Talk:Soulcalibur

Why the freak does the Edge Master page now brings me to this page?

I realized that somebody has deleted the edge master article and have the search leads to the soul article? So can please somebody make the article again. I understand why someone would mistaken the Edge Master as a title of a soul series and redirect his page to this article, but in reality, he is a key character in one of the soul calibur games.--76.202.62.128 (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

He fails notability; there wasn't enough discussion over the years for him as a character by third party citable sources. If you can prove otherwise, feel free to do so. "Edge Master" in itself is used by more than one character too if the side mode in SC2 is any indication, thus the redirect here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Project Soul

Who or what is "Project Soul" anyways? We have a link to their website, but are they a sub-group of Namco or something? As far as I can tell, they're the guys who made the Soul series. 75.157.91.151 (talk) 04:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is this the Soul series?

The series has used Soul Calibur for every game except the original Soul Edge, including the recent spin-off. While it may have been intended to be the Soul series, I think it's clear that it's now the Soul Calibur series. - 24.108.81.35 (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Until they retcon Soul Edge (not happening), it will be considered the 'Soul' series. 65.215.10.1 (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, with the recent speculation that this is the last game in the series, it's very possible (and probable, considering the endings in SCIV) that they will reinvent the series once again, much like they did 10 years ago. 65.215.10.1 (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Is it really necessary for most of the characters in the series to have their own articles? I mean, most of them, such as Algol and Olcadan only appeared in one game, and barely have any real-world info on them. Even the Japanese Wikipedia (note that Japan is the series' country of origin) is efficient enough to cover all the characters with a single list. I propose at this point that we merge most (or all) of the characters into a Playable characters in the Soul series article. It sounds like a fair enough deal, so how about it? I await your responses. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that the Japanese do not favor the Soul Calibur series one bit. Most fighting series that have lasted for more than 2 incarnations have detailed pages on each of their characters, and Soul Calibur certainly fits the bill. Just combining the series staples onto one page would create an absurdly large entry. As it stands, they are better off seperate. The main problem is that most of the articles have NOT been gone over with a fine tooth comb, leaving many of them to look extremely barren (Algol's), amatuer-esque (Voldo's), ect. If you're proposing this as a solution to make the Soul entries seem more streamlined, I would suggest actually putting some effort into a good portion of the character entries. 65.215.10.1 (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As a point of further reference, take a look at Stephen King. A good 90% of the articles that exist are barely even stubs, yet there is indeed an entry for each and every book and short story he has written. My point being, the characters in the Soul series have much more detailed pages, so aside from my aforementioned suggestions, better to leave well enough alone. 65.215.10.1 (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As we are dealing with video game-related articles, your argument about Stephen King is highly irrelevant. The problem we are discussing here is that the articles for the Soul characters are made up entirely of in-universe and game guide material, and have little to no real-world information (such as character creation and reception) to sustain them. So unless you can find such information around the internet to justify each character's notability, I'll soon have to consult the more experienced video game editors about the merger. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I really don't care about the number of pages. Right now these pages are nice and clean. Just look at the Sonic pages. They are a huge mess, and the drive to merge is even messier. Right now, it would just be better if we just merged the main characters of Chronicles of the Sword, and moved them to their own character list. I have to agree that a list of every playable character would be just absurdly long and not worth the trouble trying to implement.74.193.217.60 (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been tinkering around with Charade's and Ivy's a little, and I think I can make somewhat decent articles out of the two (Charade's "ability" to appear as separate monsters in multiple pieces ends up putting it above similar characters in terms of content to discuss). As it stands though many of these artices are pretty much rubbish: there's no need for stage discussions, detailing the critical finishers or endings or series appearances in their own sections of the articles, the plots should be much smaller and cited thoroughly, some gameplay and appearance discussion tossed in, etc. These aren't good articles by any means in their current shape.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is necessary, the main reason, characters like Tira and Lizardman who may have not appeared in every game need a spot due to their long bios, Algol and Olcadan maybe even Edge Master may not include being Main because of them being in one game but we can't be sure because they have extended backstories and just because they don't appear in the past 5 games doesn't mean they should be merged into articles. Also, articles don't even tell anything than a one paragraph bio and a short list of abilities, for these characters the background stories extend to the stages they are playable on to any relation to any character and even a list of their own personal information. Merging them will make one sloppy list of worthless outer material instead of focusing on the entire character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HakuxTemari (talk • contribs) 03:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, games a character appear in should be covered in the context of the article. These are supposed to be articles, not bios. Take a look at some of these where it actually only talks about the character involved for one third of the actual biography and the rest is fluff. Knowing where the characters fight ends up pretty irrelevant in itself when you consider the point it's been dragged out to here, especially since these descriptions are of the arenas themselves direct from the game and have no relation to the character in the long run.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Going over the merge proposals, Amy (Soul Calibur), Cassandra (Soul Calibur), Charade (Soul Calibur), Hilde (Soul Calibur), Lizardman (Soul Calibur), Necrid, Raphael (Soul Calibur), Setsuka, Tira (Soul Calibur), Zasalamel, wow what a mouthful, should all be workable as articles and achieve notability so objecting to those merges. The others are doubtable that they can go anywhere. Beyond that though a really heavy cleanup is a must.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Every single characters should definitely be merged at this point, though the minor character list should just be cleaned up, reformatted, and renamed instead of a new article being created. Either that or each character can just redirect to their game of origin, and the games can just cover the plots. Either way, I can't imagine any of these characters actually establishing any sort of notability. TTN (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Here we go with the asinine "merge everything" ethic again, eh? Anyway, we could find some real world information for Nightmare, and maybe a few other characters. Other than that, I think merging the least important characters (IE Tira) should work out at this rate. How about we do the same to the Tekken characters, too? ZeroGiga (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Tira seems like she should have enough to discuss her in a real world context actually. Amy however I'm not so sure of, but it's too soon after people are really hitting up SC4 to fully say (she does have some minor reception bits), but if hers fails redirecting it to Raphael might be the best bet given even her ending is just built around his. Arthur should be best off merged with Mitsurugi as a design element, with a minimal mention of his background. I'm going ahead and merge Olcadan as it doesn't to be going anywhere beyond where it is now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a citable article on how to play say Cassandra. This appears to be an article on amy.Geni 21:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think all the main cast that is in 4 should have their own articles, but all other characters can be grouped under "Minor Characters" or whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.136.244 (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering both Street Fighter and Dead or Alive allow all their characters to get individual articles, I don't see why these should be merged. Perhaps instead it would be better to get some consistancy in there. Most the Soul series characters' articles are laid out different to each others. If you just settled on a single format for the characters, it wouldn't be so bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.180.153 (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I totally disagree with merging the character articles. The list of minor characters is already such a mess that only few dare to even touch it in order to sort it out (myself being one of the few). This type of merger has been put through previously, and it was soon reverted because the informative value of the page was plain zero, almost equal to just a list of names. SamSandy (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well there's no denying though that the articles need stuff to count for notability too. Right now playing hell trying to find stuff for Rock, Hwang or Lizardman, which is a little disappointing. Other characters like Ivy on the other hand end up with tons. Really there needs to be some organized effort to get reception info into the articles at the very least.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

For now we should focus on cleaning up all of the articles instead of merging them because some of them actually have enough nobility, even if barely. Once we find as much real world info as possible, and clean the articles up, we will be able to properly decide which characters to merge. Also, if you can cite some of the trivia, it should be mentioned, just not under trivia.--Sanji_1990 (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As it stands there needs to be some sort of organized effort.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A huge amount of information has been lost during this silly merging of articles. For example, Amy has been redirected to Raphael, but none of her information is there. Can somebody fix this? I'm not very versed on the intricacies of Wikipedia, so I don't know how to retrieve old articles... SamSandy (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As it stands enough digging around turned up one additional reference that could be used for Amy, and since the masses seem to be wondering where the article went, it seems plausible some conversation for reception and design should exist. Rock's article, the actual bulk being his story, is still on the Minor chars page for now: I just didn't find anything talking about the guy one way or another in anything o_O'--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I agree, Rock, appears to be very minor now, even though he appeared in almost all the soul games, the developers just keep on making random storyline/endings for him (I mean very side-quest idea). Also, it seems Hwang and Li Long are also very minor characters too for they lack storyline in SCIII. And to add with that, Lizardman (Aeon Calcos), a very, non-understandable creature doesn't even need an individual article. His background story is just the most important in his article I presume.--JCD ^(Talk) 07:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Lizardman *might* make it, I've run across a few things for him. I've merged Hwang and Li Long though.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Critical Finishers

Is it really necessary to add an unreferenced section like that to every friggin SC4 character article and insist it stay there? Can't even remove the section without some anon adding it back at this point.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that those sections need to go. Likewise, most of the Stages sections need to go, and probably the Weapons sections, unless there's something vital, in which case it should be covered where appropriate and not in a separate section. Pagrashtak 23:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, here is where the Critical Finisher discussion is. I just added it to Amy's *discussion* page but maybe I should have found it here first. I agree these Critical Finisher additions border on being vandalism and need to go. I am neutral about the Stages sections, don't care either way. Probably too in-depth for Wikipedia especially since characters might have different Stages in different Soul Calibur games. The weapons info I think deserves to stay though (if anyone bothers to post the relevant info correctly, I wouldn't bother with it myself). The weapons tend to stay the same from game-to-game, and are a part of each characters Profile (in each Soul Calibur game) just as much as their background Profile story is. Soul Calibur is also a weapons-based fighter and most fighters who use weapons treasure them like a part of their soul. :) WikiPorc (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm not saying remove the weapons entirely, just they could be discussed better in the actual design rather than with independent sections and in a lot more compact manner.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Necrid

Been tidying up this article (and taking the talk here because I think it'd be dead on his own article), but I noticed something. Both IGN's coverage on him in their "stars" section and McFarlane's own toy for him use his secondary masked outfit, which would indicate it being the more common look for the character. Anyone opposed if I switch it to that in the article?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd get a warmer reception if you offered to just delete his page :D. 65.215.10.1 (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That was not helpful at all. Actually he does have some extent of reception, and even bad reception can count towards notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images

Does each game here need it's own title art shown? It seems a bit overkill.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not in such a small space, but if it doesn't appear here it should certainly show up in the main article for each game, if only on the box art. --Lord Knightcon (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Character Article Re-write

I’ve been a fan of the Soul series ever since the first Soul Edge; so much of a fan in fact that I have a copy of the original console release of every game in the series. I have also noticed the atrocious state of the character articles for this game which I feel is significant affront to the series. I’m considering a massive rewrite of them, from top to bottom.

Yes, all of them.

This rewrite will retain the information already present, mostly focusing on the organization of it into something more easily reference-able. I considered the layout carefully, which I am hoping could provide consistent structure across all characters pages. I realize that each particular section will be enormous for some characters and sparse for others, but consistency between the articles structure was my most important concern.

My proposed layout is as follows:

1. The introduction:
This will remain much as it appears now. A paragraph or two that gives the characters full name, when they first appeared, what games they appeared in, and a one or two sentence summary of their motivations. I want to include the destined battles here as well because I feel they are important, since they tend to stress important character relations.

2. Concept and design:
Fairly self-explanatory I think.

3. Plot summary:
Here will follow the bulk of the article for most characters. This section will describe as briefly as possible the actions each character took during the course of the series, divided into subheadings for which game the actions occurred in. The biggest complaint for these sections seems to be lack of consistency in length and no citations. The game itself is the source of nearly all information regarding the characters actions, so the information is self-citing, and they will be written accordingly. As for length I don’t think there is anything to be done about it. Certain characters accomplish more, story-wise, in certain games than others, and in a given game certain characters don’t do much of anything at all.

4. Epilogues:
The vast majority of epilogues are irrelevant to the overall plot. However they do provide certain information regarding the character not covered anywhere else, and the ones that follow the story are very relevant. For the sake of consistency, if we are going to include epilogues for even one character then they should be included for all characters.

5. Fighting Style:
There two subheadings in this section for Discipline and Weapon. The Discipline heading is a paragraph or two discusses the characters’ listed fighting style in an in-universe context, with real-world references put in a later heading. I find the Weapon heading necessary as for many characters their weapon is a huge part of them, with a story almost as important as the character itself. The Weapon subheading is further divided into headings for each standard weapon the character wielded and which titles they used them. The entry will consist of a brief physical description of the weapon and any known in-game information regarding its origins. This section will also include a few sentences describing any extra weapons the characters had across other titles.

6. Gameplay:
Possibly the most hotly debated entry in the article. The largest complaint for exclusion I’ve seen is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference source, and should not be used as a strategy guide, which I agree with. However, I feel an entry should be included since when discussing a character in a fighting video game there must be relevant connections to the game system itself, not just the story behind the game. To that end, I also feel it is possible to write the entry such that it is acceptable to reference material standards. The distinction comes from describing how the character plays and not how to play the character. In other words, the focus is on the look of the character’s style while maintaining a neutral point of view. This is also the section where characters discipline can be discussed in real-world context, noting any external influences into their movements and animations.

7. Promotion and Reception:
Contains all information relevant to the original introduction of the character and the critical response from the community. While I feel this section is important, I also feel that an undue level of importance is being place on it, such that if there is insufficient information here then the character is deemed "not notable" enough to have their own page, stating that real-world references are what make that distinction.
I would very respectfully ask the wikipedia community to strongly reconsider decisions regarding a characters notability based solely on the community's reaction to that character.
Just because people don't talk about a character doesn't mean they are unimportant to the game.

...Thoughts?--Lord Knightcon (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"Yes, all of them."

Yeah that's where I wanted to stop reading. We've a few to B and C status, one to GA pushing A, and you want to overhaul them and include cruft like an ending? Please look around a little better.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well at least you're keeping an open mind about this. I did look at what was left of the character articles not only a disturbing amount of disinformation (though for me any amount is a disturbing amount), but in many cases I was stunned at the lack of information regarding the character in the context of the game they are from. This is in addition to the lack of consistent structure and organization (which is one of your biggest concerns according to the above discussion). What information is there is in some cases copied word for word from the game itself.

The only consistent factor about the remaining pages is that they have something in the Promotion and Reception heading, however sparse it may be. I'm not looking to step on toes here by removing...well, anything. The in-universe information is my real concern, as is adding real-world signifigance to the character in categories other than reception.

I'm also not terribly hung up on the layout. If epilogues are a big problem for you then we leave them out. Simple. I'm just hoping to see a layout, anything, as long as it's consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Knightcon (talk • contribs) 14:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Soul Series Discography?

While looking at the pages for the OST's for the games, I have noticed that there is very little information about them. The composers and the track listing is stated, and a couple have a paragraph above. I think that more information should be added, or the pages be combined into a page called 'The Soul Series Discography' or something like that. If they are combined, it could start with an opening paragraph summarising the page, a bit about what the series is, a link to the 'soul series' page, etc. then a bit about each OST (in chronological order, of course) Each could include a paragraph about the soundtrack, track listing, composer(s), etc. I know these are just OST's but if we are going to include them, we should at least put a bit of effort in. Xanthic-Ztk (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

request for comment at fighting game

A few editors have been working on the fighting game article. Although it is not meant to be an exhaustive compilation of every fighting game, let alone every variation on a fighting game, we'd appreciate some comments at talk:fighting game to tell us if there are any huge errors or omissions. Randomran (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

How is that Taki has no article, but (for example) Talim has?

Taki is easily one of the most well-known and popular characters in the series (from I guess some obvious reasons).

Let's see:

• Taki was in all Soul Calibur games (including of the few in Legends) AND in Namco x Capcom (chosen to represent SC along with Mitsurugi - and he has no article too!).
  • Talim was NOT in Soul Edge, Soul Calibur, Legends (and of course not NxC).
• Taki is important for the storyline (won the Soul Edge/defeated Cervantes, for example).
  • Talim is not quite.
• Taki is one of the most recognisable SC characters.
  • Talim is not quite, also a semi recent addition (only since the third game).

Popularity test check:

• taki soul calibur 4,970,000 hits
  • talim soul calibur 56,800 hits (almost 100 TIMES less)

Of course Taki had at least as much reception, and actually much more (and from the obvious reasons, too - yeah, sex appeal and breasts size and stuff).

This is simply ridicalous.

Also, Soul Calibur and SCII were NOT called "Soulcalibur" - this (one word and not two) changed only with the fourth game. I think your renaming of them after Soulcalibur III was released was as stupid like of you changed Soul Edge to "Souledge" too. --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I never had heard Talim before when I played Soul Blade nor have I ever had fans talk about her. Also we need an article for Mitsirugi as he as well is a main character. --Victory93 (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Talim has out-of-universe information, which is critical for character to have its own article. Apparently Taki doesn't have enough of it. --Mika1h (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

soul calibur five

I was looking at the chart for SC 5 the other day and it said Sophitia would not be in this game but now it says unknown iI for 1 thinks she will be in it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.213.20 (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

the character section should be restructured

a single section with major characters and a single section with minor characters. that will make it easier to find a list of major characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.86.142 (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What About Cassandra in Soul Calibur V?

Cassandra was confirmed for Soul Calibur V. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.84.45 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Copy edit

RuthLivingstone (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

is a cosplay pic useful here?

Tira from Soulcalibur V cosplay

Do you think images of cosplays inspired by Soul-series characters are relevant and useful here? Here's Tira from Soulcalibur V, if you think it adds value to this article. Cogiati (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Project Soul logo

The page still displays the logo used in SCV as the current logo. Actually, the current logo was switched to the original one featuring Nightmare. It was used for SCIIHDO, Lost Swords and is the picture for SC's official twitter page. That is the picture that should be used instead.

Proof:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76NxqWjf7Dc
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpfHummn1qk
• https://twitter.com/hoshino_calibur

Cue The Corruption (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

List of voice actors in this series

Someone needs information on every single voice actor in the Soul franchise. There should be an article covering cast members in this series in both English and Japanese. Homechallenge55 (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

No cast lists, see WP:VGSCOPE. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 15 August 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Soulcalibur (series) per nom. No such user (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Soul (series) → Soulcalibur (series) – All other games in the series are called "Soulcalibur" except the first game. In total it's 9 games called "Soulcalibur" versus 1 game not called "Soulcalibur". Mika1h (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, you should move that article, because I couldn't do it last time. 31.52.4.146 (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support per nom. I can't think of anything else that needs to be said. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Soulcalibur (series). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216041135/http://uk.games.ign.com/objects/943/943662.html to http://uk.games.ign.com/objects/943/943662.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080917051618/http://www.thx.com/home/games/search.html to http://www.thx.com/home/games/search.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927204827/http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3149724 to http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3149724
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130103083022/http://m.uk.ign.com/articles/496345 to http://m.uk.ign.com/articles/496345

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) 06:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 19 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as unopposed. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Zawl 08:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

---

• Soulcalibur (series) → Soulcalibur
• Soulcalibur → Soulcalibur (video game)

After this page was moved, there was no reason to keep the (series) disambiguation. As a very long running and lengthy series, there is more of a chance that people who search Soulcalibur are looking for some game in the series other than the first one. Also per typical VG series precedent. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Screenshots used in the article

Hi, Zahari Baharov. May you please explain the additions of the screenshots, which are already used at their own articles? How do those screenshots improve understanding of the series? Thanks. George Ho (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Historical fantasy ala Alternate history

After seeing some edit warring (over several years apparently) can it be stated that the background here is alternate history or, as the article puts it, historical fantasy?

There's been edit warring at Cassandra Alexandra and Sophitia and who knows where else over the incomprehensible combination of classical-style Greek names and

|birthplace=Athens, Ottoman Empire (present-day Greece)

|nationality=Ottoman Greek

Can someone point to where it says that - in the game universe - these characters are from when the Ottoman empire ruled these Greek areas? Otherwise people will keep 'fixing' articles to be "Athens, Greece" and so forth.

It would be great to state what the 'correct' version of the infobox data is for each of these characters, and put that in the talk page for the articles, so you can point contrary editors to that explanation. Shenme (talk) 09:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a pseudohistorical fantasy. Here you go, for example: http://www.soularchive.jp/SC4/character/sophitia/index.html ("オスマントルコ帝国"). Btw the (fantasy) Ottomans are the initial enemy in SC Legends. Think of the Ottomans and the world and the overral "realism" like in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen or Tirant lo Blanch (a 15th-century proto-fantasy story, where the article calls it "a precursor of the present-day genre of alternate history", so yeah if you wish) or János Vitéz. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)