Talk:Mega Man 2

Bubble Lead

In english, is it pronounced "bubble leed" (as in reed), or "bubble lead" (as in read)? Thanks! Also, octopuses 17:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"Leed". As in, the bubbles lead you to the top of the screen.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 18:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply! Also, octopuses 18:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

are you sure? I always thought it was lead, as in the zeppelin, due to the fact that they are effected by gravity, and fall streat down when they have no support under them. 140.232.146.190 21:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I know because it's バブルリード (baburu rīdo) (pronounced "leed"). It it were "Bubble Lead" as in the metal, it would've been バブルレッド (baburu reddo) (pronounced "ledd").—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 21:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Robot Masters

I've started a discussion about including Robot Masters in Mega Man articles. If you have an opinion, please remark here. Lumaga (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Robot Masters list

I've added a list of Robot Masters to the article. I've read over past discussion in a few places, and there is consensus to at least have them listed inline (as opposed to a table). --- RockMFR 01:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The only problem is that it seems to disrupt the prose. Removing the table formatting doesn't turn a list into prose. The names of the Robot Masters alone doesn't help the uninformed reader, and we don't have things to say about each one. I think I'm against it. Jay32183 (talk) 06:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jay on this. I removed the robot master list on other Mega Man articles for two reasons: tables were full of trivia and fancruft, and the information didn't add anything meaningful to the article. I'd also like to see where this consensus was made. Lumaga (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What is "meaningful" is entirely subjective. --- RockMFR 21:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Inafune content

Since no one involved has started a discussion, hopefully this will get things going. Rather than endlessly edit war back and forth, let's talk things through. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

• Not really anything to discuss. This is an anonymous IP vandal not an edit war. The anon has benn warned way more times than necessary to be blocked for disregarding the listed reliable sources, without actually adding a source to the article. Pointing to Gamespot is not adding a source, especially when it is less reliable than the sources being used already. Semi-protection is probably the only thing to do. It'll force the anon to register, then the single account can be blocked if it continues. Jay32183 (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Gamespot is not reliable? Is that your argument? seriously? (200.74.84.46 (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC))

200.74.84.46- Please stop reverting things back and forth to assert your position. Discuss it here in a civil manner by presenting an argument and reason with us.
Jay- I agree that the IP has gone about this issue in the wrong way, but that doesn't mean we ignore the information provide.

In regard to the issue, according to WP:RS, GameSpot is just as reliable as Nintendo Power, 1UP.com, and G4. The GameSpot source the IP listed is an interview with Inafune. In it, Inafune is quoted saying,

"I'm often called the father of Mega Man, but actually, his design was already created when I joined Capcom. My mentor [at Capcom], who was the designer of the original Mega Man, had a basic concept of what Mega Man was supposed to look like. So I only did half of the job in creating him."

I'd say that makes him a co-creator. Regardless, that distinction probably belongs in Keiji Inafune. Here we can probably use his current title or something generic in the first contested sentence. I don't see it being a big detail needed to understand the development of the game. However, I see nothing wrong with the second contested sentence, and recommend that it be left in its state before the edit warring began. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC))

No, he's still creator, just being modest. The Nintendo Power article says the words "Creator Inafune", and that's the source for the sentence. Reader's need to have an idea of who Inafune is. The second sentence mentions Inafune by name because the source does. There's no mention of a development team. We don't want to say "work on" twice in the same sentence. There's still nothing to discuss. The anon's work just needs to be undone everytime. Jay32183 (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Jay- I understand that Inafune needs to be mentioned in the article. But modest or not, his own comment about assisting with the creation cannot be ignored, even if it's not used in the article. How about something like this:

"In retrospect, series producer Keiji Inafune described the game's development as... Capcom gave Inafune, then an artist and character designer on the first game, the chance create on a sequel..."

This gives more context to Inafune's description and his role in the game. I believe any mention of him being the character's creator is more relevant and appropriate to Mega Man (video game), Mega Man (character), and Keiji Inafune. Any thoughts or suggestions? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC))

That's not entirely accurate. Here's another Nintendo Power article from issue 224 which names Takeshi Horinouchi as the series producer. The opening sentence of the article also identifies Inafune as the "character's creator". Have a look Lumaga (talk) 06:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Inafune was the one who created the look of the original Mega Man , that makes him "the character designer", not the creator , because the concept and original idea was from another person. Also , Horinouchi only has worked as producer for the Star Force series, the producer of the original series and X series (x1~x3) was Tokuro Fujiwara, but he left Capcom in 1996. The first game Inafune produced was Mega Man 8.

You need to remember that a lot of people call Inafune the creator or father, that's why he made that statement about no being the creator during the 20th anniversary.(200.74.84.86 (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC))

If Inafune was the person who "created" Mega Man 2, then why is he credited[1] as "character designer" instead of game designer, game concept, planner , director or producer? (200.74.84.75 (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC))

As far as I can tell, one side is trying to maintain verifiability, while the other is trying to maintain accuracy. One thing I've learned through many long heated discussion is that when article content like this is disputed, researching reliable sources generally clear things up.

I tried expanding and tweaking things with some new sources I dug up. I hope it makes both sides of the discussion happy so this edit war can come to an end. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

A-class assessment

• Support Nothing I can really say negative about the article...you've done your research and it clearly shows. I have no qualms supporting giving this A-class.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support I looked through some of the references, and they all checked out. I can easily support this for A-class, good work. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 04:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Merging in the Robot Masters

Overall, the Robot Masters do not really form a very worthwhile list. It really seems like it would be best to split them between the different games. This is the only GA, so it seems best as a test to see if people agree. TTN (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of having a lot of detail about the Robot Masters in the Mega Man articles (not that I support the Robot Masters article either). This article was recently promoted to A-class with only a mention of the eight Robot Masters in the game with a brief mention of two of their abilities. I don't know if the detail listed in the Robot Masters article is necessary. This article is cited well, and we would need to find a source that confirms the information listed. Additionally, listing the weapons and description of all the Robot Masters in the game does not further a reader's understanding of the game significantly more than what is already listed. See number 6 in WP:VGSCOPE. Just my thoughts. Lumaga (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't really improve on anything, but it also really wouldn't be too detrimental to anything. If the annoyingly large table and the cruft in the descriptions are removed, it probably wouldn't be more than 2KB, which could help that tiny plot section a bit. The main reason that I would like to merge them is because there is no way the the Robot Master article would ever be deleted in an AfD, and if it is just simply redirected, it would probably be restored daily by anons because "it's important." TTN (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the crufty descriptions would have to go, but then you're left with the name, a very brief description, and a weapon name. It might help out the plot section, but how much plot is there to any original series Mega Man game anyway? The Robot Masters list might just be a necessary evil. I would much rather improve that list than move the content into the game articles. Let's test it out first and see how nice of a merge we can get, but I have my doubts. Lumaga (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree Robot Master is in terrible shape and I don't think there is much there to salvage. There probably won't be much in the way of development either because most of them are fan submissions from regular contests held by Capcom. What about merging or redirecting to Mega Man (original series)? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

I don't read any Japanese, but I'm sure somebody could get some information about Capcom's contest from print sources. That might be some great info to get this to FA status. And as for Mega Man (original series), that article is in desperate need of some work. Lumaga (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the contests started after MM3; so the Robot Masters from MM4-8 are contest cubmissions. EGM reported on it a couple times. I think Inafune mentioned it too in some interviews. But it can all be summed up in a sentence or two. That's why I said there won't be much in the way of development information for the Robot Masters, because most of the characters were created by non-staff members and probably not documented outside of Capcom. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

I really don't care about what happens to the contents of the article (except for the first six, which should probably be merged to the character list), so if you think you can keep it redirected without an anon trying to revive it every single day, I'm fine with that. TTN (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the million dollar question: how to get the fans to agree? :-p You got me TTN. Maybe post it at Wikipedia talk:VG#Some input. That'll should get some more input and maybe some suggestions to maintain whatever consensus we arrive at. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

I suggest a transwiki for the Robot Masters article, then a delete, or failing that, a merge.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)