Template talk:Resident Evil

Expansion

It feels like this template needs a bit more expanding! Empty2005 09:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Why this edition?

I don't know why someone reduced this article so much, but it's just plain wrong, specially for the deletion of the Characters's links, which were undoubtly used a lot, probably even more than the game's tittles. I'm gonna revert it, and if someone's gonna edit it, you might better give a worthy reason.

WT:CVG#Navboxes yet again was linked in the edit summary. Short version: this template is too large and cluttered to be useful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

At risk of being in problems, those rules suck! Alexlayer 20:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Upcoming games

Why doesn't this template include them? I don't see much reason not to. 199.126.137.209 03:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I added 5 and Wii to the set. if no one likes it they can change it. Jareth 19:51 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That user:Man in black is removing those 3upcoming stuffs gahh--hottie 12:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

They are officially announced games. There is no reason to delete them, it's not like they are in question.

Or would you suggest we also remove Phantom Hourglass from {{Template:Zelda games}}?

Rather then this edit war, you're an admin for goodness sakes..., discuss your point here and let's try to get consensus. JackSparrow Ninja 17:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Navboxes. The bar isn't some vaguely-defined "official"-ness; it's whether the games have been shown in playable form and whether they have a release date. RE5 and RE:UC have neither; they exist in trailer and hype form only. They may be important once they're released, but right now they're too far away and too nebulous to go on a template with core topics. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It is your own written article, and a guideline. It doesn't seem this has been discussed, or challenged yet, so I'd say it makes a good time to do so, rather then just posting your guideline as a policy.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Navboxes#Inclusion / exclusion of non-released games

JackSparrow Ninja 00:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think both should be included now, rather than later. I don't see the harm it does. I've read comments from AMIB (here, and on other talk pages), but I certainly still strongly feel they should be listed. "Playable form" shouldn't decide templates (all the time at least). What about films? If they aren't seen by anyone or whatever, are they off the template? I don't think so (maybe that is the case? I wouldn't know, I don't regulary edit movie templates). It's not a completely exact comparision: but both do get announced. Both have trailers to preview them and so on. But back to the topic at hand: if the games don't become important (which I doubt), they can always be removed from the template later. Navigation to future games is important too. RobJ1981 00:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop

If you don't like the template, just go ahead and create a better and smaller template, but don't use that little template...It's useless...The template doesn't help and it's too disordered...I think the actual is much better and helpful for everyone.Armando ^{(talk|ImgTalk|contribs)} 16:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

We've been over this at length. A three-screen-long template with every single link isn't useful. If there are smaller series of interlinked, strongly-related articles, make similarly-small navboxes for those article series, but don't cram every single link in Category:Resident Evil and its subcats into this template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna create a better template...but I need someone to transform it from HTML code to WikiCode. Armando ^{(talk|ImgTalk|contribs)} 19:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, It's time to move on from the generic CVG template as this series has crossed over into other media like Mortal Kombat and Batman. --Ra1d3n 02:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

New template

Well, I've just made a new template. It's as small as the prior one, it looks good and I think there's no problem with it, so we can use it from now on. Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's one quarter totally useless metadata, it's not standard appearance, it links to articles composed only of speculation/promotional material, and it links to a goofy movie that isn't even notable in Japan. These reasons are why the standard appearance is standard. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, then I'm deleting the useless content but the structure of my template is better and clear. Actually, it's based on your template...but now it's just more clear.Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This template should be split into two

2 templates are needed: one for films, one for games. Just a generic "series" template is clutter. Why must movies and games be stuck together as series? Otherwise clear sections need to be decided. I see nothing wrong with "games", "movies" and "other" for section names. Just throwing them all together (and even with the film by the movies) isn't very organized. RobJ1981 07:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Links

I don't understand why things like RE4's creatures, RE5, or Umbrella Chronicles should not be included. RE5 especially - yes, it's not out yet. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's being developed, it's part of the core series, and is just as important and relative as any other part. Also, why do the other RE games get their creatures linked, but RE4 does not? Umbrella Chronicles is kind of understandable, since it's in a sense a "spinoff"... but surely the other two deserve links (unless someone integrates RE4's creatures with the others?) I understand the need for keeping the templates small, but this is surely going a bit too far. Please reconsider. SouperAwesome 09:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, i agree with the RE4 creatures at least. As people DO NOT WANT TO GO AROUND AND TRY TO FIND THE INFORMATION THEY WANT. If there is not a Direct link to it, and as there are enough creatures to make it almost about the size as the other page, it should be their because, yeah the game has been released, and has been out for a while. I am going to change it back. Lord GaleVII 19:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

RE:UC in the main games

Some people are moving REUC to the side games. Masachika Kawata (the producer of the game) said that it's a true Resident Evil game, which it's story is canon...http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=75436 CrushNush 21:07, 20 April (UTC -4)

RE: UC should remain part of the main series. I have reverted it; let's keep it that way. HeroOfVirtue 14:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The story can remain cannon while the game is apart from the main series. The game is mostly a revisit to the locals in the RE series. ScienceApe (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That whole sentence with the "true Resident Evil game" comment talks about the playing style of the game and its "horrific atmosphere", not about the story - but either way, it doesn't matter. The new storyline segments of The Umbrella Chronicles, such as the 2003 scenario are canon, just as much as other spin-offs like Resident Evil Survivor, which was acknowledged in the opening of Resident Evil Zero. The Umbrella Chronicles is part of the storyline, but the Chronicles titles are spin-offs with completely different gameplay compared to the classic and the over-the-shoulder Resident Evil styles, that's why they really shouldn't be included in the main series. Prime Blue (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

BIOHAZARD: Degeneration

I add the link to that new Film. Should I split the Films section into two: Live-action films and CGI movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felisbino (talk • contribs) 23:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Soundtracks

What about the Soundtracks? Well by that i mean the actual ones (ie. "Biohazard 2 Origonal Soundtrack") coms some of them are Orphaned as well!OsirisV (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A template should list ALL articles in a series

Why doesn't this template list all the articles in the series? Also, if the editor removing the links to the creature lists from the template, is constantly arguing to delete all such list, then it seems rather inappropriate to me. Am adding that back in. Dream Focus 02:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, said Dream Focus. Apparently, there has been an attempt to make two different templates for films and games but it didn't quite come off. Taking action now. Fleet Command (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Added a handful of articles to this template. Fleet Command (talk) 06:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It did take off. That the templates existed for months without any complaint until now tells me they did. And I should not have to open a discussion for a noncontroversial action. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right: Noncontroversial actions require no discussion and therefore what I did was correct: Why bewilder users with three different templates when one is enough?

And no, it was not done correctly. Some character article had two template and some needed two or more while only had one. A lot of deleted articles were listed in the navbox. Such cause of trouble for the readers of Wikipedia is unwarranted. Fleet Command (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Just of note, I had previously mentioned that splitting the RE template was unpopular the first time it was done as well. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 15:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Shortening the links

Please do not shorten the links when doing so misrepresents the original title. For example: When Biohazard 4D-Executer and Resident Evil: Degeneration sit together, do not shorten the second link into Degeneration. Doing so causes the surfer to mistakenly think either the title of the original title of the first movie is "Resident Evil: Biohazard 4D-Executer" or the title of the second movie is "Degeneration". Fleet Command (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

RE:Revelations as handheld game

Resident Evil: Revelations is being developed for the Nintendo 3DS, a handheld console, and is not a main entry into the series. Thus, I have moved it to the appropriate list. CR4ZE (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It is part of the main series because it takes place during the events inbetween Resident Evil 4 and Resident Evil 5 and Jill Valentine is one of the main series characters and Prime Blue HAS stated that Revelations is the only one debatable to be a main series game. User:Darkness2005 17:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Placement in the series is a very weak argument to determine any game in the series as a main game or spin-off – after all, they are pretty much all part of an overarching story. Same goes for the protagonists (Jill and Leon are the playable characters in several minor mobile games, for example). The gameplay of Resident Evil Revelations might be the best indicator that it actually is a part of the main series, but I'd wait until it is identified as such by its developers and by reliable third-party sources. Prime Blue (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't 'Other Games' be a list of games that contribute nothing to the storyline whatsoever or have no plot at all or completely deter away from the main characters (e.g. - Chris Redfield and Jill Valentine)? Because that makes a whole lot of sense. Gaiden takes place during Code: Veronica and you play two of the main series characters (Leon S. Kennedy and Barry Burton), Operation Raccoon City takes place in between 2 and 3: Nemesis but it doesn't have any of the main characters in it, so it should be in 'Other Games', The Mercenaries 3D have the main characters in it but it doesn't have a plot at all, it is just mini-games, so that again should be in 'Other Games'. And to put handheld games in other games (which is supposed to have games that contribute nothing to the storyline, have no plot or deter away from the main characters) seems pretty biased. User:Darkness2005 20:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the grouping is detached from the plot and the protagonists of the games because they are very unreliable as indicators. It is instead based on shared gameplay mechanics and subseries titles (such as for The Umbrella Chronicles and The Darkside Chronicles, which are both light gun shooters with the Chronicles title). "Other games" does not mean "these games are to be disregarded", but just that they are – as of now – standalone titles that cannot be grouped in their own series because they have not been followed up (or have not been followed up yet). Other than that, the main series has been identified as Resident Evil, Resident Evil 2, Resident Evil 3: Nemesis, Resident Evil Code: Veronica, Resident Evil Zero, Resident Evil 4 and Resident Evil 5 by reliable publications such as Famitsu. Prime Blue (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Should Gaiden be in the main series? Because it is the sequel to Code: Veronica. User:Darkness2005 23:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No, for the reasons stated above (plots are bad indicators, main series has already been identified by reliable sources). Something else, just because I noticed: calling obvious good faith edits vandalism over disagreements is a sure-fire way of making yourself look bad, or end in even worse consequences. You have every right to disagree with other editors, but bringing vandalism on the table with established users is never the right thing to do – you wouldn't want others to call you a vandal either, because you are not. Prime Blue (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The game is part of the main series because it follows the main storyline and its characters. Doesn't matter if it's on a handheld or not. The developers have said it is a direct sequel to Resident Evil 5 (it's actually a prequel in terms of timeline): CVG Given this, I think it should be moved back to Main Series. CrushNush 19:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

After some digging, the official japanese site explicitly says this is a mainline title (as translated by cvxfreak, Japanese navite speaker):

本作では、スケール感あふれるシナリオを、

より深く理解してもらうため、

チャプター形式のシステムを採用。

The above translates to the following: "In order for players to understand the scope of this mainline title, the game adopts a chapter-based progression system". They say this in the Introduction section: Biohazard Revelations Official Site (click on the second button of the three available). I guess this is a solid proof, adding the game back to Main Series. CrushNush 23:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, in the official website, it says that "The action bridges the gap between Resident Evil 4 and Resident Evil 5". So, does that mean this game is a part of the main series or not? TheTrueGamerX (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to define a "main series", though the spin-offs seem to be largely independent of the main story's events, which are connected (with the same main characters, for instance). Revelations doesn't "bridge" the gap between Resident Evil 4 and 5 in a plot sense, but only in the timeline (2004-2005-2009). Were the three connected by a story arch it would have instead involved Wesker and his work in bio-weapons research. Ask me on the Resident Evil wiki for more information.-- OsirisV (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Where is Survivor 2 and Dino Stalker?

Why is Survivor 2 not added to the list? Is there any policy at all that says only those entries which have articles can be added to a template.l? If there is no such policy then I think Survivor 2 should be re-added to the template. Also I think Dino Stalker should be listed under the related section. Even though it's not a Resident Evil game it is the third entry in the Survivor video game series. KahnJohn27 (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Survivor 2 has been constantly added; removed and re-added. The reason for the constant removals was the argument that it's just a re-port of CODE: Veronica and only appears on Wikipedia as a subsection of the CODE: Veronica article. However, I would like to point out that The Typing of the Dead is comparable to Survivor 2 - both are games created independently, but based on an earlier entry (and so aren't re-ports). TotD, however, has its own article.-- OsirisV (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Survivor 2 is not a re-port at all. The original CODE Veronica has your character completely visible while on the other hand Survivor 2 is a first-person arcade shooter just like the original Resident Evil Survivor. It's gameplay is completely different than the original Code Veronica. Not only that it's story line is much different than the original Code Veronica. The only similarity is that the characters are the same. I've played and completed the original CODE Veronica and Survivor 2 myself many years ago and both are much different than each other. In a re-port game play and storyline are always same. That's All the gaming review websites classify Survivor 2 as a separate game. So I don't understand how are some users making the decision to remove Survivor 2 and calling it a re-port. Also if there is no policy that prohibits from entries without articles from.being added to a template then there is no problem with adding it. Instead of removing it again and again the involved users should start a discussion and follow the Wiki policies instead of deciding on their own what to do. I am readding it keeping in view the Wikipedia policies. Instead of removing it again without a proper reason users should discuss about it. However I think if users would have already discussed this dispute earlier then it would have already been resolved. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Resident Evil: Revelations 2

Should this be added to the main entries?82.42.131.52 (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Template broken

The template is broken! Can someone please fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaftRose (talk • contribs) 01:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: Reversion of footnote noting the original name of the franchise

Blue Pumpkin Pie, re: your edit summary and most recent revert of my edit as per this diff here, I fail to see how your removal of this information somehow brings this template in compliance with the "goal of the nav box" and that "the articles are there to inform" as you have insisted. Could you link any guidelines or policies which reflects consensus that supports your opinion or insistence to remove that information from the template box? It is no different compared to how information is presented on Template:Nintendo Entertainment System and navboxes about other similar topics with parallel names depending on territory, where the originating name is explicitly mentioned at the top of the navbox.

A reminder again that there certainly will be users from countries where that is not the common name for the franchise but will still be perusing the English language wikipedia, which has a global viewership as English is an international language and the English wikipedia is not supposed to be pandering to the Engish-speaking world's perspective per a conscious effort by myself and other editors to avoid systemic bias where possible. Haleth (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Articles are intended to provide information, the purpose of the navbox is simply to help navigate between related articles. To use these templates to provide information and not navigate, is not using it for its purpose. Every edit and revert that has been done on a navbox in the past was to meet that purpose. This ranges from removing links to non-existing articles, to removing them because they are actually redirects.

Template:Nintendo Entertainment System is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST and that can be removed as well. The rest of your argument confused me and had no backing of any guideline. But i'm not removing "Known as Biohazard in asian territories" from the article though.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not a written guideline or policy piece, you simply linked it without actually articulating an argument derived from what is in actuality a nuanced and neutral piece, and anyway it is more of a relevant discussion for AfD. This is not an AfD. I never actually said my point is based on guideline or policy. There is however, a loose consensus amongst many editors on this site that systemic bias is a real issue and should be mitigated, which in my opinion is a relevant point to raise here. My point is your insistence on removing an important alternate name from the template does not serve any constructive purpose, whereas your opinion is the inverse. And I did not revert your edit, so your claim that you are not removing anything from the article confuses me. Haleth (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I did not remove any verified alternate names from the "article". But it will remain removed in a "navigation box template". As for your concerns with systemic bias, you'll have to verify this consensus of systemic bias and bring it up on the proper channels. But a Resident evil navbox is nowhere near the place to bring it up and make a point.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Then clearly, it is my opinion versus yours, in the absence of any clear guidance provided by any existing guidelines or policies which support either of our positions. Haleth (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Blue Pumpkin Pie is right. Templates are for navigation, not information. Keep it simple. We use Resident Evil for the template name to reflect the article name for this franchise article, which derives from the WP:COMMONNAME policy. Popcornfud (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

+1 to also not including trivial footnotes like this. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)