Talk:Star Fox

"Money-making"

I removed the (slightly) non-neutral "money-making" from the following opening sentence:

"The Star Fox series (Japanese: スターフォックス) is one of Nintendo's many famous money-making franchises."

I'm sure most people know that Nintendo, along with mostly any other company out there, wants to make money. --Spug 22:07, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. Andre (talk) 22:28, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

question...

In the characters articles, such as Fox McCloud, Falco Lombardi, etc., I was thinking of removing the "Star Fox Assault Vs. Mode Skills" sections. Seeing how in the Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not article, "FAQ" is listed. Comments? Thunderbrand 17:32, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say its not needed, but if the appropriate context was there it would be o.k. information. If its just going to stay a list though, then its not really appropriate, IMHO. Related - isn't there more background information on these characters that can be added to the articles? Seems rather bare. K1Bond007 16:36, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Well, there isn't a whole lot of information on them, and what is there is summed up okay. The Krystal article has a good deal of info., though. Thunderbrand 16:46, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm just surprised, given their Nintendo characters. K1Bond007 17:09, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

If no one else objects or does not comment, i'll remove them. Thunderbrand 02:27, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Merging minor characters?

I was thinking of merging some of the "minor" characters, such as Miyu, Fay Spaniel, Fara Phoenix, Vixy Reinard, Bill Grey, Katt Monroe, ROB 64 (he basically is a minor character now), Caiman, into their own page called List of minor characters in the Star Fox series, like what was done with the planets a while back. Most of these probably won't be significantly expanded anytime soon (especially Miyu and Fay, who I doubt will never be seen outside of Star Fox 2). Comments? Thunderbrand 16:29, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

If there's no formatting problems with it (placement of pictures, etc.), I think it's a good idea, and I'll gladly help out with it if the need arises. One thing, though; I would keep ROB 64 as its own article, as he technically is part of the team. Jaxl | talk 00:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep ROB 64 on his own page. Thunderbrand 03:51, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Assault timeline

I noticed on the back of the Star Fox: Assault box that it says It's been several years since disaster was adverted on Dinosaur Planet..., while inside the instruction manual it says One year has passed..., so I am confused is to what they are really referring to! Although I'm thinking that the reference inside the manual is the correct one since it uses the name "Sauria" and the back of the box has "Dinosaur Planet", of which Sauria is only used in-game. Comments? Thunderbrand 00:51, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen the instruction manual since I only rented the game and beat it (hence, it came in a Blockbuster box). I do have a theory, though. I believe the instruction manual probably has the correct story. I think the reason why the manual story differs from the back of the box is because the game was developed by Namco but published by Nintendo. On Nintendo.com's entry on the game, it says something similar to what you said was on the back of the box. However, if Namco was the one developing the game (ie. creating the story), they must have also created the manual, and therefore the official story (the one Namco, the creators of the actual game and storyline produced), is in the manual. Nintendo probably made the box since they were publishing it, but seemed to neglect looking at the story as the creators (Namco) made it and instead put their own version. I know that's probably a bit confusing, but the bottom line here is that Namco made the game and the manual, and therefore their story is probably the official one, while Nintendo probably speculated on what the story was. The fact that the box mentioned Dinosaur Planet and not Sauria makes it even more convincing that Nintendo in fact did not review Namco's original story. Jaxl | talk 02:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that in general, game has precedence over manual, which has precedence over box. This being since the back of the box is produced primarily for advertising, and is independent from the game development, while the manual is actually meant as a companion to the game. Aerion//talk 04:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, that clears it up a bit. Thanks. Thunderbrand 04:17, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Measurement Systems used in the Star Fox universe

Based on our Measurement Systems but adding "Space" in the beginning.

• SM - Space Meters
• SPW - Space Pounds of Thrust
• ST - Space Tons
• SK - Space Kilos
• SKM/H - Space Kilometers/Hour
• SKT/H - Space Knots/Hour

--Arima 04:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

In what games are these used; or more importantly, where are they referrenced from? Thunderbrand 05:40, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Star Fox and Star Fox 64. --Arima 01:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Although they have fallen out of use since then, so I would hold off on adding them to articles. I doubt the average person would know, or care, what they mean and translate to. Thunderbrand 04:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I personally don't recall ever seeing those units in Star Fox games before, but either way, I agree with Thunderbrand; people may not understand what they mean. Jaxl | talk 22:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I think they were just used in the strategy guides and/or manuals, but not in the games. Thunderbrand 23:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it, although probably just in the strategy guides, since I can't find them in my Star Fox 64 manual. Jaxl | talk 23:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/Luigi/Arwing/fox1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/Luigi/Arwing/SW_Arwing_blaupause2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v43/Luigi/Arwing/SFXArwingBlueprints.jpg --Arima 05:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Nova bomb

Recently, A Link to the Past redirect the Nova bomb article to the Arwing article. I was thinking of reverting his changes. The nova bomb article has a lot of info in it and it has info about the Wolfen's and Landmaster's bomb use, not just the Arwing. Thoughts? Thunderbrand 15:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I merged it. Thunderbrand 21:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't respond quickly, but that's probably the best idea anyway. Robert 00:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

External links

Per WP:EL, we should generally avoid too many fansite links. One or two is OK, though. Thunderbrand 16:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, though trouble arose on forums over which external links should be used, leading to fights over whether Arwing Landing was greater than Starfox Database, and vica versa, so I changed it from having one or the other to both. --Blinkstale 18:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Star Fox (Wii)

Really, it has merely been hinted at. There are no confirmations of development whatsoever. A minor note saying that Miyamoto has expressed interest in a Wii title would be fine, but to put it under the official list of games in the series is a bit ridiculous. 199.126.137.209 05:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not "ridiculous". It came straight from him. Thunderbrand 14:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with "199.126.137.209", Miyamoto only suggested that the Wii-mote would be good for the next Star Fox game, he neither confirmed nor denied actual development of such a game; it's SPOnG who made the assessment that a Wii version is likely, which is an editorial comment, not proof. I think it should be mentioned, but doesn't deserve it's own entry in the list; perhaps a category for future games (confirmed and hinted) should be added. -- VederJuda 15:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. It has not been officially announced. I guess I'll make a small section about it. Thunderbrand 17:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think "rumoured" is a bit misleading as well. Who says it's a "rumour"? It just sounds like a possibility. I'm not sure Wikipedia is really even supposed to deal with rumours like this, considering that as far as I know, no websites have actually reported it as a rumour (and even if they have, it still might not be noteworthy). Maybe a headline of something like "series' future" would be more apt. 199.126.137.209 00:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Star Fox Wii

How soon will it be confirmed/denied if Star Fox Wii exists?

ds version of star fox and star fox 64

spong also says "a DS version of the SNES and N64 classic." that could be worth mentioning.

Whoever you are, sign your posts. We already know this game to be Star Fox Command. dogman15 (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Star Fox vehicles

I propose merging these somehow - I mean really, do we need an article on the Landmaster Tank? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There does not need to be a separate article, but at least a section, and a redirect. The Landmaster in particular is more notable because it shares a name (only) with the Landmaster from Damnation Alley, and the two are often confused (as can be seen by many incorrect edits to the Landmaster article.) —MJBurrage^(T•C) 22:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

But is it really notable enough to have its own section? --(trogga) 16:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Without a section heading it cannot be properly redirected to from other articles. All by itself it may not be especially notable, but because of the shared name with more notable vehicles Landmaster and Land Master, etc. there will always be confusion without this section.

As for the Star Fox Landmaster section itself, it is written from an encyclopedic point-of-view (simple description), and is factual. If someone wanted to add similar sections on other vehicles that occurred in multiple games that would also be appropriate, so-long as they were not describing them solely as if they were real-life vehicles and/or giving game-guide style play tips. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 17:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Still, why is it the only sub-section in the "Recurring elements" section? --(trogga) 18:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the other items that would go here have been deleted, and as yet not been restored. Someone more familiar with the games than myself could:

1. Restore and clean up the content that has existed before on things like the jet/spaceship that appear in multiple games,
2. Remove the "Recurring elements" heading, making "Landmaster" a main section,
3. Leave things as is.

If I had more knowledge of the game, I would do #1, but my knowledge only extends to what I have learned about the Landmaster tank while fixing and moving incorrect edits from Landmaster and Land Master (articles related in name only).

Between #2 and #3, I would have thought that #3 fits the article's logical structure better. (An article on a game series, should have a section on recurring elements.) —MJBurrage^(T•C) 04:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:N64 Star Fox 64.jpg

Image:N64 Star Fox 64.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible move

I'm a bit confused as to why this is called "Star Fox (series)". This makes someone think of a TV series. Wouldn't "Star Fox (franchise)" or "Star Fox (video game)" or "Star Fox (video game franchise)" make more sense? Unschool (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it would, but this is something that concerns all video game "series" articles; Star Fox is just following the usual trend. You might want to address the issue on the WikiProject Video Games talk page for a global change. Kariteh (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well gosh, one of those won't work. Want to take a wild guess as to where "Star Fox (video game)" leads? dogman15 (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

star fox xbox

wasnt a star fox game planned for the xbox???--24.109.218.172 (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

All I remember was rampant speculation on what was going to happen to Star Fox Adventures after Microsoft bought Rare - ultimately Rare finished SFA for GameCube anyway (and they've also done GBA/DS games since). I seriously doubt Nintendo would have let SF games to be produced on any other platform, after all, it's their property, not Rare's. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Star Fox copyrights always belonged to Nintendo. Therefore, no matter how much had Microsoft taken out of Rare, they had absolutely no rights to release any game series which originally belonged to Nintendo. Besides, in a court rule, Rare decided to keep all the original characters they had originally created for their Nintendo 64 and GameCube games: Banjo-Kazooie, Conker, etc. whilst they sold all their original Kongs, plus the Dinosaur Planet characters to Nintendo since those characters now belong to the Donkey Kong and Star Fox universes respectively. Hope(N Forever) (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw that a store had a misprinted ad that assult was an Xbox game once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.139.22 (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Star Fox vs. StarFox

From what I'm seeing, the title of the game is "StarFox" in Wiki. Why? Syphe D. Mar (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

From the looks of the logo, it should be StarFox. -- Stormwatch (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Nintendo's site uses "Star Fox" consistently, so I assume that's official.--187.58.84.131 (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Spoilers?

Hey! It showed Fox, Falco and WOLF in that picture of them in SSBB! I suggest it be removed, as Wolf is supposed to be a secret charcater! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.124.170 (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Content disclaimer and Wikipedia:Spoiler. Pagrashtak 19:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Broken Link

Reference Number 7 is broken.

THIS ONE: http://www.gamesradar.com/gb/wii/game/news/article.jsp?releaseId=20070125154649578007&articleId=20070125154649578007&sectionId=1006

It's the interview with Takaya Imamura.

May I suggest replacing it with the offical web site?

http://www.nintendo.co.uk/NOE/en_GB/news/2007/interview_star_fox_command.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrShowtime (talk • contribs) 14:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I question reliability.

When I went to this page, I was surprised to find... well, you can click on it to see what I found; But how true could this be? I want to believe it, but then again, it seems unlikely. Is this wiki just pulling my leg?

Image copyright problem with Image:N64starfox2.jpg

The image Image:N64starfox2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Star Fox Adventures GCN Screenshot.jpg
• Image:Scr 049.jpg
• Image:SauriaSFA.jpg
• Image:SNES Star Fox.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Mention of the Arwing in Ocarina of Time?

Yes, believe it or not, the Arwing was used in Ocarina of Time to test the game's Z-Targeting feature, and the code for it remains in the game. It can only be accessed with a Gameshark or other game altering device though. Should we mention this?

Heres a video of the Arwing if you need proof/a source. [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.69.48 (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this belongs in the Star Fox page, plus YouTube is not a considered reliable source. -sesuPRIME 15:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this really start-class?

Well, is it? -sesuPRIME 15:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha... no. But no one cared to change it. It has been C worthy since about late 2007. I think it could be B class with a few more sources and images. RP9 (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

new star fox game

http://sickr.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/nintendo-wii-star-fox-wii-set-to-be-unveiled-in-nintendo-power/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devanwolf (talk • contribs) 18:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be awesome, but it is only rumour right now. RP9 (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Chairs?

I mean really, chairs? Someone obviously spent way too much time formulating that wiki markup just to blank this page and made it about bogus chairs. They also turned Jigglypuff into a country (?!?) dogman15 (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

DO A BARREL ROLL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.162.246 (talk) 07:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Arcade Game?

Reading on System16, i saw on the Namco Triforce hardware it mentioned Star Fox as having an arcade game ported to it. (http://www.system16.com/hardware.php?id=545) Silrox9 (talk) 11:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: Arcording to the MAME source it was planned but not released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silrox9 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Technical issues in article

In the games' timeline on the right, editor with IP 76.69.170.236 removed Dinosaur Planet and added "based on the cancelled Dinosaur Planet" to Star Fox Adventures. However, I have the feeling that only "bas" can be seen on most computer monitors. My screen in 1024x768, and using Internet Explorer 8's zoom tool (at 75% and 50%), I think other screen resolutions fail to show the entire text as well. Is there a way this can be remedied? dogman15 (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "fancruft"

Trogga, I noticed, has removed the entire section on "Recurring Elements", which includes the Arwing, Landmaster, and Wolfen. However, I believe that these entries are well-written and informative. Since the very nature of this article is about fiction, I think some "cruft" is okay. Was WP:FANCRUFT consulted? What about WP:NOCRUFT? I think the Arwing, Landmaster, and Wolfen entries should come back in. Then again, who actually reads this talk page? Who even reads this article anymore? Okay, so it approaches (and sometimes hits) 1,000 views a day, but still. I'd like to see those entries come back. Please discuss. dogman15 (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think those might actually be good candidates for keeping, but it would be good to see some sourcing, plus some critics' reactions to the machines. --Izno (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The section was started in part because of ongoing confusion between the Landmaster from the Star Fox franchise, and the Landmaster from Damnation Alley. The best place for a section on the Star Fox Landmaster is this article since 1) There does not appear to be enough material for a standalone article, 2) The subject appears in multiple games in the series, so a section in any one game's article is less appropriate than a section in this article. That was the conclusion reached last time this came up, and once the section was started, editors added the other vehicles to the section.

While I agree that the entries should describe the items from a real-world non-fictional point of view, I personally do not have the knowledge nor sources to do so. (I do not play any of the games, nor do I have any of the magazines that cover such games.) Regardless, this means that the sections should be tagged for improvement by those with access to the appropriate sources to do so, not simply deleted.

—MJBurrage^(T•C) 06:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference [13]

It currently leads to a 404 page. I believe it may need to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.209.103.52 (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Citation numbers change often as other cites are added or removed. Which one is it? dogman15 (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Star Fox 64 3D's Spot on the Timeline

Is it really verifiable for it to be released in 2011, it could be a launch title possibly for if the 3DS launches later this year. So should it really be on there at this time? 71.143.239.160 (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming Games

The only confirmed upcoming game is Star Fox 64 3D. I removed a sentence claiming three different games were in the works, all of which are rumors that have been debunked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.255.97 (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Japanese title

Think I got this one figured out. Yes, the Japanese title is ever so slightly different... and consistently so! Pretty much all Japanese material just slaps down a "STARFOX" (while pretty much any American material uses "Star Fox" instead). The problem is that I don't know whether or not it would be reasonable to use "StarFox" as nodded to in American branding and the eventual Japanese branding; personally, I think so.

Either way, at least we've got typographical consistency in multiple regions here, not like with the mess known as OutRun. That they chose to change it is a concern, but I get the feeling that "Star Fox" was a forced change that NoA stuck with anyway. Despatche (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Multiplayer on foot

Hi. On March 5th 2016, I made an edit to this page in the "Star Fox 64" section in which I removed the statement that a player can unlock an option to play the multiplayer fighting mode on foot; I hastily removed said statement, having never experienced the mode myself, and I put this for the edit summary: "(→‎Star Fox 64: Very doubtful - please do not revert without giving a citation)". I don't know what mood I was in that day, but despite my edit being Good Faith, it was very hasty and foolish to be that BOLD like I did. I have since read in more than one place (including the Star Fox 64 article on Star Fox Wiki on Wikia--that wouldn't be a reliable source so I can't use that I don't think) that there is such a mode as that. I'm very sorry I said "very doubtful - please do not revert without giving a citation" as that was in haste and not thinking through things. Could we add the statement back in since there is in fact an on foot multiplayer mode? I don't know if there's a source we could use but if possible that would be helpful too. Thanks/Sorry, 63.248.183.82 (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Star Fox. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://egm.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=3&cId=3147448
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080419052418/http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3313&Itemid=2 to http://www.next-gen.biz/features/ten-greatest-years-gaming
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120404113940/http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/786/786938p1.html to http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/786/786938p1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"Bacoon" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bacoon. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

"Zoness" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Zoness. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

"Star Fox Warriors"

Honestly, why do we even still have this filed under "Canceled games"? There's no actual real proof of its existence and it comes from Lara Kate Dale, an insider with a very sketchy track record (she got literally every single thing wrong regarding the Switch's software lineup: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cxs0XohXcAQypsX.jpg).

It just feels weird and misleading to have what was at best a vague rumor listed with Star Fox VB and Star Fox arcade, games that we actually knew existed at one point only to get canceled. We may as well have "Star Fox Grand Prix" listed here as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.178.3 (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)