Talk:Valkyria Chronicles III

Article evaluation

Now that the article has a much more detailed Gameplay section with at least one screenshot to its name, I hope it can be upgraded from Stub class, at least. Enyce02941 (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Altaha Abilia

Is not Latin for anything -- neither word appears in any Latin dictionary, words ending in "-ha" don't occur in Latin (except for "alpha" but that's a Greek loan where "ph" is standing in for the Greek phi, and the "h" isn't acting on its own), and the usual rendering of "always ready" into Latin is "semper paratus". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.200.27 (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "Altaha" is -- supposedly -- the Latin name for the German town of Alteich, in Bavaria on the river Isar (whose Latin name would be well-known to the makers of this game):

http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaha_inferior_(commune)

The Niederaltaich ("Lower Alteich") abbey is there:

http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaha_inferior_(abbatia)

Writings about Alteich use the word Altaha for the name, and inflect it as a Latin word:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_von_Giesebrecht

...so I guess it's more of a proper name than a word. In any case, its meaning has nothing to do with "always" or "ready", so I can only imagine that whoever put it into the motto of the regiment that used it in WWII was pulling some kind of prank. Thoughts? Mark Yaima (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Valkyria Chronicles III → Senjō no Valkyria 3: Unrecorded Chronicles – I hope you're not going to allow an unofficial name on the basis of "the press uses it", when unofficial names should rarely (if ever) be used and/or when the game hasn't been announced for a localization. Is there even a trademark for "VALKYRIA CHRONICLES III"? Despatche (talk) 11:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Support, with a clear redirect. No reliable source can be found stating that the current name is an official one, and while the website registered by Sega is/was VALKYRIA3.JP, I hardly consider that to be conclusive. It could be argued that it is the most commonly accepted English name, which is not always the official English release title (especially if none exist). However, I consider in this particular case the "common" English name currently used as an article name is not notable enough to be considered as the permanent article title (while a redirect is an obvious choice.) Salvidrim (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:you seem to counter the name for everything that is against wikipedia. Please look up WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIALNAMES. It's not about using the official name, it's about using the name that is most commonly accepted within English sources.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Weak Oppose and a redirect from the "official" title; I admit (being new-ish and all) I wasn't all that familiar with common name policy, I had only read WP:VG naming conventions. Having familiarized myself with both of them, I am revising my position. I am still not completely convinced (but tend to blame my inexperience), but I will gain more insight by participating in these discussions, right? :) Salvidrim (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Note: I was sent here from WT:VG. The suggested title is absurd. You have translated the Katakana to English (Varukyuria → Valkyria), but think we should not translate the word Chronicles to English? It's a half translated title. IGN uses the English title. If the game publisher decides to change the title at a later date, so be it. But I do not think a half-translated title is better than the commonly used English title. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comments* This is crazy. "Valkyria" isn't a translation of anything, ヴァルキュリア is a weird made-up word that has absolutely nothing to do with Japanese. "Valkyria" is clearly the correct reading as they eventually used that exact spelling in both Japanese materials (it's right there in the website URL), never mind that most localizations use the spelling anyway (and there's obviously a connection). The most important reason this should be at its Japanese title is because there is no Valkyria Chronicles III yet. There's little reason to use a name that's "more comfortable" and even less of a reason to use such a name that was imagined by the press as opposed to by the people who actually give us this stuff (Sega). Obviously, if we ever do get a Valkyria Chronicles III, we should immediately change to whatever that title is, because now it's an official name and now the game exists.

Odie5533, it's a bit funny that you ask me "why should we use a half-translated title?" when I'm being told we should use a localized title that applies to nothing except hopeful thoughts. I don't know why this title is so widespread, but just because a particular title is all over "the Internet" doesn't mean we should even pay attention to it. It seems that "the Internet" randomly decides which title gets formatted a certain way, and unfortunately Valkyria 3 here got the "we're using a 'localized' title just in case we get it" treatment. The Internet also told us to add (Dariusburst) and remove (Inter Stellar) spaces as we see fit; I mean, who really cares about this stuff, right? Although I'm grateful that it turns out this way as opposed to the reverse ("western" game gets a new Japanese title that all the English sources use for some reason), it really shouldn't be happening in the first place.

Please, just use the titles that we were given, instead of worrying about how many people have decided not to. Despatche (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

(I've already read WP:COMMONNAME too many times to count; it's too vague for these kinds of situations. There is not a single example in there that can be equated with this. This isn't something lost to time, it's a product with a very clear name on a very clear box and there is no reason at all to misreport something so simple as the name. If we deal with this early on, we don't have to deal with it later. Despatche (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC))

Comment reply: As per common name criterias, the current title is recognizable (as proven by its widespread use in media), natural (most people looking for the article would search for Valkyria Chronicle 3, not Senjō no Valkyria 3: Unrecorded Chronicles), unambiguous (no other games or content can be referred to as Valkyria Chronicles 3 at the present time), much more concise, and consistent with both Valkyria Chronicles and Valkyria Chronicles 2, neither of which used the japanese title & sub-title in the article's title (instead referencing it in the intro paragraph. The Japanese "official" titles & sub-titles were (if badly romanized as your suggestion was) "戦場のヴァルキュリア, Senjō no Valkyria - Gallian Chronicles" and "戦場のヴァルキュリア2 ガリア王立士官学校, Senjō no Valkyria - Gallian Royal Military Academy" for the first and second game respectively, and as you can see, neither are being used; instead, the widely recognized/used shorter name is favored and the full Japanese name explained in the intro, just as is the case with this article. There is no confusion as to what the commercial name to anyone who reads past the first 3 words, which I am assuming would be most people looking at this article in the first place. Salvidrim (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and there is ample reason to use "Valkyria Chronicles" and "Valkyria Chronicles II" for those articles, as opposed to their Japanese names; those games were actually given these names and released in numerous territories under those names (even the mangas, which were released in French, if you can believe all that). Senjou no Valkyria 3 hasn't even been announced for release outside Japan, no matter how hopeful all the game journalists want to be. There's no reason to use "Valkyria Chronicles III" at this time to relate to this game period, as per the series's own naming conventions, which does mean that there is no "Valkyria Chronicles III" in existence (and there may never be). The article already mostly reads "Senjou no Valkyria 3" right now anyway, which no one bothered to revert (part of your point, yes?); may as well change the article title to keep consistency.

This is so jarring to read, I have no idea why. Despatche (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: we are discussing the naming of the Wikipedia article, not the naming of the videogame, thus "the serie's own naming conventions" are irrelevant; Wikipedia's naming conventions should be used, and I've explained above why the current name meets all criterias of the naming conventions, while the suggested new name does not. It needs to be recognizable, natural, unambiguous, concise and consistent (which it all is), not "official" or commercially accurate. Salvidrim (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

you can't say WP:COMMONNAME is to vague for this situation. Its pretty cut and dry. The problem is you want to use the official name that japanese you instead of what inglish sources use. If more reliable sources you that name for it, thwn there's no choice.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

So the WP:VG article naming is completely irrelevant, even when the regular article naming does not make it clear what to do about situations like these? These journalists can translate game x's title, romanize game y's title, and use a localized version of one of game z's earlier related titles without any regard for consistency and we have to put up with that? What's even the point? Should I even bother with the compromising and the provisions used for situations just like this (IAR)?

If you're really going to agree to terrible things like this (and this is something you're supposed to, yes?), I highly recommend that you take this seriously and start hunting for every single article to fix. Note SteveBaker's comments here and take a look at articles such as this and this. Go, and spread this particular brand of consistency, that I do not agree with and will not take part in, for your own sake. If you can't do that, then this entire discussion and many others may as well be worthless. Despatche (talk) 07:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:VG doesn't seem to go against it. It says if there's no oficial english source use the most common english usage. Its merely suppose to compliment the original naming conventions.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. Cúchullain ^t/c 19:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Valkyria Chronicles III → Senjō no Valkyria 3: Unrecorded Chronicles – Let's try this again... "Valkyria Chronicles III" is a poor name for this article because is a name completely fabricated by the media and has absolutely nothing to do with the actual game; there is no Valkyria Chronicles III in existence and there are no plans to release Senjou no Valkyria 3 or its Extra Edition outside of Japan. This is a case for Senjou no Valkyria 3 and its OVA alone, not for any other related work. Many of the arguments presented against this move simply do not cover situations like this. "Senjou no Valkyria 3", subtitle or no, is as (versus "Valkyria Chronicles III"): recognizable, unambiguous, and consistent with the naming for the rest of series; more concise as "Valkyria Chronicles III" isn't a valid name to begin with; and unfortunately cannot be more "natural" (never mind that "natural"/"concise"/"consistent" basically mean the same thing here). I sincerely believe this is simply people randomly disliking a foreign title, something I really wish would stop.

Now can we please just get this right already? It's been a whole year. Despatche (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment WP:UCN, WP:UE, WP:OFFICIALNAME -- What is the commonly used name for this in English language sources? If English-media call it "Valkyria Chronicles III", then that's what the article should be called. Indeed, the references used in the article seem to use the current title as the name in English language sources. So, this has an English name (WP:UE), which is not the official one, but since WP:OFFICIALNAME says we use the common one and not the official one, that doesn't matter. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Agree with the concerns by the IP, the references use the current title. Since Wikipedia guidelines dictate that we must use the common name and the title is used in the references (i.e. ANN), we should just go by "Valkyria Chronicles III". However, IGN lists the title as "Valkyria Chronicles III: Unrecorded Chronicles." Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - While I have thought differently in the past, I think WP:NCVG clearly explains in the first point of its Games section: "Unofficial titles are not acceptable." It cites the example of Command & Conquer: Tiberian Dawn, which is the most common name, and that game is widely referred by that title throughout the media; however, that widespread usage doesn't change the fact it has never been an official title, and as such is not appropriate for an article title. The lede should unarguably mention what the name is "commonly known as", however. Salvidrim! 20:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:USEENGLISH. --Il223334234 (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 3

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 Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Valkyria Chronicles III → Senjou no Valkyria 3: Unrecorded Chronicles – When the sources are outright wrong and this can be easily proven, the standard "use common name" rules cannot apply; the name of a static product is not a thing that can be changed, no matter how many times you rerelease it. "Valkyria Chronicles III" is simply not a valid name under any metric, and is not an "English name"; the game doesn't have one, and probably never will. You allow these sources to make up whatever names they please, which encourages future sources to adopt them. I'm begging you, please stop this foolishness! Despatche (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Fact: "Senjou no Valkyria" and "Senjou no Valkyria 2" were officially translated as "Valkyria Chronicles" and "Valkyria Chronicles 2." Yes, Wikipedia should absolutely not invent novel translations itself, but the idea that "Senjou no Valkyria 3" would / could be translated into English as anything else is pretty silly. WP:USEENGLISH applies, then, we have an official translation that is backed by sources.

As a side comment, I see from your edit to the page and your comment above that SnV3 is somehow "correct" and the sources are "wrong." But this is ridiculous. Names are names, they can't be "wrong." If Sega had localized "Senjou no Valkyria" as "Raging Broccoli Saga" and the sequel as "Raging Broccoli Saga 2" and the English-language media referred to the third game as "Raging Broccoli Saga 3", then I'd be supporting that name, no matter how "wrong" it is. Note that the Japan-only Fire Emblem: Fūin no Tsurugi or Fire Emblem: Seisen no Keifu doesn't use "FIREEMBLEM" with no space or "Faiā Emuburemu" or something; the entire series is uncontroversially translated as "Fire Emblem" in the parts that came to the US, so we can safely translate that part, even if not the subtitle. SnowFire (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The title is wrong because there is nothing official about "Valkyria Chronicles III"; that localization is probably never going to exist! It has nothing to do with "translations", it has to do with non-existent titles. It'd be like using "Yakuza Kenzan!" or something (which that article does, which is stupid, because it's completely made-up by those "sources", as always). The "FIREEMBLEM" thing has nothing to do with anything because it's purely graphic, and because that's a completely different situation that has nothing to do with translations or localizations (it would matter if I were arguing we should be using "Senjounovalkyria", and please keep in mind that "transliterations" are nothing like "translations"); however, on that subject, if you look closely at the logo for the first game, you'll see a slightly larger space between the two Es. Yet again, I'm given the impression that people aren't actually taking any of this seriously, and are making everything up. No wonder these discussions never go anywhere. Despatche (talk) 06:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Please assume good faith here. The point I'm raising, and raised in all the previous move requests, should not be that hard to understand. Yes, we all understand that this game is Japan-only and has not itself officially been translated. Yes, that is a reason to use untranslated Japanese. However, there are many other reasons not to use untranslated Japanese, most obviously the fact that we do have official translations of what "Senjou no Valkyria" means from the first 2 localized games, WP:COMMONNAME (English language sources all call it VC3), WP:OFFICIALNAME (Wikipedia explicitly does NOT always use the official name anyway), and WP:USEENGLISH (obvious). Comments like "When the sources are outright wrong and this can be easily proven" should be a warning sign to you, because Wikipedia is explicitly about what the sources say, not what you think you can prove is "right". SnowFire (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - the first 2 were released as "Valkyria Chronicles", and Sega has referred to this knr as Valkyria Chronicles 3, so it's pretty clear this would have been case the same had it been released in English. Not using its English name is confusing for people who don't knowJapanese, where the word have no recognizable meaning, and it makes it hard to associate with its respective series. Also, this proposal has been rejected twice before - can we drop this? Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - No point on moving the title to the romanized title, especially since the series is always called Valkyrie Chronicles. Also, sources should not be ignored, and WP:IAR must be ignored as either useless or weak for this case. WP:COMMONNAMES plays a prominent role: current title is neither inaccurate nor ambiguous, and is used by reliable sources. WP:USEENGLISH plays a co-role, as well: English-language sources use current title; if not, accuracy of translation is close to the original title. --George Ho (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per nom. "[T]he sources are outright wrong" ~ and yet, they are our sources, so we go with what we find. Furthermore, we should stick to our language and the common name in our titles. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 05:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the sources are inaccurate; Valkyria Chronicles III is an invalid title by any metric. You can't take the titles of related works and apply them across the board when the context of those titles are very different. This isn't about "what I think is right", it's about what the sources say, and the very creators of the game say their work is called "戦場のヴァルキュリア3". And, per Sergecross's need to bring up the same thing everywhere, "Valkyria Chronicles III" is exactly as invalid as "X-Tetra" and such. Aside from all of this, continuing to use this invalid title will lead to any future source defaulting to it, and I don't think I need to keep explaining the implications of that. Despatche (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Without trying to imply anything, i think you have completely misunderstood my point and that of other comments here. Wikipedia is about the sources. We report what sources say. You say yourself this is what they say, so, by the only metric that counts with us, Valkyria Chronicles III is right. If the reliable sources all agreed that JK Rowling attended Hogwarts herself, that would be where we said she was educated, even if that were "wrong". You apparently think that there ought to be a different title to that given in sources; fine: Get the sources to change what they say, then we'll change. In the meantime, this is the third time you've beaten this one horse to death, and it might be time to let the poor beast rest in peace and move on. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 11:24, 8 October 2013 (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.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Valkyria Chronicles III/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 22:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I may as well make myself useful and clear some backlog... JAGUAR  22:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Initial comments

• "The game began development in 2010" - how about Development of the game began in 2010
• "It met with positive sales in Japan, and was praised by both Japanese and Western critics" - should western be capitalised here?
• "in order to send them on missions that would otherwise make Gallia lose face internationally" - I don't understand this part
• "Valkyria Chronicles III topped sales charts both for its native PlayStation Portable and across multi-platform statistics" - but wasn't it only released for the PSP? How does multi-platform statistics apply here?
• No dead links

I couldn't find anything worthy to put this on hold, so I'll pass it outright. Well done on all the work! JAGUAR  12:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 20 November 2017

The following is a closed 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: Closed as disruptive. This is the exact same request, for the exact same reasons, that has near unanimously failed three times. NAC. SnowFire (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

---

Valkyria Chronicles III → Senjō no Valkyria 3: Unrecorded Chronicles – Please read this very carefully before reading the previous move requests; things are different now. COMMONNAME doesn't work here; none of the examples listed on that page actually cover this example. OFFICIALNAME and USEENGLISH don't really work here either; they are intended for the names of objects that are subject to change, not the names of products that can't really be changed without destroying every copy that has that old name on it. Naming conventions for video games were created specifically to cover what these do not, and they clearly state in the very first point that unofficial titles are not allowed (with an exception made to solve for annoying capitalization cases, which could easily be defeated someday, as was done with iPod et al elsewhere); we do not actually have an English name for this game to satisfy point 2, because this game was only released in Japan and Sega hasn't placed any kind of English name anywhere in the game or on its packaging. As a specific product that has a name clearly printed on it, it is a great source in and of itself, generally above other sources. It should be noted that there are multiple examples where you do override central guidelines for the sake of upholding specific conventions: this, this, and this all come to mind. Everything is telling me that we cannot depend on central guidelines here, that existing specific guidelines largely support this move, and that we have multiple real cases of ignoring central guidelines for specific guidelines in action. The one thing that clearly opposes this move is looking up at the previous move requests and defaulting to "this must have been settled ages ago"; please do not do this. Thank you for reading. Despatche (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't understand why WP:COMMONNAME would not apply. It is WP policy, and very clearly says:

• Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)
• Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources
• Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred (emphasis mine)

We follow what reliable sources say, so unless you can demonstrate that Senjō no Valkyria 3: Unrecorded Chronicles is more commonly used in English-language sources, I really don't see how we could justify moving the article there.--IDV^talk 12:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment. COMMONNAME does not seem to apply here because none of the examples given cover subjects that are specific products and names that do not have a release in English-speaking countries. (You might have wanted to emphasis "original" there, as "trademarked" usually refers to unusual capitalization and pronunciation.) This is actually really strange, because it's a very common case that is distinct from the other examples given, especially since the closest example that actually appears (and strangely the only creative work, which uses unchanging proper nouns) is Seven Samurai... which does have an English release (multiple, even), so it's perfectly valid to use that name. Additionally, there is the problem of the naming conventions for video games: what's the point of having an explicit point against no unofficial titles if COMMONNAME inherently overrides them each time? I cite the game that would be subtitled "Tiberian Dawn" as a key example of this in practice, as it is stunningly similar to this case of Valkyria 3. I'm sure there are other examples, but this kind of thing isn't very common and I don't exactly have a shortlist. It should be noted that if Sega would just release the game in English, which they may actually do on the back of the upcoming Valkyria 4, this would stop being an issue immediately. Despatche (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2017 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Valkyria Chronicles III. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blog.valkyria3.jp/2010/09/2010930-b599.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101230165405/http://valkyria3-anime.sega.jp/ to http://valkyria3-anime.sega.jp/

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) 08:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)