Talk:Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 30, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
September 5, 2013 Good article reassessment Delisted
January 14, 2014 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Video games (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Anime and manga (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
Wikipe-tan good article.png This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-class on the assessment scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Article requests : Adding info on the fighting game spinoff as well as the remake. Adding info on many more Merchandise churned out by Atlus.
  • Cleanup : Reflect the MoS for video games
  • Copyedit : the intro, reflecting new content
  • Expand : Merchandise,
  • Update : Information on the Spinoff and remakes
  • Other : Bring this article to FA!


This game has been revealed in the new issue of Famitsu: see scans here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 18:34, March 18, 2008

Direct Sequel to P3?[edit]

I'm curious, since they're using the same style and battle system as P3 is P4 a direct sequel to P3 since someone on YouTube in their video description said that P4 was a sequel to P3 (P3 FES actually) taking place two years after P3. I'm curious 'cause I want to make sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. It could just mean two years after the game was made. But with Igor being there, it could be a direct sequel, though it's a bit doubtful. Neo Guyver (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Igor has always been a recurring character in the Persona game series. We'll just wait for official statement, though it being a direct sequel may, as NeoGuyver said it, very unlikely. — Blue 17:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Persona 2 was heavily connected to Persona 1 and Persona 3 had several references that showed all three (well, technically 5) games take place in the same "universe". For example, the Kirijo group was at one point part of the Nanjou group, which stems directly from Persona 1 and 2. It may not be a direct sequel, but I seriously doubt it will be unconnected. Levaithan (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
And also with Fushimi's Presence it this game she is the one who links it together so i would think that this would be a direct sequel , but an off subject matter why isnt Amada-San in this game he would be in high school as of now and also they explian where Elizabeth had gone and why Margret is here instead so i would think that this is a sequel --Spiderman2351 (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Spiderman2351
In the 'Plot' section of the article, it is said that P4 takes place one year after P3. In Chihiro's individual character description, it says two years, does anyone know which is it? --Remy Suen (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Its 2 years after persona 3--Spiderman2351 (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Spiderman2351
Actually, it's a bit of both. In Persona 3, the game ended with the school year ending, meaning that Chihiro would be a second year that same year, a year after that is during April- when she is a new third year, meaning that it's been a year since Persona 3 because Persona 3 ended at March of 2010 while Persona 4 starts at the April of 2011, so one year but two years of school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Edited the first sentence[edit]

The comment about the other Personas save for Persona 1 being unique to each other is false and needed to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Release Date Confirmed[edit]

Please do not delete the release date for the U.S version of Persona 4, it has been confirmed already by this week's Anime Expo's Atlus panel, and will release December 9, 2008. Zeta Nova 22:06, 05 July 2008 (UTC).

If you don't want your edits to be challenged in the future, it would be in your best interest to provide a reputable citation. Forum posts aren't exactly reputable. --Remy Suen (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
[1]. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Right, something like IGN would be a respectable source. I already cited the December 9th claim to in the article though so we don't really need another citation. My previous comment was not a request for a more reputable source (since that was already fixed), it was more of a note to Zeta Nova to consider for his or her future contributions to Wikipedia. My apologies for not making that clear. --Remy Suen (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


OK, spoiler ahead.

It's been discussed for a while now, but it has finally been confirmed that Naoto is actually a girl. Apparently, the name is a fairly feminine name for a boy in Japan, perhaps like Vivian is to English people. The proof of his gender is an image rip from the game, showing Naoto's portrait for use during a hot springs scene. I'm not sure what to do with this since it is quite clearly a spoiler. The image rip in question can be found here:

Devoto (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

First, let's put some actual spoiler space in there. You not doing that cost me a surprise for when I fianlly get to play P4.

Anyway, since it is a surprise let's stick with male forms until after the game is released in English. Skyrocket (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that... Well anyway, someone seems to have changed the info to reflect this new discovery. I won't change it myself because I don't really want to engage in a little tug-of-war with whoever changed it in the first place. Devoto (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I think I have a solution. How about the creation of an article called "Characters of Persona 4" that can have the detailed "spoiler" info that covers the whole of the characters' stories in the game. Like the P3 charcter article does. In the main article about the game we stick with just what's said on the official site or what we know about a character "going into things." Just the basics really.
Who keeps changing Naoto's gender back? Naoto is, as far as people who haven't spoiled the game for themselves know, a guy, so please stop changing it. It's a spoiler, and the game hasn't been released outside of Japan yet... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:54, July 13, 2008
In reality, the gender of Naoto is no big secret and you have to be pretty thick not to see it coming from the second she shows up in the English version of the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that'll make the information out there for everyone but not spoiler the game for people who are waiting for the English release. Skyrocket (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use spoiler disclaimers. Anyone going to any book, film or game article can expect to be spoiled here. We need to keep the facts, well, factual. First off, are there any citations about Naoto's gender outside of some screengrab? Is Naoto referred to as "he" or "she" anywhere we can cite? For that matter, all of the plot/character info is unsourced (and I've tagged as such). Where are people getting this information from? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a certain cutscene in the game that proves the gender of the character beyond a shadow of a doubt as being female, obviously mentioning it would be a spoiler but videos exist on places like Youtube to back up the female information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read guideline Wikipedia:Spoiler. So the content of spoiler is supposed to be kept. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion saying Naotos gender would be considered a major spoiler depending on if the character is voiced by a male or female sounding voice, a lot of people were under the impression Naoto was a guy until they saw their proof.. It's not a deal breaker though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Wikipedia:Spoiler is still effective in this case. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Box Art[edit]

Can anyone dig up a clearer image of the box art? The one we have up now is kinda fuzzy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyrocket (talkcontribs) 19:52, July 10, 2008


Shouldn't this article be named "Persona 4", and not "Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4", since the official title (at least with the Japanese version as seen in the box cover) is Persona 4? — Blue 19:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's also Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3. And you'll notice that on the English website, "Shin Megami Tensei" appears above the P4 logo. Atlus just feels the need to plaster the franchise title onto the English release apparently.—Loveはドコ? (talkcontribs) 20:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3 I understand. But since the English version of Persona 4 isn't really out yet, shouldn't we name it by its existing media, which is the Japanese version? — Blue 04:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The SMT title is confirmed, though. We have the official English name, so why not use it?—Loveはドコ? (talkcontribs) 05:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


Could someone please cleanup the endgame spoilers that are mixed under the character introduction? It pretty much ruins the game for everyone that reads this article and hasn't seen the true ending yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not your personal site. Removing spoilers is tentamount to vandalism. If you don't want to see spoilers, go away to somewhere else; Wikipedia is not for you. I have had to undo at least three such vandalism cases already and I'm starting to get very annoyed. (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see where exactly it is stated to be as a rule that said major plot details must be contained RIGHT BELOW THE INDEX, WITHOUT WARNING, in every page, as opposed to say, in the story section. (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Upon reading the rules, I notice that you are quite obviously wrong in every way imaginable:

except for the Content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers.

I see neither a Content Disclaimer or a section specifically for the plot, these are REQUIRED, you are, quite horrible, intentionally ruining other's enjoyment of popular media, citing the rules as your motivation for doing so, and then disregarding them, you are quite obviously a vandal.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:13, December 2, 2008

Required by whom? Quite frankly, you're wrong. Wikipedia does not hide information that could be considered spoilers. I'm sorry you disagree. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


Five days away from U.S. release, and you don't have info on Naoto's voice actor? You guys aren't nearly as obsessive as people say. Not a compliment.

First of all; vague hint at a spoiler ahead.
Not to respond to trolling - not least because I'm far from being a frequent contributor to Wikipedia - but it's fairly obvious that Naoto's voice actor is being kept secret in relation to a certain plot spoiler. Read the "Naoto" section on this page for details. To be honest, I have to admit that I don't know how the contributors found out any of the English VAs but it just stands out to me that all the major characters, along with some more minor ones, have their English VAs listed apart from Naoto - there being an obvious reason why this would be if you know a certain something about Naoto. --Devoto (talk) 05:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Atlus has been putting up videos from the English version every week or two on their website and YouTube, and that's where people are getting the voice actor information from (sometimes wrong, thus the occasional edit war here). Since Naoto is the last character, they haven't put up any of those videos yet, but it is likely they will do so on Friday (December 5, 2008) --Icep (talk) 05:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Basically what Icep said. Naoto's voice was only just revealed today so it's been impossible to pinpoint any voice actress until now. And yeah, it's really more of a guessing game with some voices since Atlus is Non-Union (meaning they don't actually credit the voice actors.) PrinceLionheart (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I know, I just got a little antsy. Sorry bout that. (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Who keeps writing that Wendee Lee plays Naoto? There's no official cast list available yet, so Wikipedia shouldn't be saying anything about who the voice actors are. Besides, if you actually listen to the clips on the P4 website, you can tell it clearly isn't Lee playing the character. (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Another P3 referance[edit]

During one of the lectures in Persona 4, the History teacher, Soujue or something in the English Version, Mentions her Brother is also a History Teacher who wears a "Dirty Old Kabuto all the time", which seems to be a referance to Mr. Oda, the History teacher of Persona 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Um I think I have one as well Mrs. Hiriyama from Persona 3 and Mrs. Marayama from Persona 4 are cousins I think could this be refrenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiderman2351 (talkcontribs) 04:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This is just stupid:

"Yosuke commented that Teddie forcing them to make a promise to find the killer like pointing a gun at their heads could be a nod to Persona 3, as the P3 group use Evokers (fake guns) do just that to summon their personas."

I cut it out. Who was the moron who added that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Openly Gay Kanji?[edit]

I find this statement a little odd considering that during the majority of the game, Kanji repeatedly insists he isn't gay and continues to have an implied romantic interest in Naoto after finding out she is a girl.-- (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(Please put new comments at the bottom of talk pages, please, thanks!)
Well, this is other journalists calling the character gay, even though Altus purposely kept the dialog on either side (though made sure that the Shadow Kanji's approach was not tamed down). They're not necessary wrong or right, but that's how they're calling it, and so that's what's implied (that we as WP aren't saying he's gay, the journalists are). --MASEM 21:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Calling Kanji "openly gay" or even saying that he's probably 50% gay is ridiculous. As said, Kanji openly states he's not homosexual. Scenes where Yosuke questions Kanji's sexuality are obviously humorous. Furthermore, in the swimsuit scene, Kanji has a nosebleed when he sees the girls. I maintain that the game script states explicitly enough how Kanji is not at all gay, but extremely shy instead, hence his arrogant facade. Calling him a revolutionary first-ever groundbrakingly gay character in video games is just some wishful thinking on the part of some journalists, which is pitifully unprofessional of them. I propose a complete rewrite of this section with this in mind, unless someone corrects me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that Kanji doesn't really do anything in the main story to suggest that he's gay, and even though he has no real girlfriend like the protagonist can, it's really about him being homophobic more than anything. After the Shadow Kanji incident, he stops being so high-strung and macho, accepting his metrosexual side. However, I wonder if the journalists are referring to Shadow Kanji, either on purpose or by accident?--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
This section was somewhat untrue to the story, so I had made an edit to explain the situation a bit more. Yesterday, a regular here went over it and said "we need a reference here and not an elaborate description"... Well the entire rest of the article is quite descriptive, so we either need to trim this into a small, factually correct piece including the journalist quote, or it needs to have all the facets of the "sexuality confustion" addressed. Something I don't really see is what I had added to the piece, the fact that a lot of Kanji's confusion is due to his interactions with Naoto, who he first thought to be a boy. (as the OP to this section said...) (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
If you write that "Kanji got a nosebleed, so that means he likes girls", you're violating WP:OR by making your own analysis of the game's plot. Saying "Naoto turned out to be a girl, therefore he likes girls" is also making a conclusion. Wikipedia isn't a vessel for analysis, you'd have to find a reliable reference that MADE that deduction and then cite it. Also, detailed descriptions wouldn't matter to the reader, who's just looking for a general summary and plain facts. You're free to use actual, in-game dialog as a reference when stating a fact, though. You'd have to find the part of the game where Kanji actually says something related to the "relationship" and then cite it, not just restate it in the article. As for the journalist quote, since Atlus themselves stated that they never actually made Kanji go one way or the other, it seems valid as their own opinion. If you could actually show the dialogue in question, maybe a better conclusion could be drawn.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
"Nosebleed = heterosexual" is not it at all... More like "nosebleed = sexual response" (whish is explained in this very article). Kanji being flustered by Naoto is the driving story line before you are introduced to either character. Also, during the pageant, Yoskue asks Kanji specifically how he feels about Naoto. This connection isn't imagined... The person who originated this section saw this as well, calling it "implied romantic interest". You can't really describe his actions better than that! ...As for the journalist, regardless of what actually is implied by the game, there was a journalist that made these remarks about this game's "breaking through", and to not include this information would be neglectful. The remarks should be scrutinized as well, but since the remarks were made and pertain to this game specifically, they should be included. I think all the information on this particular subtopic should be explored, if there is to be this subtopic. Also, the reason I am putting my time into this and not the article and citing, is that I don't actually have the time to do all that. I am just making reccomendations for you with more spare time. (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The point of this section is not to assert what sexuality that Kanji is, but that the game received attention from (albeit small) gaming/sexuality crossover journalists/experts for the impression that Kanji is not mainstream heterosexual. Some go as far to call him homosexual, despite Altus' insistence that they never implied it either way. That's it - as per WP, we're can't explore any further than what the sources provide, and that's pretty much it: Some felt Kanji was a good representative of a sexually-confused homosexual character, even if that wasn't intentional. --MASEM (t) 04:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the above comment; the only additional thing I was trying to convey in my above post was the need to address the accuracy of the journalist's comments. I wouldn't want those comments to form the opinion of any reader who hasn't played the game and drawn their own conclusions on Kanji's sexuality. Basically, I believe it would make the most sense to put the journalist's quote in, followed by an in game example or two given to help the reader understand the doubt being cast on the journalist's viewpoint. I think all objective evidence points to at least some degree of inaccurate interpretation (or, perhaps, wishful thinking) influencing the comments. (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Debollweevil (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the journalist's quote should just be removed, and the paragraph being left at the fact that he was sexually confused rather than outright homosexual.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
A better solution is just take out the "openly gay" part, and leave the section of the quote that praises Kanji's internal struggle. (the author is notable in this area, so we should be trying to use things written by her) --MASEM (t) 21:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I put the actual quotes in so that it would be profoundly obvious to the reader it's just this particular journalist's opinion and not (an implied) universally accepted fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Zxcvbnm had removed this quote altogether, but I believe, given that there's a noted expert in this field (gaming and sexuality) providing an opinion, wiping it out altogether makes the article less comprehensive. I went back to the Gamasutra article and the previous quote from here - which clearly shows she recognizes it was not explicity stated as "gay" - helps to establish the rest of her thought. I've taken out anything that is confusing here but still gets her point across. --MASEM (t) 03:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Nicely done!Debollweevil (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Really a dating sim?[edit]

When Persona 3 was released a few years ago, a lot of comparisons were drawn to dating sims, especially because the game was developed in Japan. Anyone who's played the game knows that its much more than that, even if you can date people. But what's the best basic term you can use to describe it? Most people describe it as a social sim, but that's not a page we can link to. We can link to simulation video game or life simulation game. Granted, the point of the Gameplay section would be to explain what exactly a "social sim" is, but I'm not sure if the term is too arcane or not.

I just got hung up on this because the opening sentence of the Gameplay section says that P4 is a mix of RPG and "dating simulation" elements. To say that is to misrepresent what the non-combat stuff in P4 is like, but I don't know what term would be best to replace it. --gakon5 (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Going off the dating sim article, I would have to say yes, it has elements of such though it's not truly a dating sim. The non-combat still works like P3, and as it was called back then, reliable sources established it as part dating sim. (Most reviews for P4 point to P3 and say "it's the same as that" , but don't explicitly establish P4 as having that. --MASEM (t) 03:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, the protagonist is friends with a bunch of girls, and can fall in love with one or all of them, which is a pretty strong indication of dating sim elements. I wouldn't call it a social simulation game because the interactions are all scripted. Calling it RPG+Dating sim might be overemphasizing the dating sim part, though, since that's only about 1/3 of all the social interactions...I think?--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Social sim is too broad, as it entails the lives of mutiple people, and dating sim is too narrow, because of the twenty S. Links in the game, only five or six are girls you can date. And, of course, you begin to date girls at Rank 9, and after Rank 10 you leave them behind anyway. And there's more to it than just interaction with people; you have to make money and raise five social stats on your character that unlock new things. What you sim is the life of one individual: what he says to people, what he does after school, etc. Yeah, I have no idea. I wrote "simulation game" in the section I was editing last night. A few of the reviews I read called it a social sim or just a sim. --gakon5 (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it should be considered a sim of any sort. Just "RPG" seems fine, considering that the whole thing is based around the rpg, even the social interactions power up your characters. It's not really a sim if everything is completely scripted. It doesn't really differ from traditional RPGs except for the modern social aspect.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree to an extent; the social side is what makes Persona 3 and 4 so different from any other RPG, or game, on the market. What's great about that aspect of P4 is that everything you do has some combat benefit, and most of the S. Links are enjoyable to watch for their own sake. But, the more I think about it, the more I think you're right: P3/4's status as a "social sim" might be a bit tenuous. There is certainly strategy in trying to min/max the use of your days, but once you've decided to do something (work, eat a beef bowl, hug a girl), the player is mostly asked to sit back and occasionally pick a dialogue choice. And even trying to mix/max your use of time was made less important in P4 (an FAQ I read said that min/maxing S. Links leaves you with a month left over).
The important thing is finding the right terminology to use. So, even if P4 is not explicitly a sim, it may be best to use such a term anyway, to get the point across at the most basic level. Part of the article would then explain what exactly this sim part is. Or, maybe it's not important, I don't know. --gakon5 (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I just parsed through the given reviews on the page, and there's really one clear winner here: Social simulation game, as most reviews call this a "social sim" and nothing else (no "Dating sim" for any P4 review that I could see, and one "class sim"). It may not be the most precise answer, but it is accurate and factual. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
It differs from other RPGs because it lets you pick and choose the people you want to be friends with, and in doing so you power up certain attributes and/or characters. Usually, you only talk briefly with your party and with NPCs until you reach a certain point where a cutscene occurs, but in the Persona games you do most of the interaction outside of battle where there is absolutely no danger (well, of the monster kind anyway). That makes it more like a simulation game on one hand due to the large amount of real world character development, and an RPG in the TV world. I guess calling it a social sim/RPG would be correct.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Game script citations[edit]

The game's plot is HUGE. The plot summary covers so much ground in one sentence that I'm not sure how to cite the game script succinctly. Things like "he makes friends in school" can't be outright cited, since it takes quite a while to get to that point.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's edit it first, then add script refs. It's poorly-written to begin with, and there are a number of inaccuracies and misleading statements, such as:
"The Protagonist reveals to his friends that he has the ability to enter television screens, and is able to bring them along." Implying that he's always known about his power.
As with Persona 3, there may be periods of time you can merely gloss over. Here's my own summary, written in absurd shorthand:
The question is how much detail to go into in spots. Do you explain why Mitsuo, then Namatame, then Adachi, and finally Izanami are on the suspect list? Do you explain the Persona/Shadow concept fully in the plot section, or should that be in "Setting"? --gakon5 (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The persona concept is common to all the games in the sub-series, so it should be in the "setting" section. I suppose that it would have to be explained how those people became suspects. It would be inane to right "the team suspected Namatame was the murderer. Then they discovered that Adachi was the murderer." because there is no background information. The plot builds on itself as each potential killer is eliminated until finally you narrow it down to completely unexpected people.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Just remember, for purposes of clarity and simplicity, we don't need to describe the plot in the exact order it happens. Breaking out the settings and characters in sufficient gets over much of the first 1/4th of the game, and the rest is just the murder mystery.

Now, how much of the mystery to present, I'm not sure. At least to the point of Namtame and beyond is necessary since that's the point where you have a good/bad ending choice. Mitsuo and Naoto's scheme are a tad extraneous to the overall scheme, at least to me. --MASEM (t) 00:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I can find script citations for the "Story" section, but we need to know which sentences need to be cited. We don't want to spent time hunting down the script, citing stuff only to see most of them being cut down for being irrelevant ^^. — Blue 11:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The whole story section needs a rewrite first. We can probably fill out the Setting section with a good plot primer, describing:
  • How the Midnight Channel works (the basics, not the long explanation you get from Izanami)
  • How your character gets in first, and brings his friends along
  • What the Investigation Team is
  • What Personas and Shadows are
Then in the Characters section we can show the order in which the characters are introduced to the Investigation Team. That way we've cut out a lot of the plot that is either setup (as in, most of the beginning) or bringing in new characters. Then we can get into Mitsuo (maybe), Namatame, Adachi, and Izanami. --gakon5 (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I did as recommended for the Setting section, but I think it needs a peer review and some copyediting. — Blue 18:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
As I understand it, the Midnight Channel is just the thing you watch, but the other world (alternate reality? Probably not) is just called "the TV world" by characters. I don't know that it has a proper name, as it's often referred to as "the other side", "inside the TV" etc. Also...
The community maintains a close-knit relationship, and these unexplainable "murders" are the main discussion topic of the townspeople. Aside from the talk on the murders, rumors and gossip are also easily spread.
Where does this come from? --gakon5 (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
You're right, the Midnight Channel isn't the "world" itself, just the thing that appears on TV. The name was created from rumors rather than any genuine knowledge. The other world (magical world created by Izanami based on human consciousness) is called the "TV world" since nobody knows what it's called. I wouldn't say the community's relationship was "close-knit", but the part with spreading rumors and gossip is what the game designers intended as a consequence of the small-town setting. However, you can't actually spread rumors like Persona 2.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well, I did a rewrite on what was written in my sandbox to the two current Setting paragraphs. The Setting subsection at the moment sounded more like telling the story instead of the setting. Check it out~! — Blue 05:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Definitely better, but I'd like to include Yukiko's kidnapping because it is what prompts the beginning of the Investigation. I understand your point that "setting != plot", but here, setting is also premise, and I think every concept and major event up to the first dungeon can be summed up in the Setting section. That's more or less:
  • Kid moves to new town
  • There are murders
  • Midnight Channel rumor
  • TV world (note that the Protag. is the one who uncovers it)
  • How Shadows/Personas work
  • How the Investigation Team was formed
The plot section would continue, "They rescued Yukiko, and then..." --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 21:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
You know what's confusing? There are Shadows, like the Luxury Hand or the Lustful Snake, the random encounter-types, and then there are Shadows, the ones that imitate people. The game doesn't make a distinction between the two from what I remember. So when you say "these kids fight Shadows", it doesn't mean the same Shadows that are described as being representative of someone's hidden self. --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 21:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
the game uses the distinction "Other foo" when referring to the foo's Shadow Self, such as Other Kanji or Other Chie. I think we should go by that. — Blue 05:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I did read that the Story should be written according to the progress of the game. Imma gonna work on the story rewrite. For starters, Mayumi wasn't found "tied to a lamp post". She was dangling among TV antennaes. — Blue 05:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
If you want to focus on that I can collect script references for you. --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 20:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the plot summary should explain how Izanami, Adachi, and Namatame sort of "interlock," and how one person's actions led to that of another. There's still room to expand the prose before it reaches "horrendously long." --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 04:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Switching the Plot and Gameplay sections[edit]

While working on the Persona 3 article, I placed the Plot section before the Gameplay section. Traditionally, the two sections are ordered the other way, but in this case, I felt understanding the game's premise would allow for a better explanation of gameplay. In the case of Persona 4, I think switching the Plot and Gameplay sections would help even more. I mean, the game itself spends a few hours setting itself up, anyway. Understanding that you are a high-schooler with friends who jump into TVs with Personas would allow you better understand how the game itself plays. Because of this, I think the Plot section should come before the Gameplay section. What do you think? --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 19:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Except that the Story subsection of the Plot section needs to be improved first, lots of citation needed. Also, I feel a rewrite needs to be given to the Setting subsection. I'm not sure what I was aiming when I wrote that particular subsection. I think it needs to be trim and compact like the P3 article. Also, should we move the developer commentaries in the Plot section to the Development section instead? I feel it should help to meat up the Devel. section. Oh, and I think I found 1Up's take on the Persona 4 localization, which would really be helpful for the Devel. section too here. — Blue 20:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I could have sworn I had already integrated that 1UP story into this article, but I guess not. I think I used it in the P3 article a bit, though. The thing with Persona 3 is how little development info there is. With the P3 article, I felt better compiling this mess of anecdotes into one section. With P4, however, Atlus really opened up and starting doing all kinds of interviews. In this case, I think spreading the development info out is a decent idea; it at least gives such dev info some context based on the section its in. The Development section in its current state presents the most broad ideas and concepts. Specific information is found in relevant sections farther up in the article. --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 20:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sixth game[edit]

Persona 3: Fes's The Answer is the second part of the story and an independant game from the remake, The Journey. If Persona 2 is two games, so is Persona 3. (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


Reading the plot summary of P4, I found it very well done, but it contains several requests for references, and a cleanup request. Since references are strictly ingame, I don't understand the necessity, since they are not valid outside ingame universe, making a plot point require a paragraph to justify. While I can understand players wanting to see specific lines from the game, that does not require a reference to comply with the manual of style.

Unless theres more comments on this, I'm removing the cleanup and reference requests in a few weeks. (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There ARE references for the in-game script. If you check out other featured game articles you can see what they look like. That's to make sure people don't fudge the plot summary.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
That's right. The references help to back up the main plot points written in the summary, so people don't make up stuff. — Blue 13:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm done doing referencing. I personally think it looks good as a GA at least. Anybody wanna help check and then put it up for GAN? — Blue 12:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The reception section needs work. The second paragraph about Kanji is great, but there needs to be more positive and negative reception. Also look at how the first paragraph is formatted:
  • "The story is solid, can withstand multiple playthroughs, and is backed up by quality gameplay, music, and visuals," notes Randomnpc's Derek Cavin.
  • "Among the cookie-cutter sequels and half-hearted remakes, Persona 4 is a near flawless example of the perfect balance between 'falling back on what works' and 'pushing the genre forward.' That said, I wholeheartedly recommend it as one of the best RPG experiences of the year," notes RPGFan's Ryan Mattich.
  • "Persona offers some of this decade's finest RPG epics. If you're a role-playing freak who somehow still hasn't given this series a shot, I got news for ya, buddy: I'm comin' to take your nerd card," notes's Andrew Fitch.
These three sentences all come one after another with no change in structure. So that stuff needs work; and there should be two paragraphs at least. I'd do some myself but I continue to not have time to do any in-depth editing. I'll read over the whole thing today or tomorrow and give comments, but structurally it looks fine, and content-wise it looks like it hits everything it needs to. --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 22:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I worked on these a bit since these quotes are lifted straight from said sites and weren't cited; I removed one quote since I thought Randomnpc wasn't one of our WP:VG:RS. Also added a few more balanced views from which sites the article already referenced from. I also merged the merchandise section into a subsection under Release since I fell it was a bit too weak to stand alone by itself, being a bit short on info. Any more reviews would certainly be appreciated, especially on grammar or spelling. — Blue 01:43, 20 February 2010 (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.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Overall, a fairly good article. I have some questions and comments before passing.

  • Citations should be formatted consistently; for example, 1UP is linked as, then Some refs are missing work/publisher info, while some web publications are italicized while others aren't.
  • What makes Siliconera a reliable source?
  • Improper/changing tense throughout the article. For example, parts of the reception section say "Famitsu points out that" and then "IGN labeled Persona 4". Gameplay is present and continuous, development/reception is past.
  • "While "ideas [had been] thrown around earlier", development on Persona 4 in Japan did not begin until after the release of Persona 3." Whose quotes are these thrown around in development?
  • "Outside of key events, the Protagonist attends school," Why is it referred to as capitalized Protagonist?
  • The Synopsis section is weighted fairly heavily, and could be trimmed a bit. The information about setting is best placed in with development, as it interferes with plot comprehension.

Further comments as I see them. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

    • Moved the development pieces to the Development sections, and I believe it was the director quoted as saying those. That's all I could work out, I'll pour over the rest as soon as possible. — Blue 12:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
      • As there's still work to be done and the article has been on hold for a long time already, I'm failing the nomination as it stands. Please address all the above issues before renominating. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:21, 24 April 2010 (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.

Interview article that probably should be incorporated at some point[edit]

[2] --MASEM (t) 21:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Was Siliconera ever deemed a reliable source? --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 15:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SCB '92 (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

{{subst:#if:This is my first time reviewing, so here I go.|

This is my first time reviewing, so here I go.|}}

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
    {{subst:#if:Mostly good, though I think there needs to be a citation at the end of the first paragraph of the "gameplay" section; there might be a citation needed at the end of the paragraph in the "characters" subsection.|Mostly good, though I think there needs to be a citation at the end of the first paragraph of the "gameplay" section; there might be a citation needed at the end of the paragraph in the "characters" subsection.|}}
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    {{subst:#if:Like it says in the to-do list, there might be a little more work needed in the merchandise subsection|Like it says in the to-do list, there might be a little more work needed in the merchandise subsection|}}
    B. Focused (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    {{subst:#if:there was a bit of an edit war almost a month ago, but I guess it's been resolved.|there was a bit of an edit war almost a month ago, but I guess it's been resolved.|}}
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    {{subst:#if:I think the caption of the screenshot of the gameplay needs to have more detail in it, than just "A standard battle in Persona 4"; there needs to be an explanation about the HUD put into the caption: the dialogue box at the top, the action box at the left, and what the right hand of the screen is indicating.|I think the caption of the screenshot of the gameplay needs to have more detail in it, than just "A standard battle in Persona 4"; there needs to be an explanation about the HUD put into the caption: the dialogue box at the top, the action box at the left, and what the right hand of the screen is indicating.|}}
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    {{subst:#if:I'm putting this on hold so you can sort the things out. I'll give it 168 hours. If it's done, I'll pass it, but since it is my first review, I might need a second opinion.|I'm putting this on hold so you can sort the things out. I'll give it 168 hours. If it's done, I'll pass it, but since it is my first review, I might need a second opinion.|}}

SCB '92 (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your review.
About the merchandise subsection, I think as far as Persona 4's merchandise coverage is concerned, those are all that are covered by online media. I could use some tips on what to work on the merchandise subsection if the concern is expansion.
Just for my convenience, the Gameplay section's first paragraph can be cited from the earlier sources. For the character paragraph, we'll need in-game citations.
For clarification, the edit war in question was actually vandalism.
Due to the nature of my work, I can only focus on fixing the article after two days. Hope I will be here in time. — Blue 17:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I got some new complaints: like the previous reviewer pointed out, in the references section, some web publications are italicized while others aren't. A good example is when Wired is not italicized in ref 47, but italicized in ref 62; remove the italicization of the publishers in the refs:, Computer Entertainment Suppliers Association (CESA),, Wired; also ref 56 has to get rid of the "GameTrailers = 9.3/10" and have a retrieval date and publisher, and ref 54 has to have a retrievel date and publisher too. For the merchandise subsection, I suggest a mention of the Persona 4 guides, Persona Club P4, Official Design Works, the Izanagi and Jiraiya plush dolls, and possibly the Social Link expansion pack, PERSONA 4 Cell Phone Strap and Persona 4 tarot cards—SCB '92 (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand.... should I italicize the web publications, or should I remove them altogether? — Blue 17:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

remove the italicization altogether—SCB '92 (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I get more clarification there because some like Wired are italicized in their article, if youre saying I should remove all the italics, the template seems to be doing that automatically. — Blue 07:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

actually, leave the italics in the magazine publishers in the sources; I'll make the minor changes myself, then give it a GA status——SCB '92 (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Now that the references are consistent, I've given this article a GA status; good job Bluerfn for making this article achieve this status, and I'd encourage you to review a GA-nominated article yourself, preferably a video game article that is up for GA-nomination like Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars; again good job and keep up the good work—SCB '92 (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation and contributions. It means a lot to me. I'd review a GA nominee when I have the confidence. — Blue 02:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Original title?[edit]

Anyone knows if the original title is "Persona 4" or "Persona4" ? In the cover it appears without a space but in the article it has a space. It was without a space in the article about a year ago, but it was edited anonymously without a comment. --Shinra.Electric.Power.Company (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


The official site from the anime series has a three-page an interview with the staff from the series. It may help to improve this article and/the animation list, but sadly it's all in Japanese. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 12:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sales in Japan[edit]

The 'Release and Reception' section states that this game has sold over 1.65M units in Japan. What the source really says is that the whole series has sold that many units, not this game on its own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed.Tintor2 (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Persona 4 Golden[edit]

I've put Persona 4 Golden into 'Media' section, since it makes no sense to keep it in the 'music' section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of which: shouldn't we add an additional section for the P4G plot? Including only the new elements, of course. —017Bluefield (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
'Persona 4: Golden, released in Japan as Persona 4: The Golden (ペルソナ4 ザ・ゴールデン Perusona Fō Za Gōruden?), was announced in August 2011 as an enhanced port of Persona 4 for the portable PlayStation Vita. It was originally planned by Atlus to be a PlayStation Portable title, similar to Persona 3 Portable, which would have required removing some of the features of the PlayStation 2 game. However, the Vita provides sufficient resources that has allowed Atlus to expand the game.[1] It is an expanded version of the PlayStation 2 title, adding new features and story elements to the game. A new character named Marie was added to the story. Additional Personas, character outfits, and expanded spoken lines and anime cutscenes are included as well as two new Social Links for Marie and Tohru Adachi. The game supports the wireless networking features of the Vita, allowing a player to call in help from other players to help in dungeon battles.[2]
The above is already included in the article. It is basically the same game with a few minor tweaks and not an entirely new entry into the Persona series. Hence by going into detail and describing every single change could potentially not only violate the game's copyright but at the same time may defeat the article's good status. <KirtZJ>Talk

Semi-protection request[edit]

Needless to say, this is about the recent disruptive edits in the Reception section. —017Bluefield (talk) 02:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. See my talk page for further references, in addition to the edit explanations. <KirtZJ>Talk 13:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
You have to use Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for this. I already did it.Tintor2 (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I think this article shouldn't qualify as good article criteria and would like someone who is not regularly associated with this article to access it. It's the receptive section concerning kanjis sexuality. Altus has stated it's up to the player to decide, but the receptive section seems to lean more that he is gay, and this undermines wikipedia good article criteria by failing to state a neutral undertone, which in this case seems its favoring he is gay when in fact it's ambigious. Thoughts?

You should have discussed this at the talk page. I have looked over the reception and it is fine. The reviewers have stated their opinions that the character is gay; That information is presented neutrally and I do not need to further my argument. If it were me, I'd just shift the information onto the character instead. Because you have inadequately assessed this article for GAR, I'll do it instead. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Issues must be addressed to maintain GA standards. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


  • Recheck most ref formats. They are missing information or their date format is not consistent.
    Took care of date formatting. --Izno (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Ref 1 deadlink
  • Ref 2 deadlink
  • Ref 3 deadlink
  • Ref 4 soon to be deadlink because 1up will shut down at some point.
  • Ref 6 What am I looking at?
  • Ref 29?
  • "The development team consisted of the team from Persona 3, all of whom retained their roles from the previous game, as well as new hires who were "fans of Persona 3"" Ref 34 did not seem to back up these fact the development team from Persona 3 retained their roles in Persona 4
  • "Atlus intended to improve both the gameplay and story elements of Persona 3 for the new game, to ensure it was not seen as a "retread" of its predecessor. Hashino said that "to accomplish that, we tried to give the players of Persona 4 a definite goal and a sense of purpose that would keep motivating them as they played through the game. The murder mystery plot was our way of doing that." Feedback from players on Persona 3 and Persona 3: FES was considered a "great help", as well as over 2,000 comments generated by Atlus staff on the company's internal website." This whole paragraph does not seem to be backed up by the right source.
  • "The plot of Persona 4 was "greatly inspired", according to Hashino, by mystery novelists such as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Agatha Christie, and Seishi Yokomizo. "The discovery of a bizarre corpse in the countryside, and...a story that reflects Japanese mythology" are common elements of Japanese mystery novels reflected in the game." Properly introduce this quote.
  • "Atlus has stated that there would be no "Persona 4 FES"." I had no clue what this was until I read the reference. Expand for general reader
  • "Unlike other role-playing games, which may have large worlds for the player to explore, Persona 4 mostly takes place in Inaba. This reduced development costs, and enabled Atlus "to expand other portions of the game" in return. A central setting also allows players to "sympathize with the daily life that passes in the game." To prevent the setting from becoming stale, the development team established a set number of in-game events to be created to "keep the game exciting."" Awaiing Ref 3 for confirmation
  • Last paragraph in Development, right above music. Is that all referenced by 38? Encase the first sentence and the last sentence then.
  • The Go Home Nihongo is unnecessary, it was for the Japanese readers to understand.
  • "He also remarked on how popular the interpretations of Kanji's Shadow were in the west, and how it did not change how the character was seen by the other audience." Unnecessary sentence for development
  • "The soundtrack was mainly composed by Shōji Meguro with 4 tracks composed by Atsushi Kitajoh (known for his soundtrack for Trauma Center: New Blood and Trauma Team) and 3 tracks by Ryota Kozuka (1 composition and 2 arrangements). All the vocals were done by Shihoko Hirata, whom Meguro felt was able to meet the range of emotion needed for the soundtrack, while the lyrics were written by Reiko Tanaka, whom Meguro believes "writes excellent English-language lyrics." Asides from Shoji, the other composers were not covered in Ref 39.
  • "While Persona 3 had a more modern style and design, Persona 4 features a more retro one." Whose analysis is this?
  • Ref 42 needs proper template
  • Ref 45, same thing
  • MOS:Caps in music names
  • Ref 51. Add author names, Andriasang is also prone to server crashes so use an archive
  • Ref 55 is youtube.
  • "It was released November 20, 2012." Source
  • "The English version was also released in the "Solid Gold Premium Edition" in fall 2012." Outdated. Replace with actual date.
  • Ref 62 format. At this point, I'm going to stop pointing out ref formats
  • Ref 63 and 64 are insufficient refs for all the merchandise mentioned before it.
  • "Most items were only released in Japan, while other Japanese third-party manufacturers also produced figurines and toys." Unrelated ideas?
  • "Dengeki Black Maoh magazine on September 19, 2008." Ref?
  • Ref 73, we have the first date. Where's the last date.
  • "An additional 26th episode, featuring the story's true ending, aired on August 22, 2013" Source
  • "The series features most of the returning cast from the video game, whilst voice recordings for Igor were taken from the game as his actor, Isamu Tanonaka, passed away in January 2010." Igor info not sourced
  • Ref 75 is the first volume, should be complimented with the last volume to back up that last release date
  • " Sentai Filmworks licensed the series in North America, simulcasting it on Anime Network as it aired and releasing the series on DVD and Blu-ray in two collective volumes on September 18, 2012 and Januray 15, 2013 respectively." The licensing and the September date has been sourced. How about the Anime Network and January date now.
  • Ref 80 has the third collection. First collection date needs a source.
  • "VISUALIVE" MOS caps
  • At this point, I'm just checking if the reception references are alive and are not confirming their accuracy.
  • Citation needed on Atlus' statement about Kanji's sexuality.

And finally, done. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I will have to fail this on September 3rd, which is a week from the date of my review. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Delisting. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


I fixed a few issues, but according to policy, dead links are not unverifiable, but I have replaced them with similar sources in this case. Reference formatting is not part of the GA criteria at all. Some like the "Dengeki Black Maoh magazine" release date is odd because it was a quarterly publication. Street date maybe? Most of the concerns about some aspects of MOS, or template formatting or completeness simply do not apply. It does have some issues which need to be addressed before re-listing, the unsourced segments, some are just plain hard to source like the Igor being a posthumous credit by taking his voice from the game. Sometimes cultural or logical knowledge just translate well, but I am positive this is done and I will have to dig it out. I think only a few trivial matters are holding this back. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright looks good now. I'm renomming it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 16:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC) Review in progress... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Lead:
    • To me this doesn't really summarize the entire article properly, or serve as a good intro. After the basic release info, we get hit with It features a weather forecast system with events happening on foggy days to replace the moon phase system implemented in the previous games, with no discussion about the more basic gameplay mechanics, and then we're right back into talking about remakes. There's a lot of unnecessary extra information about plot and the release, but nothing about the game's development and reception.
  • Prose:
    • The prose could use some serious work; a reader's understanding of the topic is hurt by improper or excessive context in some places and no context in others. There's a lot of clunky phrasing that hurts readability as well.
      • For example you could change The game takes place over the course of a traditional Japanese school year.[8] Outside of key events, the protagonist attends school, and can interact with other students and characters, spend time at part-time jobs to earn money, or engage in other activities.[9] to Over the course of a school year, the protagonist can interact with other students and characters, spend time at part-time jobs to earn money, or engage in other activities.[9] — shorten what you can, and don't start bogging down the player until you're going to explain terms (I have no idea what "key events" are.)
      • Another example: each dungeon is of a certain theme, based on the victim that has been kidnapped. could be cut down to each dungeon's theme is based on the kidnapped victim. (I believe these are supposed to be the disappeared people discussed earlier in the section, yes? So why is that link not made clear? Why are we using a different word?)
      • And another: The protagonist is a high school student who has recently moved from a large city to Inaba, where he is to live and attend school for a year.
    • The "Gameplay" section presumes a lot of familiarity with the game that most readers won't actually have. What is a simulation game? What are Personas? The Velvet Room? (I don't see the term until the second paragraph where it is dropped without warning, and we get hit with it three more times before the "persona" section bothers telling us what they are.) What are the "key events" which don't appear to be specifically mentioned either?
    • Given that the plot synopsis gives us more information on the TV World and other aspects of the characters, why not put it before the gameplay? As it is it feels like a retread in places or explaining things way later than they should be in others.
    • The character and plot sections replicate a lot of details; these should be compressed down and summarized better.
    • Who the hell is Ryotaro Dojima?
    • There's a lot on localization—perhaps a bit too much compared to its proportion of importance. Some of it also slips in and out of what could be considered POV language, such as "Risette" was chosen instead as French is considered cute in the west.
    • For large numbers such as those in the Music section, don't write out the words—just use numerals
    • Why does the Legacy, mentions of sequels and adaptations come before discussion of the main topic's reception?
    • More repetitious content: the soundtrack mention in the Reception section
      • If you're mentioning scores in the table, you don't need scores in the prose.
      • RPGFan had expressed hope that attention be given on the localization effort as "homosexuals could certainly take issue with the manner in which they are represented". — what does this actually mean?
  • Comments on images and references to come. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'm working on the issues. Just for the record, I have never played this game or any of the games in the entire series. I tried to address the issues and clean it up after noticing it was going to fall out of GA status, but I could not react quick enough to fix the sourcing and other issues raised. The article has continued to change an evolve since the fixes, but that is not a bad thing. Though your analysis of the prose issues and some concepts do indicate that gaming jargon has been inserted and that needs explanation. I've begun addressing some of the issues, and I'll comment underneath the list as I go through it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I've re-read the article and despite not ever playing the game... I don't see any issue with the concepts or the jargon used. Perhaps some of the more obscure terms should be in a terminology section, but there has been a lot of lashback against such sections. Things like the "Velvet Room" are described in the gameplay section. Many of the issues you raised were actually in the Persona subsection, and this is before the plot. Even for your "Who the hell is Ryotaro Dojima?" is answered in the very first line of the plot: "In April 11, 2011, the protagonist arrives in Inaba to live with the Dojimas, consisting of his uncle Ryotaro and his cousin Nanako..." There are definitely some tweaks that need to be done and I've asked for someone who's played the game to assist (so I don't mess it up), but I don't know why two people who have never played the game or even the type of game have such differing conclusions about the content. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The Velvet Room is only referred to in the current revision with Social Links grant the player bonuses when creating new Personas in the Velvet Room. The room itself is not introduced or described, and the internal wikilink links to another spot further down in the article that provides no greater elaboration--it just regurgitates what's already stated above. I don't think the article needs a terminology section, it just needs writing that isn't sloppy or imprecise. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Never playing the game is going to count against me, but I'll do some tinkering on its prose. It is not the best. I'll try to fix it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I tried to clean up some of the prose, and removed a few chunks of the localization which was too detailed. I added a condensed section about the development to the lead and made sure to address what the Velvet room was upon its first mention, to eliminate some of the jargon. The soundtrack mention in release is something that I believe should stay, it is a sourced account of different releases - based on what additional "specials" were released - in this case the sound track and t-shirts and such. This is very common amongst more popular titles and franchises, but its not reception on the soundtrack itself. How's it look now? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok so the prose looks better; I've still got issues but I suppose it's good enough for GA quality.
    • In terms of Images: Not sure File:P4characters.jpg has enough defense in its FUR. There's some discussion about the characters in the reception but it doesn't really center around their appearance, and there's little on the dev side. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks for reviewing, and I did remove the character image. It is only really useful on its own page for the detailed character list. I tried to cut some of the "Dev" info you found to be crufty, but that's alright I think too. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Righto, looks much better. I'll do a final pass today. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
        • On a final lookthrough I don't see any major issues that would interfere with GA standards. I'm passing the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Calidum Talk To Me 07:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

– The most common names for these two video games omit "Shin Megami Tensei" from the title. Much like "Version" is omitted from the titles of the previous Pokémon games despite it being the official title. In addition, most articles on the project related to these two video games already omit "Shin Megami Tensei" from their page titles. The official English website for P4 at least just refers to it as "Persona 4". —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I am in favor of moving them to the "Shin Megami Tensei"-less titles for the reasons you listed, and also because they're not even part of the SMT sub-series, the "Shin Megami Tensei" part of their titles just being a marketing decision by Atlus USA that isn't even in use anymore - newer titles such as Persona 4 Golden and Persona 4 Arena, as well as the upcoming Persona 5, don't include "Shin Megami Tensei" in their official English titles. Should the series article (Shin Megami Tensei: Persona), as well as Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Summoner: Raidou Kuzunoha vs. The Soulless Army and Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Summoner 2: Raidou Kuzunoha vs. King Abaddon be moved similarly, to SMT-less titles? Personally I think I'd prefer "Shin Megami Tensei: Persona" for the series article over other ways to disambiguate it from Persona, while the Raidou Kuzunoha articles probably should be moved.--IDVtalk 12:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I only know of the Persona family of pages. And also "Persona series" or "Persona (series)" can work for the main page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I know the SMT part is omitted often when talking about these games but they are part of the SMT "world" (in that a major gameplay feature involves bring monster allies into battle, ala Pokemon). Redirects for the shortened name work fine, but there's no need to strip the franchise title out of these. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
    The Persona series did not have the "Shin Megami Tensei" moniker until Persona 3 was released internationally, and then they applied it to Persona 4, and again to the first Persona when they re-released it and ported it to another console. The fact that it's omitted when talking about the games means that we should probably follow that common practice.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Persona is a subseries of SMT. The game was released like this in English version just like Devil Survivor and Digital Devil Saga.Tintor2 (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
    See above. I know full well that my arguments of "it's the official title" hold no weight in other debates.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It might be that these games were released with the SMT title, but simply P3 and P4 have become the most commonly used names. So for that reason I'll support this change. Ryulong's argument might be a little shaky though. —KirtZMessage 18:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Persona 1 Persona 2 Persona 3 Persona 4 should direct to Persona dab page so all the content such as List of Persona 4: The Animation episodes can be found. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    This makes no sense to me. Why should the common names for these games (while not the official names) point anywhere other than the pages on the games or be the pages themselves? This seems like an entirely different and counterproductive discussion that you want.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
  1. ^ Spensor (2011-08-31). "Persona 4: The Golden Was Originally Planned For PSP". Siliconera. Retrieved 2011-08-31. 
  2. ^ North, Dale (2011-08-31). "Persona 4 Vita changes and additions detailed". Destructoid. Retrieved 2011-08-31.