Talk:Mega Man

Some proposed changes

Information to be added or removed: Brief mention of the official strategy guide

Explanation of issue: Although I am the book’s author, I assume that the book’s existence would be of interest to readers. It is long out of print, but is part of the game(s)’ history and possibly the first OFFICIAL trade paperback strategy guide for any game.

I’m suggesting the following be added somewhere appropriate:

The official guide to the first three Mega Man games and Mega Man in Dr. Wiley’s Revenge for Game Boy (The Official Guide to Mega Man, COMPUTE Books, 1991) was written by Steven Schwartz and was one of the earliest official game strategy guides.

GameMaven (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Please provide either the {{ISBN}} or {{OCLC}} numbers for this book. When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the {{request edit}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes to |ans=no. Thank you!

Regards,  Spintendo  02:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

ISBN 0-87455-241-9

Thanks! GameMaven (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

What happens next? Is it now okay for me to add the text or will someone else do it? Thanks. GameMaven (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)÷

Please let other editors add it for you (if approved). Pinging @Oshwah: for their input on this (my apologies for the ping if already watchlisted). As I'm not familiar with the article, I'd like local editors to weigh in on this. (Oshwah's name picked randomly from the edit history.) Regards,  Spintendo  06:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Based on the conversation held at Talk:Battletoads_(video_game)#Some_proposed_changes, the COI editor is kindly asked to provide WP:SECONDARY sources demonstrating the relevance of this publication to the article. When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the {{request edit}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes to |ans=no. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  17:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

So long as the information is brief, neutral, and cited by secondary sources that are reliable, I generally wouldn't see a problem with adding something like this to the article. However, where would an appropriate section be where it would naturally belong? I don't see a section that talks about any books or strategy guides... Let me know if I missed it somehow (ping me in your responses; I'm not actively watching this page). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Although the book is for the classic games, the mention doesn’t seem to fit well there. Perhaps a new subsection in OTHER MEDIA? The OVA mentioned there is also just a single sentence. @Oshwah: GameMaven (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

As Oshwah mentioned, the inclusion of this claim in the article ought to be accompanied by reliable, secondary sources. As a matter of practicality, I believe that hurdle should be jumped first before deciding where to place the claim in the article. Regards,  Spintendo  13:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

As I said in the Battletoads talk, game books—official or unofficial—weren’t generally reviewed. The one review of the Battletoads book that I found surprised me. That gaming magazine had a column that reviewed two strategy guides per issue (24 per year). I have no idea how many gaming magazines in the early 1990’s have been scanned, are available on the web, and have been indexed, so I don’t have any way to search further that is likely to be productive. (Example: EGM was popular back then, but Archive.org only has three scanned issues in total during the relevant years.)

When I was writing, I seldom bought or read game magazines for fear that I would inadvertently use someone else’s material. As a result, although I wrote 8 official guides, I wasn’t looking for or keeping clippings 25-30 years ago. Other than the article written by a Mega Man fan, I haven’t found anything especially helpful. Generally, when you search for a strategy guide online (even current ones), all you’ll find are sources where you can buy it, a link to the publisher’s site, and possibly some mentions by fans. The only other relevant fact I can mention in support was that Capcom was giving them out at E3 (Electronic Entertainment Expo) in Las Vegas as promo gifts when the book was released.

At this point, why not let the experienced page editors decide (poll them?) whether the first official Mega Man guide and the only official Battletoads guide deserve mention or not? As I’ve said, searching for reviews is mostly pointless. Being part of the Mega Man and Battletoads history is primarily demonstrated by these titles being in collectors’ collections and frequently sought. GameMaven (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

A local editor has spoken, where they stated that they had no problem adding the claim, as long as it was accompanied by a reliable, secondary source — which I agree with. Regards,  Spintendo  03:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

How about we not add it. Wikipedia is not the place for GameMaven to promote his books - It appears all GameMaven wants to do - get books s/he authored added to aricles. WP:NOTHERE applies. It's not about if the book has had publicity. Toddst1 (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Rockman X Dive

The Rockman X Dive part of the Mega Man X section is starting to get a bit long and convoluted. It may be time to create a page of its own to link to such that we can get its mention back down to a brief summary rather than the long ramblings of fan jargon. StuOnThis (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed all the unnecessary info about Rockman X Dive since this page isn't the place for that kind of information. I added a link to its Japanese Wikipedia page as an English language page does not yet exist. I encourage anyone interested to create one. StuOnThis (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Netflix

Is there any source that says that the Mega Man film was sold to Netflix? I couldn't find any. BestDaysofMusic (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Why?

Can someone explain to me why User:Shadowboxer2005 has been allowed to tarnish and butcher this page? It should not take 26 DAYS to revamp an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to a major franchise. Such changes should have been prepared in advance and be done in a day so as to not disrupt any visitor to the page. There wasn't even any discussion on the talk page about such a revamp. Admittedly, I see scores of information without proper citations on the old revisions, but that's what templates are for: any information that isn't verified can be removed. I'm not waiting around for someone who can't be bothered to finish their work; they can reverse the edit once they're actually DONE the prep work. Yet another fine example of donations to the Wikimedia Foundation flushed down the toilet.Thecleanerand (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

existing movie ?!

there was fan-movie , its web is discontinued , but someone probably have copy 194.160.215.10 (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Handheld series article titles

I've noticed some oddities in the way articles are titled for the handheld series:

• Mega Man II (1991 video game)
• Mega Man III (Game Boy)
• Mega Man IV (Game Boy)
• Mega Man V (Game Boy)

Despite them all being qualified with (inconsistent) disambiguations, all of these have redirects (Mega Man II, Mega Man III, Mega Man IV, and Mega Man V) from the unqualified titles, which seems to contradict site policies at WP:QUALIFIER. From my understanding of the policy, either Mega Man II, Mega Man III, Mega Man IV, and Mega Man V should become disambiguation pages if the titles are indeed ambiguous, or the articles on the Game Boy games should be moved over the unqualified titles if they're the WP:PRIMARYTOPICs as the current redirects suggest.

(Mega Man: Dr. Wily's Revenge is fine, no change needed.) HappyWith (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)