Talk:Resident Evil 2

Game Engine

Someone put "Quake" as the game engine, I chagned it to custom, until such time as it's properly researched, the right answer and cited, please do not change.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.205.44.2 (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

According to moddb, the engine would be Renderware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.228.210 (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a completely custom engine used throughout all the PlayStation iterations of this series. Renderwave did exist back in 1996, but it was a Windows exclusive. Not even the PC ports make usage of Renderwave bits, in fact all the RE games run in some sort of graphical emulation with increased internal resolution. --151.45.252.204 (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Weapons As Walking Canes - Sketchy and Subjectable

The characters, when in the "Danger" state, make no such use of their weapons as canes to help themselves along. The person who initially wrote that may be confusing the fact that while holding a weapon in that state, since the character's arm is doubled across their stomach and they limp so low to the ground, that it seems like they are using the weapon as a prop even though that is not the case, since the weapons can be de-equipped at any point and the characters still move the same in that state without them.

William brikin, in the sewers

In the article it says william birkin released the t-virus, but i remember it as being the g-virus, he injected himself, then smashed it, where it then leaked into a drain. Am i right?

i agree Birkin did release the G-Virus into the sewer NOT the T-Virus. as i remember it and i also checked the game to make sure, birkin injects the g-virus into himself after hes attacked by the umbrella soldiers and the soldiers take his G-Virus.Birkin while contaminated by the G-virus goes after them and kills them leaving Hunk alive. while the soldiers were attacked the G-virus containers fell to the floor and broke and leaked out the virus, the rats then ate the virus. someone who refuses to play the game keeps vandalizing the article and keeps putting that Birkin released the T-Virus instead of the G-Virus. this same IDIOT is now adding his personal comments in the article itself. Does anyone agree with us that it was the G-Vrius that william leaked? or was it the T-Virus? please put your ideas here thank you Dick Grayson 21:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I can understand the confusion, but the narrator in the "B" scenarios and just about every official source from Capcom refers to the events of the game as "T-Virus outbreak", NOT the G-Virus outbreak. Jonny2x4 04:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

oh ok thanks man for the information Dick Grayson 04:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Birkin put on his own body the G-virus in order to ger revenge (from Umbrella who sent soldiers to steal his work) and oufcourse in order save his life, but the MAIN outbreak was from T-VIRUS!!! More specificily from the original diaries, from res:nemesis the T-virus released by the UMBRELLA DISPOSAL FACILITY(last chapter from nemesis), where due to extreme increase of the infected bodies who needed disposal, the silos, where full. So those infected dead bodies just burried,or most of them thrown at the raccoon city sewage system. Due to this some workers appeared the first symptoms of T-VIRUS infection. Here i have some facts from Original Diaries: -After canceling their previous game due to illness, the Umbrella SEWAGE PLANT worker, Thomas, easily beats the R.P.D. night watchman at a game of chess. The watchman observes that Thomas does not look well, and that the Umbrella worker never ceases talking about food.

Also the outbreak didnt start from dr.Birkin, cause when he is mutated to an enormous infected beast, the city was already started to be 'on fire'.

Part of the Outbreak may have been caused by the Factory but the virus was also stated to have been spread by infected rats (some of the smashed vials after Birkin attakced clearly contained the T-Virus and we see some rats uhm "drinking" it i suppose you could say)who attacked civillians.--NobleServent2 20:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)NobleServent2

There was more than one Outbreak. The outbreak caused by Marcus had reached Raccoon, evident by the Raccoon General hospital files and the P-12A Incinerator Facility burning infected corpses. Birkins destruction of a t-virus capsule and the spread into the local drinking water supply merely made the citizens inevitable deaths a lot sooner.-- OsirisV (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Bravo team was sent in to investigate some grisly murders in the Arklay Mountains region outside of Raccoon City. These grisly murders were all because of T-Virus and the events were even before Ecliptic Express attack of Marcus and arrival of Hunk's team. As Albert Wesker mentioned in his first report "The freak murder incidents had occurred in the forest near the mansion started it all. The mansion was Umbrella's secret BOW laboratory and it was clear that the in development T-Virus was the cause of the murder." So we can say that there was something going on before the major events. As a result the mansion and the labratory have been destroyed by STARS long before the assasination of William Birkin and there was no outbreak yet. The suitcase you are talking about was including both G-Virus And T-Virus samples. Two different colours of tubes can be seen around the rats. G Sample's tube was purple for sure as we know from the game. This is explaining what green tubes are. T-Virus Samples. Sure thing the major event which triggers the outbreak is the underground facility attack and carrier rats.[1] SinanDC (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Official Sites

I've noticed that every "official" site in the External Links division leads to a foreign language alternative. Might I suggest leaving that to Wikipedia's Japanese alternatives and producing some outlets for our English readers? - AWF

We could just warn people what language it is before clicking on it.-- OsirisV (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Game.com Version

I was going to write something on this version, but I'm unsure if anyone is keeping it off of this site or not. It's pretty extensive otherwise. Thaddius 00:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I made the entry. --Thaddius 14:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

added details to the "Nintendo 64 version" section

I added a few details to the "Nintendo 64 version" section. I added the info inside the ###:

"Ported by Angel Studios and released in 1999, the Nintendo 64 version was produced primarily as a forerunner for the unreleased N64 version of Resident Evil 0. The N64 version was based on the original Resident Evil 2 and thus, does not contain the Extreme Battle mode. However, it does contain force feedback via the N64 Rumble Pak, ### a high-resolution graphics mode via the N64 Expansion Pak, full surround sound via Factor 5's MusyX (previously known as MOsys FX) sound drivers, ### and several exclusive additions not found in any of the later versions (including the Nintendo GameCube version):

First Person Controls...

Since the N64 uses cartridges instead of optical discs, several compression techniques had to be used in order to fit all of the game's voice acting and FMV sequences into a 64MB (512-Mbit) cartridge (for more details see September 2000 issue of Game Developer magazine). Because of this, there is a noticeable drop in quality in scenes and dialogue compared to the original PlayStation version and certain "duplicate" FMV scenes were also removed, resulting in continuity errors such as Leon and Claire getting off on the wrong side of the police car in the 2nd Scenario and Ada speaking to Annette in Claire's voice. ### Still, this was quite a feat for Angel Studios and the Nintendo 64. ### "

Popular community April fools joke

There was a popular april fools joke that circulated on the internet saying that if you beat the game with just using a handgun with one clip and a knife,you would unlock a secret character.I think the character's name was Akira.He was a giant sausage who would say "Sausage" whenever he shot. The Diablo article has a similar section about a fake secret.

Is this in any way related to the Tofu character? I've unlocked that guy in the N64 version. --Thaddius 15:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You are thinking of "Akuma" from the street fighter series. A magazine pulled an April fools day prank saying he was a hidden character, with soem time consuming requirements to unlock causing a lot of players to spend a ton of time trying it :) 75.129.96.93 (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It's actually called a magazine, not a clip. I just wanted to clear this up in case someone decided that this warranted inclusion in the article at some point in time. Bald Chihuahua

I'll put up a screenshot if I can to prove it if it is the tofu chracter. --Thaddius 16:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Here they are. I used an emulator and cheats to take these (hence the clock being stuck at '16' and the way Tofu stands out) but if you enter the GS code 800E10EF 0049 it will give you the 'Tofu Survivor' mode mentioned on the main page. [2] [3] [4] [5] He does say something like 'sausage' when attacked, but it's unclear. Hope this helps at all. --Thaddius 17:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Tofu is a normal unlockable mode in the original version of RE2. Similar to the Hunk scenario, except as a block of Tofu. 75.129.96.93 (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible Instances of Spoiler Content

Hello, I just registered moments ago. I have never personally altered any wiki content, and would prefer not to do so with my rather sloppy style I have been reading wiki articles for educational gain for nearly two years. I have played this game dozens of times, and know it backwords and forwards. However, as I was reading this article I found that in certain sections, such as the the character bios contain information that seems to be relevant enough to the plot to be spoilers. A prime example is in Ada Wongs description it directly indicates she is a spy, and gives her exact motives. Also the Hunk profile, also gives aways the entire FMV scene in which he is relevant. Which I can tell from experience from my play throught of the game plays a significant role in alluding to the plot at that point in the game.

I hope this is a valid discussion as it is my first, Thank You all for your hard work.

Regarding changes of RE 1.5 --> 2

The section mentioning the substitution of Elza Walker for Claire Redfield states that it made more sense. Yet, with the article's admission of retention of basic characteristics, plus Claire's relation to Chris making absolutely no difference in the story until Code: Veronica, I don't understand how this is the case. If anything, the change during development was done merely for the sake of doing it.

Reply: The reason for changing Elza to Claire was to give the game a further connection to the first one since no characters from the first game (save an unlockable Brad) actually appear in the game. Van Redd 17:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, Claire being Chris' brother is the reason she comes to Raccoon City in the first place. He has gone 'missing' and she is looking for him. She even finds his diary in the RPD and realises that some time after the events of RE1 he left the city to begin an investigation into Umbrella. At the end of Resident Evil 2 she declares that she still intends to look for him. Paper Butterfly (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Movie contest

Anyone remember back when RE2 was first released, int he back of the booklet they had a contest where the winner was given a walk-on, non-speaking role in the RE film? The entry form is included in the back of the Playstation, original RE2 instruction book. Does anyone have any information on what happened with the contest? Should this information be included in the article? --Jazz Remington 19:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I remember there being a similar contest in Nintendo Power for The Mask 2, which didn't realy happen until recently in the case of Son of the Mask, but there was also a cartoon series in between that. The point is, I think after all that time they either did not announce a winner, compensated the winner in some way, or simply sent them a letter saying they weren't going to be in the movie. It doesn't seem possible that they would sting along some kid for so many years... --Thaddius 04:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Son of the Mask: "The sequel, originally planned shortly after the first movie, even featured a contest in Nintendo Power magazine to win a small part in the film (it is unlikely this prize was honored so many years later)." This was pulled from that article. It seems the author came to the same conclusion I did. --Thaddius 04:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ada and Sherry Removed? Why?

I put Ada and Sherry back in the "playable characters" section, because they are infact playable and should be there.

-October 25, 2006 -MidnightClub

They're not playable in the traditional sense, in which you get to choose them like you do with Leon and Claire, but are only playable during key portions of the game. You could make an argument that Ada is unlockable in Extreme Battle, but still. Jonny2x4 17:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Plot

Normally, plot sections are too long. This one is waaaay too short. Somebody able to fix that (I have never played the game, so it won't be me). Ingolfson 21:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

- I wrote a quite detailed(not too detailed) summary of the two scenarios sets quite a while back but someone deleted it.Why?The summary present was and is woefully inadaquate.Playboyoreo (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

RPD INFO

RPD Page gone? What happened to the page that listed a bunch of the RPD officers and thier current status, along with the unit's history, vehicles and weapons? Could someone tell me what happened to it?

It got deleted. Geoff B (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Would it still be in the history because I want to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger02147 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

How far is it back in the History, I just want to see it, you don't have to put the section back-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.7.49 (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not in the history of this article, it was a separate article. Geoff B (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There is this, though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.T.A.R.S._Members_%28Resident_Evil%29 Geoff B (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks man, but there was a page linked in this one telling about all known RPD officers and the department.

Yes, that was the one that was deleted AFAIK. Geoff B (talk)

Just look it up at the Resident Evil Wiki. They have 3000 Biohazard-related articles. They have a page for EVERY character.OsirisV (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

BH2 for Wii?

on Evilresource.com I saw a "news update" saying there was to be a wii-ported version of BioHazard 2. the "evidence" is linked here.OsirisV (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

References via Wayback Machine

Haven't got a clue if this is allowed or not but I've done it for some of the reviews. E.g. http://psx.ign.com/reviews/504.html takes you to a 404, whereas http://web.archive.org/web/19990429091320/http://psx.ign.com/reviews/504.html takes you to the review. Thought this was better than just providing a non-working link and then having it and the content it sources removed. Advice?Mr T (Based) (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have done this several times, as the alternative is to remove the source, as I see it. It isn't ideal... but the world is what it is, rather than what we want it to be. sinneed (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Just as long as it's okay.Mr T (Based) (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

New and VERY LONG plot

This new section is not very well written and seems much too long. I am going to flag it for improvement. Or kill it. sinneed (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Not insulting the editor who wrote it, but it's poor. Far too long, it doesn't really summarise events but presents them in step-by-step fashion making it difficult to render down to a summary, and spelling, grammar and tone ("Just when things could not get worse", "not knowing that another battle was about to begin."etc) are lacking. I dunno what was wrong with the previous summary, apart from the fact that it didn't mention the ending.Mr T (Based) (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I attacked it with my editorial pruning shears, and Mr T corrected some of the errors introduced (mine or other editors... thank you Mr T). I have left it flagged for possible clean-up, and it could use some more sourcing. Any improvements are, of course, welcome. sinneed (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pruning it, what needs sourcing, the various plot events? Is the game not the source for those?Mr T (Based) (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

IGN a reliable source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#List. Geoff B (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Should there be more detailed information on Resident Evil 1.5?

Technically, it WAS Resident Evil 2 before being scrapped, and I think it is imperative we at least include a separate section for it if there won't be an article about it anytime soon. I think people would appreciate more information on it as I can assume that it is searched for often within Wikipedia, however, there is little information on it. Last Best Hope of Humanity (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There's actually a whole lot of information about this game in many websites including "BioFlames" and "The Horror Is Alive". Hopefully, I'll get around to making an extensive page about the game some time in the future. It could definitely use some acknowledgment here on Wiki. Keiji Dragon (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I know. I meant within the Wiki. Although I definitely agree that it deserves acknowledgment on Wikipedia of all places. I was surprised that there wasn't even a section within this article talking about it. Last Best Hope of Humanity (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The main problem has been the lack of reliable sources discussing it. Geoff B (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

" For example, Ohishi based Leon on his bloodhound"

lolwut? --Asperchu (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the sourced information in the article, please try pointing it out here, instead of just trying to remove it. Geoff B (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

NOT A DOG. --Asperchu (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The statement does not say Leon is a dog. Read it again, and pay a little more attention. Geoff B (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

How can one "base" a human character "on" a dog. Tell me. (In during mistranslation of a Japanese text.) --Asperchu (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hair colour, eye colour, mannerisms, facial expressions, etc etc. Why not work it out for yourself instead of having other editors do it for you? Geoff B (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Leon has facial expressions of a dog. That's interesting, tell me more. --Asperchu (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Basing human characters on pets or other animals is a common practice; cut back on the snarkiness. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT to me. I'm not going to tell you any more, Asperchu, I think you should work it out for yourself and stop being flippant. Geoff B (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I was going to ask about this, but you all explained it quite well. I think I took it a bit too literally. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Reference material

Since I noticed that this was up for GAN, I thought I'd mention that numerous print reviews for the game may be found in the Online print archive. They are as follows:

• Computer Games Magazine
• Electronic Gaming Monthly (Dreamcast)
• GameFan (N64)
• Game Informer (N64)
• Game Informer (PlayStation)
• Next Generation Magazine
• PC Gamer UK

I realize that you already have quite a few reviews in the Reception section, but a wider base of sources never hurts. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those. As you said, the reception section is pretty meaty already, but I'll see if I can find some additional tidbits to add from those. Prime Blue (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I just realized that I'd found a couple of previews, too. Here they are: Next Generation Magazine, Electronic Gaming Monthly. Hope they're useful. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Embedded lists

As pointed out before, indiscriminate lists of differences are not what a Wikipedia article is for. Also, as per the video game project's guidelines, lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts, as well as exhaustive version histories are not allowed. Beyond that, embedded lists are not appropriate here because they merely repeat what is already said in prose, the rest being trivial and/or unexplained information that leaves the reader oblivious to its meaning (cheats, technical details etc.). Some of the points added are not backed up by the references used, others use unreliable self-published sources such as GameFAQs contributions, or are not sourced at all. The graphic and sound quality of the individual versions is explained in great detail in the reception section. The version name of the PlayStation rerelease is spelled Dual Shock Ver. as seen on the game's title screen and box covers, and "many" already is a potential POV word, which is why it is to be avoided.

The only thing that could potentially make sense here is a table with ticks and crosses, but this would also require additional reliable sources to be provided for the individual features, as the content in an FA may not deduce anything from other parts of information. Unless more editors agree that such a table is vital to the article, the prose-only version remains as the one supported by the FA reviewers. Prime Blue (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The lists are not "indiscriminate"...they specifically reference the major changes between ports and provide users with factual information necessary to understand each port. The current way the ports are explained is extremely vague and just lets the reader know certain ports exist. This is not very encyclopedic. I again ask you to consider what the purpose of wikipedia is...it is to inform the reader with factual information in order for the reader to have a better understanding of the subject.

If you are absolutely opposed to lists, then will converting the lists into prose be acceptable to you? And why did you revert my change of structure (separating ports into their own sections)? Please explain why you don't like this method even though the other Resident Evil pages do have this exact same format. I would think I have a strong case here since the other pages use this method!

In conclusion, I've read both the indiscriminate lists and video game project's guidelines, but I don't see how my changes contradict any of this. Formatting issues we can discuss but continual reverting of changes that are clearly allowed on other Resident Evil pages seems counterproductive to the goals of Wikipedia. Brumbek (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

As explained in great detail above, there were far more than just formatting concerns to these edits – and if more regular editors were to join this discussion, they would state the same. The article currently addresses the most important added features between the individual ports without going into exhaustive and trivial details ("Infinite Ammo cheat", "Hunter cameo", FPS counts). I won't agree to repeating the same information in the article several times, or a split of the section into nine subs to separate the prose into interruptive paragraphs and short sentences. That said, most of the other Resident Evil articles are in very poor shape and are far from having experienced what is considered good editing around here. Prime Blue (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the lists. At least that's one step forward we can agree on. I'll have to disagree that this article previously address the "most important" features. I'll grant you infinite ammo cheat may seem trivial, although the Hunter cameo is important to many players, and the FPS the game runs at is extremely crucial to how smooth it plays so readers would be interested in knowing that, I know I am. Well, I'm not trying to cause trouble, I'm editing in good faith I assure you. Seems like every video game article I've read on Wikipedia has used separate sections for ports...I was certain this was standard. I did read in the proposed wiki rules that separating sections is superior to lumping it all together. Here's the issue: RE2's port history is complex. It deserves more than just a few short paragraphs that lump 9 ports together. Please view my changes I just made. I sincerely wonder if you believe my changes don't inform the reader more than before? It's not like space is an issue...seems like you might be putting form over substance since I don't know why multiple sections for ports is a bad thing...it sure improves readability since the user can immediately jump to the platform they care about. Sincerely, Brumbek (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Chiming in- I do not think the extra subsections of the ports is warranted. It gives far too much weight to many that provide little information. (1 or 2 sentences are not enough for a paragraph or section.) If the section is too small, then it should be merged with an appropriately similar one. Consolidation is the best course here because it allows for summary, which would reduce the amount of prose necessary.

The argument that readability is improved is only valid for those familiar with the topic. The layman is likely to have never heard of this game or some of the systems it is on. The extra sections seem to help gamers that curious about the differences. Other websites typically provide that information better than we do, and I see no reason to deviate from the encyclopedic guidelines we follow here. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC))

Still believe that Brumbek is a sockpuppet, all this happening right now is a little too convenient for my tastes. Anyway, two editors opposing already and the recent edits just re-added the same problems mentioned above (WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:GAMECRUFT, among others). Prime Blue (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Prime Blue: you probably don’t realize how ridiculous your conspiracy theory sounds to me since I know I’m a honest new editor trying to improve this page. I may be new here, but I believe I did read that assuming good faith was a key principle of Wikipedia? And I also read not to bite new users, particularly not to accuse them of ulterior motives and not to jargon-bomb them in revert summaries…

About my good faith, here’s my defense: my first change had words like “best” and no references which you objected to so I fixed all that. I still used lists, which you hated, so I removed them. I’m pretty clearly trying to work with you…although I’m not getting much from your side to work with.

Specifically, it’s very hard for me to learn when you keep throwing up terms and reverting everything. It seems hard for me to believe you truly feel not one single change I made was good…I assumed the edit process would involve you editing my edits…not reverting everything I do, even the error-correcting stuff (one example: where it implies PC is port of Dreamcast, which is backward).

I also don’t understand where my current edit contains POV or OR. I’m trying my best to avoid all that. Can you please tell me where the problems are? I noticed another user fixed some grammar in my edit but didn’t revert my changes, so it appears not EVERYONE is against my edits.

And again, you list GAMECRUFT. I re-read it. Which point is of concern? We clearly have different readings of these guidelines, so continuing to list it without clarification will lead nowhere.

I'll show great restraint by not immediately reverting your revert, but I'd appreciate a response to the above questions. Also, please see next section for more philosophical debate on releases and ports section, rather than a content debate like we're having above. Thank you. Brumbek (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

From the behavior, the time the account was registered and the other circumstances mentioned in the investigation, there was every reason to believe you are a sockpuppet of G-Zay. And there's only two disruptive editors involved in Resident Evil articles that would come into question otherwise, namely JohnRamirez and Asperchu. There is no other way than to use abbreviations in longer edit summaries, but it's not like the reasons were not explained to you on talk pages. Furthermore, it is hard to assume good faith when you engage on talk pages as a purported new user, yet keep reverting and reinstating the same mistakes that have been pointed out to you previously.

• explained that lists are inappropriate -> you reverted
  • Now removed Brumbek (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• explained that it's Dual Shock Ver. rather than DualShock Version -> you reverted
  • I missed this, my mistake Brumbek (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• explained that "many" is a potential POV word -> you reverted
  • I missed this, my mistake Brumbek (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• pointed out trivial in-universe information that does not mean anything to regular readers (e.g. Hunter cammo) -> you reverted
  • I still think Lore differences between versions are important, but I've removed it anyway Brumbek (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• pointed out that you should not add unreferenced or unexplained information (e.g. "Nightmare" mode) -> you reverted

There were so many problems with those edits, it would be hard for anyone other than a copy-editor not to revert, the bulk being:

• "and contained all the additions from the DualShock Version such as "Extreme Battle" and "Rookie" modes": unsourced
  • Added Gamespot source, I originally put source at the end of three sentences since it was the same for all, my mistake Brumbek (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• "It also includes new features such as "Gallery" mode for viewing unlockable illustrations & sketches, FMV movies, and 3D character models": not in source
  • Gamespot source says "PC version also has an exclusive new feature, an art and model gallery that..." - not good enough? Brumbek (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• "A "Nightmare" difficulty mode was also added that significantly reduces item pickups": unsourced
  • Still trying to find source, see my question below Brumbek (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• "Visually the PC version was improved": just offered higher resolution
  • This was a quote from Gamespot, but I hate the line anyway, removed Brumbek (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• "higher detail 3D character models were created": not true, not in source
  • It is true, main characters have higher poly models in PC, but granted I need a source Brumbek (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• "This version also features the secret characters and their missions unlocked immediately": not a significant version difference to regular readers
  • What are regular readers? People who randomly read wikipedia every day? This is an encylopedia. You look up articles of interest, so I have to disagree with you. I figured interest was assumed. Is this not a standard for Wikipedia? Brumbek (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• "The Dreamcast version also retains the higher detail 3D character models from the PC version": not true, not in source
  • You're wrong, 3d models of main characters are higher polygon count, added gamerevolution review source Brumbek (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• "and runs at a full 60 FPS for both gameplay and FMV movies": movies are 30 fps, rest not easily understandable as a significant new feature to the layman
  • Are you sure movies are 30 FPS? I'll admit I'm not positive, I'll trust you and change it, about understanding, Wikipedia says to write so a person who doesn't know the topic can understand it, i believe they can understand, although I've removed the upscaling part which I assume was your issue Brumbek (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• "This version does not include any of the previous new features of the DualShock Version ("Extreme Battle" and "Rookie" modes) and Windows PC version ("Gallery" and "Nightmare" modes)": not in source
  • Added source saying it's a port of original PSX release, this should cover the fact that it doesn't include newer ports' features, right? Brumbek (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• "the original PlayStation game being 2 650MB CDs"; not in source
  • added link to GS review which says on two CDs, although "650" removed Brumbek (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• "a cameo by Hunter": trivial in-universe information
  • removed Brumbek (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• "(twice that of the PlayStation 1 versions)": true, but not in source
  • alright removed, seems a shame to remove useful comparison info, but it seems dang impossible to find this source anywhere, although it can be proved true easily...run the game on any emulator in native res Brumbek (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• "is a relatively straight port of the DualShock Version": potential POV
  • original version says "straight port" which isn't true since it does change things, I've now removed "Straight" and just left port? Brumbek (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• graphics and sound quality changes already addressed in reception section
  • fair enough Brumbek (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• chronological order forces repeated statements on the reader ("includes new features" etc.)
  • but adds logic to the formatting, a worthwhile tradeoff, but we can discuss it Brumbek (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• sources shifted around in a way some statements were left unsourced ("served as the basis for the majority of ports, such as the Windows PC and Dreamcast releases")
  • the previous version also has this unsourced, it reads "served as the basis for the majority of ports...[goes on to Dreamcast] with no sourcing...so we either remove it all or source it, but my edit didn't do this...or am I mistaken? Brumbek (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• all paragraphs split up into one- or two-sentence paragraphs, which hurts readability of an article rather than improving it
  • I've combined many of these now, I think it's a good compromise, please let me know Brumbek (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

So if you think my edits are a problem, you should first prove that you're not a sockpuppet and then stick to the project's guidelines as well as community consensus rather than just trying to start an edit war – if anything, that'll make you less credible. Prime Blue (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the long list of details, seriously. I will address all those issues for my next edit. A very sincere question: it seems that I find the DualShock version is actually called "Dual Shock Edition". Not a big deal. Are you ok with changing it or am I mistaken? Anyway, I know I'm making mistakes in my edits...because I'm a new user. I don't need to defend myself because fortunately I reside in a nation that has the notion of innocent until proven guilty. Anyway, I guess this was all one big coincidence and unfortunate timing because I haven't a clue what you are talking about regarding those other users. So let's put all that aside (and hopefully you'll eventually you'll believe I'm a new user and you won't be so quick to call people sockpuppets). I'd ask you to treat me and my meager attempts at editing as genuine because I care about quality edits and still believe my edits add value to the page. Will you not at least concede the current page contains some poor wording like on the PC "lacking VMU support" despite it coming first (check release dates)? That is misleading or at worst, plain wrong. My point is my edits do have some value so I will continue to work on them. Let me know about the Dual Shock Edition question. Brumbek (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

PS, about Nightmare mode. It's very hard to find a reference since most old reviews have been purged except ones on the big sites. The feature is definitely in the versions. Another honest question, I thought using "citation needed" as enough but are you saying that unless a citation can be found, it can't ever be included? Gamefaqs lists it but I know you don't like that source. Is this something we can discuss? Just seems a shame to leave it out since it is a significant addition in my opinion. Thanks. Brumbek (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've put up my new version, this is not meant to be a hostile edit. I just want you to review it. I think I corrected everything above, except one or two places where citations are needed. But I believe I read adding "citation needed" as preferable to removing things that are factually true. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brumbek (talk • contribs) 04:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Chiming in again- I still don't think the subsections are the proper format because it gives each port undue weight. Even if other articles do the same thing, that is no indication of what is the correct way to do something. A subsection with a two sentence paragraph does not comply with our style guidelines and policies.

The only port that looks like there is enough weight for a separate section is the N64 version. All others received far less coverage and feature minute alterations. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC))

Your adding misleading sources that do not confirm what you want to include in the article makes things worse rather than better, and unsourced material can be removed on sight. GameFAQs and Biohaze are self-published sources and can not be used. But the fact that you're still forcing subsections on the article, complete with overly short paragraphs, poor style and the same phrases repeated over and over – that is despite reasonable opposition by two editors – speaks volumes about your agenda here. There is nothing substantial or supportable in these edits. As I said before, a table with ticks and crosses might be viable, but only if it's sourced and formatted well. Prime Blue (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, new edit up. I tried very hard to be minimalistic and cite every content change. Major change was to put PC in front of Dreamcast since Dreamcast should follow it. The current line said, "The PC-CD version titled Resident Evil 2 Platinum in North America is largely identical to the Dreamcast release, save for the lack of VMU support." This is backward. I added a few PC and Gamecube details (very brief with sources!). Anyway, can we all agree to these changes? This is enough for me, so hopefully we can put this to rest. Sorry for the trouble I've caused, but hopefully in the end one or two of my edits can actually make the article better despite my noob errors. Brumbek (talk) 06:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The line about the PC-CD version was not "certifiably wrong", it never stated in any way that the PC-CD version came later or was based off the Dreamcast release. I'll keep that order for now as I can already predict what would happen if I don't, but if any referencing or style concerns turn up, this will be reverted. There are no higher-quality models with more polygons in any of the subsequent versions, the files are the same in all releases and the source has got it wrong. The release dates for multi-region ports were intentionally left out because they only hurt the flow of the prose, make paragraphs overly repetitive, and unnecessarily complicate sentences with poor-style language. That's what infoboxes are for. Also deleted the same repeated statements about what features are included, and removed the GameCube passage with original research you've now added at least four times (I don't think issuing warnings would even make any sense, here). I just hope that this will stop now as editing really becomes a nuisance if it's merely about policing. Prime Blue (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Glad we can keep the order. The PC release was obviously done before the Dreamcast (see release dates). Saying the PC lacked VMU support is technically true, although very illogical since naturally an earlier port for a different system won't have features only available on a later system...Oh and I guess the Dual Shock version naming issue is unresolvable. The Jap version is "Dual Shock Ver." but the USA is Dual Shock Edition, although the in-game menu says verison. Oh well, who cares I suppose...And are you sure there are no higher-polygon models? Just curious where you are getting your info. But anyway, I can be mostly done here. I still think the article is lacking important info but I accept that it's better to have a small amount of info that's very verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brumbek (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Models are PLD files, which are exactly the same in the rereleases and ports. Prime Blue (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I'm done editing. I'll check back from time to time, but that probably won't be necessary since I doubt the ports section will be changed much judging from history. I'll move back to editing wikia game sites which are more my style. I've learned a lot and you've caused me to improve my editing so thanks, and again I apologize for the trouble. At least in the end the article was very slightly improved. You'll give me "very slightly improved", won't you? Please? :) Brumbek (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Releases and Ports – What is the Best Format?

Here I’d like to discuss the ideal format for the “releases and ports” section. I signed up recently to Wikipedia precisely because I was dismayed at how lacking the RE2 ports section was. I was used to other pages, like RE4 and RE1, which lists each port as its own heading, which I found extremely useful for quickly understand the history ports for each game.

First, I’ll note that RE2 has one of the most confusing and complicated port histories in all of gaming. So this topic can get messy, since the subject matter is messy. For this reason, I separated each port into its own section since nearly every port has distinctive traits not found in the others. I’m of the belief that headings and subheadings should break up content whenever possible to allow the reader to find what they want as fast as possible. A section for ports is great, but a section for each port is better so the user can skip ports the user has no interest in (just like any other article where a user wants to know some but not all information about a topic).

Wikipedia is not a guide. This is true. But Wikipedia should present information in a logically and orderly manner. The prior version of the ports section didn’t list ports in chronological order. I say chronological is the best since it informs the reader by its very formatting. That seems obvious and I doubt anyone would contest this point.

It has been pointed out that same ports don’t warrant their own sections. It’s true that some ports are not as important as others, based on whatever standards. For instance, the Game.com version of RE2, it isn’t even able to be played anymore to my knowledge and reviewers panned it and generally nobody cared about it. But to be neutral, it needs to be reported (and for the sake of completeness). So in the prior version, the user was forced to read about it in the prose since it wasn’t separated from the rest of the more important ports. In my version, it has its own heading and can easily be skipped. This seems like a good thing to me.

I looked up a bunch of random articles on Wikipedia to see if they broke topics down into small subsections. For instance, the Chemistry article has many subsections containing only a few sentences. Anyway, that’s just one example.

And what about those who read a section but later forget and have to come back to it? I find myself frequently coming back and re-reading Wikipedia pages. Well, say I read about the Dreamcast port, but want to re-read that section. In the prior “all one section” version, I’ll have to hunt for the Dreamcast sentences amid all the rest. This takes more time and effort than needed. In my version, I can browse to the RE2 page, and easily click on the Dreamcast port subheading at the top. Very nice.

So there are my thoughts. Sub-headings are our friends. They exist for a reason. If we don’t use them because of aesthetic concerns, I question if we are remaining true to the spirit of Wikipedia or letting rules get in the way of informing the reader. Forgive me if I haven’t discussed this properly, I am new here, despite prior rumors. ;) Brumbek (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Could someone use the "Adaptations and sequels" stuff in the characters' articles?

Especially in Ada Wong's, where I just made an empty section because the article was so short? --Barry Sandwich (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Contradictory book sources

According to the October 21 1996 videotape source, 1.5 was originally shown at the V-Jump festival in July. However, according to "RESEARCH ON BIOHAZARD 2 final edition", released 1998, the first view was at TGS 1996 in late summer/autumn, where the development was so early that they could only show a character outline fighting a horde of zombies in an otherwise black screen (no backgrounds had been finished). A transcript source can be found here.-- OsirisV (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Consistency issue

I've located an instance of prose being mixed with numericals in the lead: "a team of 40 to 50 people over the course of one year and nine months". I haven't checked if this is repeated in the main body of the article. For consistency, the article should use one of these two. Hula Hup (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Should we split off 1.5 into it's own article, in light of the leaked build?

I noticed that there hasn't really been an attempt to further update the information surrounding 1.5 section after the game finally leaked last year. Given that we have a fully playable build (or rather, what form of it being playable, anyways), we should be able to incorporate information from that version into it's own article, as for all intents and purposes, the game is it's own thing compared to what we know as Resident Evil 2 today. The only issue I see in giving it's own article, is I'm unsure how one would name the article. While it's been dubbed 1.5 by fans and the media (and to lesser degree, Capcom), I feel it wouldn't properly represent the name, since it was originally called Resident Evil 2. Could we perhaps call it "Resident Evil 2 (Prototype)"? I don't know, what do you guys think? Mendinso (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

If there's significant coverage beyond forums of people obssessed with an unreleased game from 1997. --Niemti (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

"RE2"

The usage of RE2 is under discussion, see the move request at talk:re2 -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Ramake

Someone is remaking the game on Unreal Engine 4. [6]

• @StarScream1007: I'm pinging you here since I've deleted the redirect to here. The problem is that this source states that the fan game stopped production and was never released. The question is ultimately whether or not this unmade game would warrant a mention on the main page. It received some coverage around July and August when it was announced, but not really much beyond that. I've no true problem with it being added, but I do think that it should be discussed first. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe the fan-remake was in-fact canceled. However, Capcom is Remaking Resident Evil 2 as of August 2015. A source released a few days ago reveled the game will be built from scratch:[7]. Capcom did poll fans about remaking RE2 after seeing the fan interest in RE2: Reborn.[8]. IMO, it's not really worth mentioning... there are probably other factors that lead to an official remake of RE2. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  14:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• That's kind of where I'm leaning to as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Resident Evil 2. 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://www.capcom.co.jp/newproducts/consumer/bio2/zapping.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=28624&tab=review
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.capcom.co.jp/newproducts/consumer/bio/bio.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.capcom.co.jp/newproducts/consumer/value/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=38453&tab=review
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5zvYkOJqB?url=http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/business/million.html to http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/business/million.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/Mobile/Resident%2BEvil%3A%2BUprising/review.asp?c=16741
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/resident-evil-5_0_7?page=2
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2009/11/16/game-informer-s-top-100-games-of-all-time-circa-issue-100.aspx?PostPageIndex=7
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=2261&tab=review
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=19932&tab=review

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Board game

Crazy as it sounds, Capcom want to create a board game based on RE2.PeterMan844 (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Source is incorrect

From the article:

These environments were created with a software program called O2, and each background took two to three weeks to render.

I can't find this "O2" rendering program, but The Retro Gamer blog thinks the source is mistaken confusing the SGI O2 workstation for Softimage 3.7. That source also notes 2-3 weeks × 1,250 images would take 70 years to render, suspecting it instead is the total rendering time. — Dispenser 14:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming Remake

Considering a remake of Resident Evil 2 has been revealed and is being developed, would it be a good idea to create a separate article for it in the future, prior to the remake's release date? I think it would be a good idea, unless anyone wishes to make a section for it, of course. GUtt01 (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It will need its own article sooner or later, but let's wait until there's enough information about it. Considering there's now quite a bit of gameplay footage, secondary sources will presumably begin covering it in some more depth soon. Popcornduff (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there's certainly noticeable differences between the original and the remake that definitely warrants a new article, in that respect. As can be witness in the gameplay footage, the game looks set to feature a totally different style of gameplay, and certainly looks to feature a difference in the plot mechanics - my assumption is that the story will be the same, but how the events unfold will be much different. GUtt01 (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

There is enough right now for its own section, but not its own article. How different the game is doesn't warrant a split, but how covered it is in media/sources. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It is now being referred to by Capcom though as a "re-imagining" and not so much a remake.Dutch pop music fan (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Marketing term. It shares the same name, lead characters, setting, and plot, so I'm not sure if this official designation changes anything. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yep, just a marketing term. Doesn't change how we describe it. Popcornduff (talk) 08:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I suspect there's probably enough material out there now to justify a full article, if anyone fancies making it. Popcornduff (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I've gone ahead and done it, but it requires an expansion. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Award

RE2 remake won the best of show at game critics award.

http://www.gamecriticsawards.com/winners.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.39.78.108 (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Good to know, but probably should be saved for the article that will be created for it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Added to the remake's article. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Resident Evil 1.5 is being made into a book

Therefore we can only say a book is being published therefore the text here explains what the book will say and will be removed since the owner is wiping other articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetechwizard21 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

What you're saying makes no sense. Why does a book being published about a topic mean that information on Wikipedia gets wiped? As long as this article isn't plagiarizing text from the book, which isn't possible because it was written before the book, there is no problem. TarkusAB^talk 15:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Huge history article

https://www.polygon.com/2019/1/21/18187446/resident-evil-2-history-capcom-hideki-kamiya TarkusAB^talk 21:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Rename Article to "Resident Evil (1998 video game)"

Since the original RE and RE remake Wikipedia articles includes the year of release in the article title as well as the RE2 remake article, this article should be renamed for consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ki113r2073 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, this page is the primary topic for the phrase "Resident Evil 2", and so per policy, the name should be applied to this page. The reason the original Resident Evil has "(1996 video game)" in the title is because the series as a whole is the primary topic for the phrase "Resident Evil". Multiple pages cannot share the same name.TarkusAB^talk 20:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Source

• https://web.archive.org/web/20000608162444/http://headline.gamespot.com/news/98_01/29_retwo/index.html

Split proposal for Resident Evil 1.5

The prototype is a notable cancelled game in its own right, and there are numerous fully fledged articles on it. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] The fact that there is now a playable version makes it even more relevant. It's basically a totally alternate game that was ditched and rebuilt by fans. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

This might be a good idea, but I'd need to see we could generate enough good content for a standalone article first. Would you consider making a draft article? Popcornfud (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually I think the best thing to do would be to keep expanding the current coverage in the RE2 article until it just becomes so fit to bursting with top-quality sourced content that there case for the split is clear. I think there's probably enough juicy source coverage to do this. Popcornfud (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

The entire point of this discussion was so that I didn't spend hours making a draft article or expanding the current section, just for consensus to emerge that it should be pared down or not split off.

The proof is in the pudding that a very lengthy article can be made. It's obviously evident from the vast array of sources, and even a book I did not specifically mention here. I just want to garner consensus that an article should be made so that it's safe to move forward expanding it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The proof is in the pudding that a very lengthy article can be made.

Er… I think it’s the one other way round! There’s no pudding yet — you’re proposing we make the pudding to prove it.

Speaking for myself, I have done it the other way round many times, with success — build up a section with more and more good content, until it’s obviously too big for the article and then I make the call to split it out. This is how I created the Unreleased Half-Life games article, for example. If the content is good (by which I mean due, well sourced, etc) in the first place then it's hard for anyone to come along and demand it be removed.

Anyway, I don’t object if you want to do it the other way round (make the article first and then fill it up). But I think it’s actually slightly higher risk, because if we don’t end up with enough good content to justify it after the fact we may be one day looking at a merge discussion.

TLDR, it's probably fine and you’ve probably got enough raw ingredients here to make it work. I can see it working as a separate article. No objections from me, the above is all just a suggestion about how to minimize risk. Popcornfud (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with Popcornfud here on all points; I imagine it would work as a separate article, but think it's better to expand the existing section until it's good and ready for that, but also think there would most likely be no problems if you took it to a standalone article now and expanded it later. Martin IIIa (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Reviews

Backstab #10 8.37.179.254 (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

References