information to establish any notability, and I personally can't find any decent sources that comment on Marth exclusively, except from detailing hus role in games. It's all well and good that he's been in some games, but there is notthing to build a decent article. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, making major appearences in multiple series and media is out-of-universe notablity. Marth isn't as popular as Link or Superman and hasn't been around in the US nearly as long as either of them, but the character has does have the same general idea of notablity, it just lacks sources which are sure to exist. Being the star of the next major Fire Emblem game(remake) and an assumedly very popular character in SSBB, conception and commentary should start rising from the grave soon enough. - 4.156.54.112 (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
If an upsurge in reception relating to Marth does occur, then the article could be recereated. We shouldn't prolong an article's existance on the chance that third-party media sources will comment on the character, or out-of-universe info will arise. By the way, out-of-universe notability is totally dependent on coverage by third-party sources, and not on the merits of Marth's existance. See Wikipedia: Notability. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


Or it could be kept with a notability tag and a bunch of citation needed's, considering how the subject is notable and deleting this article won't actually accomplish anything, make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia or improve the amount or quality of information people can attain. You should focus more on the merging of Marth into a larger list, as it fails WP:N to a much greater extent than this article does. More attention should be put on getting rid of/merging/improving the badly written/stub articles about entirely non-notable subjects and improving the encyclopedia as a whole as opposed to purging the articles with real information that people actually care about, by the time you're done dealing with that this article will be of FA status. In an ideal world people would realize Wikipedia is not and never will be a scholarly source, yet has the power to competently and thoroughly document subjects not fit for scholarly encyclopedias instead of trying to limit the project's potential, but I guess that isn't the world we live in. - 4.156.54.112 (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow, very philosophical. Please clarify your position because statements like "You should focus more on the merging of Marth into a larger list, as it fails WP:N to a much greater extent than this article does." are confusing me. Please remember that we are hoping to merge Marth into this article. As for the general sentiment, Wikipedia isn't supposed to store information indiscriminately. Wikias are the destination for unencyclopaedic content. Ashnard Talk Contribs 15:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, by "this article" I meant the Marth (Fire Emblem) article. I'm against merging that article into this one, seeing as how the fictional subject Marth transcends this 20-year old game many people have never even heard of. Marth isn't like Roy who's only made a major cameo appearence in one other game, he's spanned different mediums and is still being used in new games in different series very long after his original conception. The more you look at this, the more absurd a merger sounds. - 4.156.54.40 (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, if he is as notable as you say, please find some third-party sources that comment on Marth extensively to support your argument. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Instead, how about you put forth an argument about how this fictional subject isn't notable? A lack of sources in the article is the fault of the editors and age of the subject in this case and not the non-notablity of Marth, it isn't a valid argument. - 4.156.24.9 (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
What, can't you read? An article isn't deemed notable if there aren't enough extensive sources that comment on its subject. The absence of sources is my explanation if you like. If you somehow feel that a lack of sources is the fault of the editor, then please corroborate your claims and find some sources. If finally, you feel the sources do exist but can't be found, then this is reason to merge because any of the useful, verifiable content can be put into this article. This may seem contradictory too, but we can't just take your word for it that sources do exist but cannot be found. As for "it isn't a valid argument", the absence of sources to justify notability is one of the primary reasons for merges or deletions, and couldn't be more valid (WP:N). Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia where only certain information is allowed. Adolf Hitler would be proud of TTN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.8.244 (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ashnard is the only person who thinks this article isn't notable enough to exist, so let's just ignore him. Wikipedia is about expanding knowledge, not cutting it down and merging articles with others (which only serves to make finding the information harder, because Wikipedia's search function sucks)


Agreed. Anything I need to find on wikipedia I do a site search on google. It usually works, but it seems that as of late a search that would have turned up a full length article only links to a couple sentences that got condensed into some larger article. It's a shame that wikipedia is turning to such crap like this. It used to be such an awesome encyclopedia, information on EVERYTHING. Now you have pretentious assholes running rampant reducing everything to a couple of sentences because "it's not important" or it's trivia or some bullshit like that.

Is deleting shit completely to turn it into a 1-2 sentence bit on some other page helping to improve wikipedia? This makes absolutely no sense at all, wtf

wikipedia is supposed to be about having information on EVERYTHING, not just saying "piss off, the thing you were going to write about isn't important enough for us"

This Assnerd guy is pretty much an asshole m i rite?

I was going to use Wikipedia for my Presidential campaign, but now that it has an article dedicated to Marth, I'm gonna have to pass. It really does hurt Wikipedia's already established and well-known credibility. - HClinton42 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.100.199 (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Not enough material for an article? This article proves you wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.88.197 (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reported you at the Videogames Wikiproject. Continue in this manner and you will be blocked from editing. Ashnard Talk Contribs 13:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Cut the personal attacks please. Ashnard, I am unsure, by the way, whether the article up for merge here warrants merging. It seems a notable character to me, because of the role the character played in popularising the whole series in the English-speaking world. That information doesn't really belong on this article (as it's about another game!), so where would you put it? User:Krator (t c) 13:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nowhere else to put it as the article doesn't have a subarticle character list. I was just planning on merging Marth into the characters section of this article, since this is the first game that he appeared in. If you feel that he is notable enough, then please feel free to build a Concept and creation section and Reception. Nevertheless, thanks for the intelligent input. Ashnard Talk Contribs 14:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ashnard, the only person who wants to reduce the amount of information on Wikipedia is you. What on earth would the benefit be of cutting down the wealth of information that Wikipedia has and making it harder for somebody to find what little information is left? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.204.136.139 (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:N. Ashnard Talk Contribs 15:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I just threw this together really quick to show the necessary information. I don't know about the quality of everything, but it should be close to the final result. TTN (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need this? Why can't we just have a full article of information about a verifiable staple in video game characters? Marth has been in many games. --68.107.134.147 (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
We don't create articles just because they are useful to certain groups of people. Marth is not notable by this site's standards, so he does not require an article. You'll still be able to find all of the information within other articles anyways (as the article is mainly just a bunch of redundant plot information), so it shouldn't be a big deal. TTN (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Stop treating Wikipedia like it's your career choice and those policies like they're some sort of law of the internet, enforcing them like some sort of holy code good for the future of humanity when, in fact, the readers of Wikipedia don't give a shit what the handful of shut-in nerd users who maintain them say should or shouldn't be included in the "Encyclopedia anyone can edit" that happens to have all of its popular content revolving around sex and pop culture and not real-life or historical things like you want it to be, and go get some friends, a hobby that doesn't ruin the Internet, and/or a life in general you, assumdly fat, ugly, greasey, pale, cock sucking piece of horse shit. - 4.154.238.113 (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
^ This Klosterdev (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

TTN, your version just about sums up the necessary points, although it may need to be altered slightly so it's within the context of a characters section, because that reads a bit more like a lead. Still great, just needs to be from the viewpoint of this game a bit more if it's merged into this article. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of consensus or not we are strictly not allowed to merge any episodes or character information as per an arbcom injunction. I'm not taking a side just telling everyone to wait until arbcom is over. --Sin Harvest (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Character names.[edit]

While playing Smash Bros. Brawl last night, I unlocked the sticker for the Fire Emblem character "Shiida" as opposed to "Sheeda." Should we consider "Shiida" the official spelling of the character's name for now? Given that the Fire Emblem DS game is a remake and all characters from this game will appear in FEDS, should we adjust the naming as we know more, or wait until FEDS is released with an English translation?--75.92.186.211 (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

just out of curosity, where do the 'official names' come from in that table? there's never been an official localization of most of the characters, save for some. i'll assume they come from the names on the Japanese trading card game, which displays the names in English. but that doesn't mean they're the official English spellings of their name, romanizations like that show up in Japanese media a lot. in some official Namco book for Tales of Phantasia, 'White Birch Wood' was 'White Bitch Wood'. it's pretty much the same as engrish. 92.0.53.11 (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The official names come from several sources, most notably Nintendo's own Fire Emblem site, but also various other sites that claim to quote official art books and the like. The names are consistant all over the line. And yes, these sources all give "Sheeda" as the character's name. I think the best course of action would be to wait until the DS game is translated, as it no doubt will be - I'm positive a whole bunch of names will be changed ("Jeik", "Gohdon", "Jurian" and the like), at which point we should probably create an extra column for "official English name" in addition to the "official Japanese name". And honestly, that "Fan-made name" column should just be removed. It's nothing but a list of what some random fan at one point said would be a logical way of spelling said characters' names. AdamantBMage (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I think Ricard's name (リカード Rikādo) should be listed in the Character name list as "Ricardo". I mean, yeah, that name exists in the English world, so why not list his name as Ricardo? 168.12.253.66 (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Same reason as to why it's "Jurian" instead of "Julian" - it's the official spelling of the name, and the Japanese are known for somewhat wonky spellings. I'm sure he'll be called either Ricardo or Richard in the official translation of the DS remake, so let's wait until then, and add a list of official English names to go with the Japanese list we have.AdamantBMage (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon[edit]

There is a rough consensus against merging the two articles. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is the DS remake (Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon) independently notable from the original Famicom/NES (Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light)? George Ho (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Merge - For the regions outside of Japan, the remake is probably more notable than the original that was only released in Japan. However, the key word is "independently notable", and I would say not. The graphics were updated, online features added, a few new prologue chapters added, but the story and gameplay is essentially the same. --Aether7 (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - Opposing for merging. DigiPen92 (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Explain why, DigiPen92. --George Ho (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - Perhaps since Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon is essentially a remake of the original game released only in Japan, that they should go under the same Wikipedia page as the same game. Yet, both pages already exist, and the new version includes sufficiently different content and mechanics (such as multiplayer), and is significantly more prominent in the world, that a merger is not necessarily needed, and might confuse Users looking for the more common version. The statement included in Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon, the newer more popular version, that the game is indeed a remake and provides the appropriate link to the older game should suffice. Floatsam (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - There is an overwhelming amount of coverage in reliable sources for the remake that doesn't necessarily discuss the original, thus establishing independent notability. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  18:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: IDV (talk · contribs) 23:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll be back with a review soon, at latest on Monday but probably before that.--IDVtalk 23:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: I started writing down issues, but they were so few and minor that I just went ahead and fixed them myself. Congrats, Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light is now a GA.--IDVtalk 12:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)