Talk:Shadow of the Colossus

Archives
Archive 1 (August 25, 2005 – January 21, 2006) Archive 2 (January 22, 2006 – March 11, 2006) Archive 3 (April 14, 2006 – April 29, 2006) Archive 4 (June 10, 2006 – August 7, 2006)

Featured Article!

Congratulations, and a huge thanks to all involved! The progress this article has made ever since its informal peer review in early July has been nothing short of astounding.

I've archived all of the talk from the page into Archive 4 to give us some room. Again: great work, everyone! --Onlynameicanget 03:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoa.... when will it be sen on the front page? -- Psi edit 05:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, first we need to write up a request for it to appear on the front page, which is the next step for the article. Even then, it may take a while for it to be added to the queue. I remember it took quite a while for Final Fantasy X's article, for example, to go on the front page - either that or they submitted the request long after it was featured. --Onlynameicanget 05:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made that box thing here (Note, I had to comment out the image due to fair use in userspace and all that). I'd personally like to request September the 18th. -- Steel 12:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Minus the image, the example box you made sounds good. As for a front page day, as I mentioned before, October 18^th would be best since it's the first anniversary of the game's release. I know you'd like to see it appear on your birthday (a fine present that would be), but when specific days are requested, Raul wants to see it based on something relevant to the work itself. For some current examples, User:Monocrat is pushing Excel Saga for October 7, that anime's anniversary, while User:Peirigill is requesting All Saints' Day for the Gregorian Chant (this connection is obvious, I think). Ryu Kaze 12:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if that's what Raul wants. I guess it's not as if my life depends on it appearing on that date in September. -- Steel 12:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

October 18th sounds good to me. --Onlynameicanget 14:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

*Burps* -- Steel 17:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Awesome job everyone. Hope I was helping more then getting in the way. Great learning experience that. Tani unit 20:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you were helpful. Thanks for the compliment. Ryu Kaze 23:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Amen. -- Psi edit 15:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers

Hey, shouldn't the story (especially the end) be covered by spoiler tags? I'm going to cover it with spoiler tags. I sure as hell wouldn't have liked the end to be spoiled for me.TheSOB 00:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not. Read the talk archive first. Schicksal 00:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The section is clearly marked "Plot", as is the sub-section "Story". Why would someone read these sections and not expect a comprehensive overview? That's what we're here to do. Ryu Kaze 13:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Images

Hey, guys. I just thought I'd let you all know that I've resized four of the images on this page to ensure that they meet fair-use criteria. This change was sparked by the more intensive analysis of what is and isn't fair-use that's been going on lately, an example of which can be seen in Final Fantasy VII's FAC. I don't want any FA articles losing their status over this, or any good images being deleted. So if you guys have any articles you watch regularly, look into the sizes of their images. We don't want to lose any good material unnecessarily. Ryu Kaze 02:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

the adittion

Ok there was an adittion below the "plot Summery" which I deleted. First of all of course we have been through this as unfortunate as it seems for better or for worse SOTC shows almost no backstory what so ever. And its understandable that Fans would like to add there own "Speculation" and theory's. Its also understandable that they would like to input game Info that would belong more in a "Game FAQ" however it isent appropriate for a Encyclopedia like wikipedia. For those reason I have deleted. What was written was pretty good I hate to have to bump someone's hard work but it goes without saying ^^ Kara Umi 19:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting; it was never seen as a problem, even after a rigurous FAC. Moreover, it describes the setting of the game, which every video game FA and fictional FA does. It's far from speculation, because it's sourced. — Deckiller 19:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Things like "he presence of ruins and other ancient structures indicate that the area was once a human settlement" is speculation of course we dont know wether there has been a human settelment or not could dwarfs or elfs for all we know :) (Deleted) "The level of technology represented is comparable to that of the Middle Ages, though the architecture featured throughout the land matches no single cultural style." Of course we dont what the manner of comparison we should make to the game world and this one unless there is an official or clear distinction between them which there isent (Deleted). I would say the arcit compares more to babylonian style "Trepid Structures" i thought once the shrine looked like a babylonian ziggirut once but dident add my speculation. And Finnaly "The region is only accessible via a small cleft in the mountains to the north, which lead to a massive stone bridge" Of course there could be other ways (deleted) Kara Umi 19:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

We're given no indication that dwarves even exist in the game's world, so, no, I don't think we can say "Well, dwarves might have made it". There's also the fact that the Dormin directly state that Wander/Emon's people are the ones who sealed them, so I think it's a fairly reasonable assumption that humans have been there. As for the accessibility of the region, it is shown to only be accessible through that cleft. You can't go assuming things that aren't indicated by the game. However, I'll reword some of the paragraph to be more vague.

You need to understand that you can't unilaterally decide to remove a large amount of content, especially from a selected featured article. If you think there's an issue, you bring it up on the talk page so it can be discussed and adapted as necessary. You don't just outright remove it. Ryu Kaze 19:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, Kara, saying "the game" shadow of the colossus is redundant :) — Deckiller 19:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Kara, you didn't understand the line about the architecture. It was saying that no single culture's style is represented, not that you can't pinpoint cultural influences. The place would be an anthropologist's wet dream if it actually existed. Off the top of my head, I saw Aztec, Mayan, Babylonian and Indian influences in the place, but there's more than that. Anyway, I'm still adjusting the wording. I'll let you know when I'm finished. Ryu Kaze 19:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You know what, by the way again, how do the three sentences you brought up warrant deleting an entire section? Especially the parts that were referenced? Please tell me you're not going to claim that it's speculation that the place contains deserts or claim fault with the word "man-made". I am not replacing that with "dwarf-made" without some darn good reasoning for doing so. Anyway, I'm finished adjusting the wording some. Give it a look. Ryu Kaze 19:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I honestly prefer the original wording ("only accessible via" versus "only known entrance"), it reads much better in my opinion, and is hardly inaccurate considering this is an article about a game. Schicksal 19:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right. This is a game. It is therefore limited to what we are shown or what is suggested. If there was something else that leads there, we would have been shown or given a hint. Until Ueda makes something else that suggests otherwise, the region is only acessible via the small cleft in the mountains. That sentence I'm changing back. Ryu Kaze 19:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Kara, I want to apologize if I was too harsh. We all just put a lot of hard work into this article, and it was upsetting for somebody to come in and start changing things up without even talking to us about it first. Ryu Kaze 21:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Same here; Ryu and myself are clearly burning out. — Deckiller 06:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ryu I can see how you would be against the warrant to delete the things you have yourself written no matter how inappropriate or unfitting of an encyclopaedia they are. The reason they will be deleted again is it does not belong in Wikipedia these are mere Speculation or wishful thinking on ones part. I decided against deleting the entire section until we can have a nice warm round up here :)

But I have instead removed the things that were not necessary and frankly not appropriate either. Nor do they follow the wikipedia Encyclopaedia "Form" that is usually upheld and I encourage you to take that in my mind as I wouldn’t say this is the first time. So again No writing’s like this "the presence of ruins and other ancient structures indicate that the area was once a human settlement" is defined as "Speculation" and until the game reveals other wise or Ueda clears things up or we will have to see what that madman has in store for us in the future we cant be so Sure. "level of technology represented is comparable to that of the Middle Ages, though the architecture featured throughout the land matches no single cultural style." Most certainly will be deleted forgive me for being so blunt but this cant be acceptable as one for Ueda's part he clearly stated and I think this has already been mentioned here, he responds to a question "where Inspiration came from" and he reply's he did not draw or clone from mythology. And your theory about the architecture is simply that theory. Someone else might be offended by it as this is theory in other words a hundred other people can have there own "theory" about it and claim you to be wrong, I could say "rather the Eskimo people were responsible for the architecture and a hundred others could say no it was the ancient biscuit scouts (lol) in other words its speculation. And this "The region is only accessible via a small cleft in the mountains to the north, which lead to a massive stone bridge" I don’t see to much trouble from it I guess we could let fans take a jab at this personally its been my belief but I will show more sincerity towards your section again and let it fly until someone else has a problem with it, because after all this is wikipedia open for everyone.

hehe relax iam sure you didn’t mean to be harsh ^^ though I don’t think you were. And iam sorry for not having enough time to reply to you as you can see in my first paragraph I didn’t have time to even write a decent reply. This all falls down to the previous problem we had, we introduced a solution which was to input a "Theory" section for fans to scribble in. You’re welcome to try that if you like I will certainly support you in it but until that "Speculation" and Theory's without a viable source or cite indicating such it will be deleted, take a look at the section now and tell me what you think Ryu oh and no way iam burnin out to ^^ Kara Umi 19:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing speculative about "The presence of ruins and other ancient structures indicates that the area was once a settlement". Obviously someone built them. As far as humans go, aside from the Dormin, all "higher level of thought" creatures we have seen in the SotC/Ico world are ordinary humans (and even then, the structures were obviously designed in proportion to humans). The Dormin were sealed by humans (specifically, Emon and Wander's people). Even the shadow creatures were once human (the PAL site states that once a creature ventures outside the mortal plane, all mortals can see of them is a shadow). In any event, the line reads "was once a settlemnt", not "was once a human settlement". Ryu Kaze 20:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you should probably think a bit more on what is or isn't speculation. Structures have to be built by beings, they don't just spring up out of nowhere. To build said structures beings have to "settle" there. Get my drift? And saying that the level of technology present is comparable to the Middle Ages is not speculative. We're not saying that the game took place in the Middle Ages. It's simply a way of explaining the technology level present in the game to the reader. As in, they use bows instead of guns, horses instead of cars, etc. If you can think of a better way to express that, do so rather than deleting it. I think we would all appreciate it if you considered your edits a bit more, possibly by trying to reach a consensus on this Talk Page, rather than removing content from the article on the basis that it's "speculation" (which I can safely say it is not). Schicksal 21:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Shicksal's right. That line wasn't there because we're trying to write a fanfic. That line was there because we're trying to describe the setting for the reader. Without that sort of thing, how are they to know that this isn't set in the present day, and that Wander's just decided to use a horse instead of a car? The purpose of a setting section is to establish the setting. Ryu Kaze 21:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've now added a line that reads "Set in a traditional fantasy world, the level of technology represented is comparable to that of the Middle Ages". With two references for the fantasy setting, a link to the fantasy world article, and the knowledge that the most common fantasy stories involve a medieval Europe-like setting (thus, the Middle Ages), I think this should satisfy everyone. Ryu Kaze 02:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I just got back from my summer vacation so iam sorry for not getting a chance to respond sooner. Ryu you can edit and change the page but the fact is you can’t change what speculation means and you can’t change what is'nt appropriate for a Encyclopedia. "Set in a traditional fantasy world, the level of technology represented is comparable to that of the Middle Ages". With two references for the fantasy setting, a link to the fantasy world article, and the knowledge that the most common fantasy stories involve a medieval Europe-like setting (thus, the Middle Ages)" isn’t the world's setting nor is it what Ueda wanted. There are other people who all share different idea's about the setting because obviously it is a very fertile ground for creative thought. But then again that’s creative thought. If I was to reference Wander as being similar to Mongolians for there love and life with there horses and architecture for being actually similar and drawn from Babylonian style structures and the shaman society of Amon is that of ancient three kingdom's Korea in that respect Iam pretty sure I would be speculating. I’m insulted ^^. if you can paste down your speculation (wishful thinking) Ryu then why cant I? Well its simple onther person won’t agree with us he would say no Eskimo land is the right setting and onther would say no mars is the correct setting and onther would say hell no your all wrong it's mighty Neptune’s domain lol. And they can do that why well because you pretty much did it yourself here. I have an itch to do this also we both seem to be very well passionate about this story. But this is not what wikipedia is for we have gone through this alot and it seems this article always takes the front in this.

I guess I could let go the other points there’s no need to take it further however this thing about being in the middle ages sound like cocka mania sorry to say but just doesn’t fit as its speculation. There is no Official or even a hint that leads to this impression. And of course again Ueda has wanted to point out that his world is original and that "He did not draw from mythology" in that respect what you say is speculation and a loose one at that. There that part wil be deleted, again Kara Umi 15:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop deleting content without even addressing what's actually been discussed. Let me reiterate this for you once again: no one is saying that the game is set in the Middle Ages. No one is saying it is set on Earth. Your analogies are thoroughly inapplicable. The purpose of that sentence is to establish understanding of the technology displayed, and, thereby, contribute to an understanding of the setting. Thus, why the sentence uses the word "technology" and not "time period" or "era". There was nothing speculative in that sentence about the fantasy world setting and the technology. "Fantasy world" does not mean "Set in the Middle Ages on Earth". The technology we see is consistent with what we would expect to find in our world's Middle Ages: horses instead of cars and planes, swords and crossbows instead of guns.

The sentence was a straightforward assertion that several individuals who reviewed the game have also claimed. If Ueda didn't intend to create a fantasy world setting with technology similar to that of the Middle Ages, then he failed at whatever it was he was trying to do, because a fantasy world setting with technology similar to that of the Middle Ages is exactly what he created. You have offered nothing to refute this but wild analogies that aren't conducive to your argument, and accusations of "speculation" where no speculation is present. If you're going to continue to argue this matter, you need to actually provide some evidence for what you've claimed. Find us 1) evidence that this is not a fantasy world setting (impossible, unless you want to argue that it's set on Earth, in which case you'll be taking the same stance you're accusing us of taking) and 2) evidence that the technology displayed isn't associated with that of the Middle Ages (not worth arguing).

You claim to have played the game, but I'm finding this claim increasingly doubtful, because the clothing and technology we see in the game are not what we see in modern day settings, nor even what we would expect to find during an Industrial Revolution setting. Again, the sentence is not saying that the game is set in the Middle Ages or even on Earth. This information is purely for establishing an understanding of the setting for the reader. If you tell a reader that the technology is comparable to that of our world's Middle Ages, then they aren't going to be surprised when they learn that Wander was shot with a crossbow instead of a gun: it's what they would expect; they aren't going to be surprised when they see what Mono and Wander are wearing in the screenshot: it's what they would expect; they aren't going to be surprised that Wander traveled to the Forbidden Land by way of horse instead of car, and that his pursuers did likewise: it's what they would expect. Try to understand this concept: it's about establishing setting, not making a claim of what time period the game is set in and what planet it is set on. Ryu Kaze 17:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Ex-Nintendo Employee has provided a good compromise as far as terminology goes: "...comparable to that of pre-industrial iron age human development". Ryu Kaze 02:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Most certainly will be deleted forgive me for being so blunt but this cant be acceptable as one for Ueda's part he clearly stated and I think this has already been mentioned here, he responds to a question "where Inspiration came from" and he reply's he did not draw or clone from mythology.

I think you need to learn that what people say is true is not necessarily truth; for example, it's far too much of a coincidence that 'Dormin' happens to be 'Nimrod' spelled backwards and the Dormin's story happens to mirror parts of Nimrod's, regardless of what Ueda claims. Even so, we're not talking about that: what's being discussed is the general appearence of the world in the game. In the game, what we see is a world where humans are armed with swords as their primary weapon and ride on horses, and where the most high-tech projectile weapon seen is a crossbow. This means we can determine the minimum level of technology that exists here to state the setting. Yes, maybe they're all actually a bunch of cosplayers from modern-day Detroit who fell into a wormhole, but there's absolutely nothing to support that assertion and it doesn't change that the general level of development seen in the game is much lower.

Nobody is saying that the story is set on a medieval Earth, or that everything in the game is directly from European medieval technology including the archetecture. What is being said is the level of technology we see is consistant with the level of technology we had at that time; much as the compromise is saying that it's reminiscent of the iron age. Much like we might say Laputa: Castle in the Sky is reminiscent of late-Victorian fantasy technology or Steampunk: that doesn't mean that the leader of Pazu's country is Queen Victoria or that Pazu is English, only that the setting is consistant with the steampunk genre. Hrimfaxi 03:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, IIRC what Ueda actually said was that SotC draws from no single mythology, which is true; while there are aspects of some myths present [Nimrod / Dormin, the similarity of the Colossi to Golems regarding the signs that must be destroyed to stop them, the similarity of several Colossi to Mayan idols, the first Colossus being a minotaur and so on], the plot is based on no single mythology and instead creates one of its own influenced by several existing ones. In any case, Ueda's world is not entirely unique because it borrows obvious elements from our own; particularly, horses, humans, swords, crossbows, and longbows, as well as lizards, birds, trees, tortoises and so on. That is how we can make a statement on the level of technology represented; because these objects are from the real world. Unless you're seriously claiming Ueda somehow invented swords and there is no specific real-life era when swords, crossbows and horseback riding all appeared together, the statement that the setting is similar to that era is valid and requires no additional sourcing. Hrimfaxi 06:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ryu you really need to calm down, I can understand if you’re angry at me challenging your edits but guess what this is wikipedia and in a community built project this is the result you’re going to get people who don’t agree with your views or your contributions. You’ve edited the section which I approve of this version. I have been very lenient and agreeable in letting some other things which I really don’t agree with. The fact of the matter is your speculating the argument you present of "why then not input cars existed" serves also to contradict your original argument. Listen I haven't to much time for this my summer vacation was actually my burial in collage work ^^'. And that means me going to have to be away for a while hopefully by then it would have been settled if onther member sees the same mistake you’re making. Oh and telling me "I bet you haven’t played the game Yuh Ha" is really hysterical but childish. Iam going to give you time to cool down you really need it, you seem way to driven on promoting some agenda which explains your deranged behaviour. In any case gotta go cya soon Kara Umi 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not be deliberately provocative or obnoxious. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Kara, what? Seriously. "Lenient"? Your permission isn't required to ensure that the article is informative. This isn't about people being annoyed with you for disagreeing. This is about your arguments making no sense while you build a straw man to tear down in order to justify absurd accusations. Disagreements are going to happen, yes, but in a situation such as this, one person is going to be wrong while another is right. Given that you're throwing around claims that I'm trying to do exactly the opposite of what I have repeatedly explained to you that I am trying to do, it's a pretty darn good chance that you're the one in the wrong.

By the way, how exactly does my argument contradict itself when it remains consistent? Compare my first comment on the matter of the similar technological setting with my last comment:

First comment

"Shicksal's right. That line wasn't there because we're trying to write a fanfic. That line was there because we're trying to describe the setting for the reader. Without that sort of thing, how are they to know that this isn't set in the present day, and that Wander's just decided to use a horse instead of a car? The purpose of a setting section is to establish the setting."

Last comment

"Stop deleting content without even addressing what's actually been discussed. Let me reiterate this for you once again: no one is saying that the game is set in the Middle Ages. No one is saying it is set on Earth. ... Again, the sentence is not saying that the game is set in the Middle Ages or even on Earth. This information is purely for establishing an understanding of the setting for the reader. If you tell a reader that the technology is comparable to that of our world's Middle Ages, then they aren't going to be surprised when they learn that Wander was shot with a crossbow instead of a gun: it's what they would expect; they aren't going to be surprised when they see what Mono and Wander are wearing in the screenshot: it's what they would expect; they aren't going to be surprised that Wander traveled to the Forbidden Land by way of horse instead of car, and that his pursuers did likewise: it's what they would expect. Try to understand this concept: it's about establishing setting, not making a claim of what time period the game is set in and what planet it is set on."

This is consistency. Because it's consistent.

As for my comment regarding your experience with the game, your argument pretty much amounts to "We don't see horses in this game instead of cars, or swords and crossbows instead of guns"... because that is all that we have been claiming here. If you're disputing what we're claiming, there's not much else you could be saying. You're the one who somehow concluded that we're trying to use the article to write a fanfic in which this game is set on Earth during the Middle Ages. Again, try to understand the concept of establishing a sense of setting for a reader who has never heard of Shadow of the Colossus. Ryu Kaze 23:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see why there is any more of an argument- the article doesn't speculate by saying "the game takes place during", it merely states the level of technology shown in the game; this is encyclopedic. We're writing not about a time period, but about a specific setting- that is, the game features technology that correlates with the Iron Age, thus we see the horseback and crossbows. Again, it's not about pinning down a "time", but establishing a setting so that a reader who hasn't played the game can understand it. Ex-Nintendo Employee 06:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

'Centered around'

I've noted some objections to the term 'centered around' being correct. Two citations from dictionary.com[1]:

Dictionary.com usage note: 28. Although sometimes condemned for alleged illogicality, the phrases center about and center around have appeared in edited writing for more than a century to express the sense of gathering or collecting as if around a center: The objections center around the question of fiscal responsibility.

American Heritage Dictionary usage note: Usage Note: Traditionally, the verb center may be freely used with the prepositions on, upon, in, or at; but some language critics have denounced its use with around as illogical or physically impossible. But the fact that writers persist in using this phrase in sentences such as The discussion centered around the need for curriculum reform, a sentence that 71 percent of the Usage Panel accepts, suggests that many people perceive center around to best represent the true nature of what they are trying to say. Indeed, in an example like A storm of controversy centered around the king, the only appropriate choice seems to be around. Still, if one wishes to avoid the phrase center around, the phrase revolve around is available as an option. Since center can represent various relations involving having, finding, or turning about a center, the choice of a preposition depends on what is intended. There is ample evidence for usages with each preposition listed above. The Panel accepts all of these uses except the one with at. Seventy-seven percent reject the sentence The company has been centered at Atlanta for the last five years. See Usage Note at equal. Hrimfaxi 10:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Many (if not most) other game articles contain plot spoiler warnings

Most of the other game pages contain a warning for plot spoilers. I do not see why this page should be different from the majority of pages. I also do not think it is superior because I expect to be warned if it is a full divulgance of the story or a simple overview. For instance, I do not expect the back cover of a book to give away the entire story, just what it is generally about. I personaly made the mistake of reading the ending on this article when I did not want to, and while one could argue that I was simply careless or stupid, I ask, if saying that a section of the article is about the story is enough of a warning, why is there a spoiler warning template at all? Why do most other game article use it in an almost identical context? Why change the previous policy: is something on Wikipedia hurt by a spoiler warning? Is simple, minor (alleged) redundancy such a crime if it prevents (what I will call for lack of a better term) injury to a reader? I think this needs to be reexamened, and if you do think that a spoiler is truly unnessisary, they you should probably remove the spoiler warning in all instances of its occurance and perhaps disable the template itself. For now I am not personnaly planning to add a spoiler warning as I do not want an edit war more than anyone else, but I really think it should have one and the subject definately needs evaluation.

Also, I think that the fact that people frequently (relatively speaking) make the "mistake" of adding a spoiler warning ought to be telling about the decision not to include the warning and about how much sense it actually makes to users. -Oniamien

The use of spoiler warnings is contested. People are trying to remove it from every article, there's a request for comment around somewhere on it. As far as this article goes, isn't it obvious that there are going to be spoilers there? Bear in mind the section is titled "Story", not "Synopsis" or "Plot Overview". To be honest, though, Wikipedia's content disclaimer announces in big letters that articles contain spoilers and that should be enough. -- Steel 09:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Basically what Steel said. The subject has been in constant evaluation since people began using spoiler tags here. Many people think they're absurd given the content disclaimer, the encyclopedia's purpose to inform and the fact that no other professional encyclopedia (which is what we're trying to become) uses such tags. Of course, many others do not, and so there is conflict on the subject. Ryu Kaze 14:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Colossi"

Colossi is an incorrect plural spelling for the word 'colossus' (see the Wiktionary entry: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Colossus), analogous to the frequently used incorrect plural spelling of the word 'octopus', 'octopi'. Its correct plural spelling is 'colossuses'.

The reason for the spelling seen in the game is likely either an artistic license, or a misconception on the part of the game's translator(s).

I find myself unable to add this piece of relevant info into the article without degrading its readability. Perhaps someone with a better grasp of the written word than myself would be inclined to add it?

Damn FAs, they're just so damn hard to improve. -FrostyBytes 10:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's generally held that both "colossi" and "colossuses" are a valid plural form of the word. In Latin, at the least, "colossi" may actually be the correct spelling, assuming — as many do — that it is a second declension Latin noun. Given that the game's developers gave each colossus a Latin title, it's probable that "colossi" was the intended spelling for the game. It should remain as such for this article, especially since it is a valid rendering of the word (and the spelling used invariably in the game itself). Ryu Kaze 12:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, dictionary.com says that "colossi" is the preferred plural... I should look into it more, I'm a strong advocate of "octopuses" over "octopi" , since the truly "correct" spelling is "octopodes" but that is terribly pedantic. How does Greek make "kolossus" plural? -JC 01:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

My Greek go-to guy says that "kolossos" plurals to "kolossoi". Either way, as the "colossi" of the game are their own unique creatures, I think for the article that the in-game spelling is the best fit, regardless of etymology. -mordicai. 21:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I'm inclined to agree, though I still think it'd be proper to add at least some reference to this matter of different plural spellings, perhaps something as little as the wikification of a single appropriate word. -FrostyBytes 11:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, on cursory glance, I don't see any easy wikilink to make that could side-step the issue. Even then, a semantics argument is only going to be of so much interest, especially when the verdict is still out on the "proper" pluralization. If colossi wasn't just as valid as colossuses, I could see the value of an aside, but I think as it stands there doesn't need to be any edit on the subject-- unless you can think of an elegent way to put it in without it sticking out like an extra left foot. -mordicai. 19:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"Pre-Industrial Iron Age"

There has been quite a bit of discussion up above on this subject, but I think a new thread is due here. It seems that there might be a bit of a revert war brewing, & I'd like to head that off with a discussion here; best case scenario being that we can come to a conclusion on the subject.

Firstly, my opinion is (obviously, from my initial reversion) that the statement be included. I could be copacetic with the removal of "traditional" from "traditional fantasy world," but the fantasy world bussiness seems pretty straight forward to me. Giant colossi, talking gods, living shadows, magic swords... As to the issue of "pre-industrial iron age," I think the sentence is pretty clearly stating a level of comparative technology. It isn't saying, as there seems to have been confusion in the past, that it is set in a historical setting on Earth. If several editors are having trouble reading it that way, or disagree that it is reading that way, perhaps the diction does need an overhaul. To me, the whole sentence (how small a thing to have contention over!) adds much needed information to the "setting" part of the article. An observation about that setting is not "fan-fic" or any such. The terms are neutral & anthropological. --mordicai. 21:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree I don’t personally think there’s anything wrong with it but the keyword there being "Personally" and as you and I don’t own wikipedia we have to acknowledge that this is a "two enemy camp situation" and the other half of the community thinks it would be best to remove the information reason being it seems to be unsourced (if one could please prove me wrong) and or unrelated. And the only way to solve these types of situation is to refer to the rules and in this case my friends I have to say camp number 1 wins in accordance with WP:V and adherence to the five pillars I remove the disputed section. And I am open for talk here always, thanks Singing guns 18:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyone if I may add this is quoted from wiki rules section WP:V Please read all parties invloved. "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.". That clearly states a source not a in game ref wich can be argued over and challanged which is the case, in such a case all editors must be Bold and take action, thank you Singing guns 18:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)