Talk:Fire Emblem Fates

Boxart

Normally we don't use two non-free boxart images for different versions of a game in a single article - see Pokémon Red and Blue, for instance. Exceptions are when there's something notable to write about the cover itself, for instance in Catherine or Ōkami, but I don't see that being the case here. So, yeah... basically, we'll have to remove one of the covers - I dunno which one of them we'd use, though. Once Nintendo releases an image of the boxart for the edition that includes all three "paths" of the game, we could probably use that, but for now we have to come up with something else. Thoughts? --IDV^talk 06:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, what you say is correct according to policy. I have no idea which one to use though, since both are rather different, and so far, it doesn't seem like there's any inequality between them. (It's not like one is the "main story" and the others are just a "side story" or DLC. Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

How was Pokémon Red's cover chosen as that article's image? Maybe the same method of choosing one could be applied to this article as well? Σούπερμαν/Super-man (talk!) 16:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI, whoever changed the image made a good choice - that image captures both perfectly in one image. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be me. Yeah, I was stoked to find that image, it's perfect.--IDV^talk 07:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 and IDV:, I need to restart this discussion due to new factors. As you probably both know, this game has three official storylines, even though only two of those exist as physical releases. The image used now is not only for the Japanese version, but for the downloadable version of the two physical releases. No representation exists of the third story path, which is just as important as the others. I have a suggestion: use just the game's English logo (the text "Fire Emblem Fates" such as can be seen on its own here and as part of the game's Nintendo page here). To show the characters properly, official artwork of the main cast can be used, obtainable from this page/associated gallery via official releases from Nintendo. I remember something similar happening for Final Fantasy XI, which uses just the official logo due to multiple add-on releases. I see this working in a similar way for this game. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I suppose your reasoning in the current one's shortcomings are correct, though I really don't think using a text-only logo really alleviates that at all. It kind of defeats the purpose of having an image at all - its generally a pretty poor representation of that game unless the typeset/font somehow really stands out. At least the Final Fantasy XI logo has some of the series trademark artwork with the text logo. I'm open to suggestions though, as I don't really have a solution. Ideally, Nintendo will release some sort of cover, in English, that represents the game's entirety, when we get closer to its Western release... Sergecross73 msg me 20:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't there a limited physical release that included all three scenarios? Can we just use the cover of that? If not, I honestly don't think it's that big of a deal to just keep this cover until an English localized cover gets revealed.--IDV^talk 22:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

New spoilers coming from Nintendo

Nintendo, a few days ago mentioned in a video about choosing sides in the game- Specifically mentioning one side will be like the loyal to family versus your kingdom, and another side would be loyal to your kingdom versus your family. A choice made would effect how the story progresses. If someone could confirm what I remember from this video being true, is there any way we can grammatically fit this in the article? Tanner Ghosen (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Article title

Just realized that Nintendo's writing the game's title with a lowercase "i" in "if". We do, too, in the actual article, while the article's title is written with an uppercase "I". Is one of them more preferable on Wikipedia? Either way, it'd be nice if we were consistent. --IDV^talk 21:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Capital "I" is correct with English, but from what I've gathered, capitalization rules are different with Japanese. (I don't know anything about Japanese personally, but it came up with the Tales (series) games in the past, where the "of" is lower case in English, but upper case in the Japanese equivalent game, in games like Tales of Hearts, for example.) I don't know which way is correct here, but I'm fine with whatever. I'm hoping Nintendo will announce an official English title for the game soon (maybe E3?), as I doubt they'll use this as the final name in English language territories, and then this will be a non-issue. Sergecross73 msg me 02:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Logo

Hi, I traced the logo into a *.svg and uploaded it.

How should it be used in the article? Σούπερμαν/Super-man (talk!) 15:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I mean, I like it because it's actually in English...but I think the current image is a better representation of the game. I'm open to suggestions. Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Looking good, but like Sergecross, I don't think it would be useful in this article at this point since we already have a cover image. You should upload it to Commons, though - the other language edition of Wikipedia that I edit, svwp, doesn't allow locally uploaded files, so it would be pretty nice to have an svg of the logo on Commons. Another thing you could do is to upload just the "Fire Emblem" portion of it to Commons - right now this exists, but it's a png and only locally uploaded, so yours would be superior. --IDV^talk 23:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Gameplay section

Compared to the section in the Fire Emblem Awakening article, the Gameplay section here is simply not up to scratch. It mainly covers the points that are introduced in Fates or carried over from Awakening; and it does so without much of a structure. For example, the first paragraph starts with the "weapon triangle", not the core gameplay. This is primarily why I posted the template message to reorganize this section. —017Bluefield (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

That's not really a layout problem. It's more about the content. So I don't think the organize tag is necessary, an expand section tag would be more appropriate. The game was only just released (in one territory), so naturally the section will read better once the details are fleshed out. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Expansion would be good, though its not really fair to directly compare it to Awakening when one has been out for several years and is currently at GA status, and the other has been a out a week in Japan, and is at least half a year away from release in any other regions... Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I suppose you're correct about that. —017Bluefield (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I dont think this has enough to be lgbt related

I just dont think this game has enough lgbt related content to be tagged. both characters arent very relevant to the story and shara is a child character that wont appear unless you marry off a certain character. lgbt characters are present in a large amount of fire emblem games such as heather in radiant dawn and various game contain marriage with members of the same sex but these are not tagged lgbt related such as fable ii and skyrim V. i also think is appropriate to mention that same sex couples cannot have child units, i tried to add and cite but it got deleted, eh :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.246.226 (talk)

A game can "become LGBT related" (for WP's purposes, anyway) despite not actually being about LGBT stuff, depending on how it's treated in media. The inclusion of same-sex marriage in the game was reported on quite a bit, wasn't it? --IDV^talk 09:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a problem either. If you look at the ones that are tagged, you'll see there's a bunch of games that aren't heavily involved in LGBT themes, like Persona 4 or Metal Gear Solid 2. Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

frozen was reported quite well to have lgbt parallels ( a quick search turned up 70+ articles relating to the subject) but the general concensus was that it needed to contain lgbt characters as part of the main plot to be tagged as such, looking at the category description the same seems to apply here as well. zero and syalla dont contibute to the plot, also its possible depending on your gender and version to have no same sex options avalible. a quick look and nearly all the tagged pages had lgbt characters as part of the main plot. last of us had ellie, persona 2 has jun, and gta bogt has, well gay tony. the characters played a much larger role than the lgbt characters in the FE series so far, and i dont know much about MGS, but persona 4 was most ABSOLUTLEY heavily involved in lgbt themes, two main characters, a male and female, both struggle with their sexual orientation and gender identity as part of the MAIN plot. fallout, fable, and elder scrolls recieved plenty of news attention back when they were released due to Same sex relations/marriage but are not tagged lgbt related i believe because no queer characters played a large role in the story aside from sidequests. if we were to tag EVERY article that includes even minor lgbt characters it would just be a mess. also i still think we should mention that SS marriages cannot have child units. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.246.226 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage is present, and marriage is a fundamental part of the game. Any number of third party sources have covered it. So the category applies. There is no requirement for it to be a fundamental part of the game's overall plot. Sergecross73 msg me 03:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT-related_video_games states games that feature lgbt as part of the plot. also did a quick search on MGS and one of the more prominent characters is a gay man, so it should be tagged as such, same with persona 4. Marriage and children are an important part of the fable and elder scrolls series, but both arent tagged as such because they dont fit the category of featuring lgbt as part of the plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.246.226 (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The marriage aspect plays rolls in the overall plot and gameplay though. You're getting into pretty subjective territory if you're arguing its "not prominent enough". That's usually why Wikipedia falls back on going with what can be verified by reliable sources. Anyways, we've made our stances be known. Let's see if there's any other input to see if there can be a clearer consensus on this. Sergecross73 msg me 15:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

n if you're arguing lgbt category should be included because of ONE ssm option, its seem pretty arbitrary that fable, elderscrolls V, and ffxiv are not tagged as those have DOZENS of options.I feel this category is not needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.6.49 (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Were there any discussions about actively not having the category in these example articlesof yours? If not, then it's not a good example really - it could just mean no one ever got around to doing it. Or it could have even been wrongfully removed. Sergecross73 msg me 22:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

None of the verified sources say marriage plays a part in the plot. It just says that its there. The category description says features lgbt as part of the plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.7.228 (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Objectively wrong. Very long articles by reliable sources have explained how same sex marriage plays out different in different plot routes on the game. Sergecross73 msg me 00:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Same sex marriages still have no affect on the main plot the articles says nothing regarding it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.7.228 (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

If its a story segment in the game, then its part of the plot. A smaller part, but a part nonetheless. Sergecross73 msg me 14:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing is mentioned in the article about it contributing to the plot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.7.64 (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Marriage aspects are story-based. Story is part of the plot. There's no logical alternative argument saying otherwise. Sergecross73 msg me 02:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Marriage has no affect on the story. Especially same sex marriage. Opposite sex marriage opens additional support options while this is inaccessible to SSM because they can't have children. Plus, this feature is completely optional and its possible to have a play through depending on what version, to have NO ssm options at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.7.64 (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Its completely irrelevant whether or not its optional. I think you're misunderstanding the reference of it needing to be "plot-based". What it means is, the content is supposed to be scripted, as in, a scenario made specifically by the game's creators. Opposed to a completely user-generated scenario, like players having 2 male World of Warcraft characters love each other or something. Its not meant to create some sort of subjective requirement of how much of an effect it has on an overarching plotline... Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

hmm...is there a requirement saying how relevant the character must be to the plot? like in persona 3 there was a lesbian girl who was a really minor character npc. Anyway im kinda split on this, and if thats the case, i think category: incest]should also be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loominginterval4545 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

No, there's no such requirement. Do you have a source for the incestual content? Sergecross73 msg me 02:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

apparently you can marry your adopted and real siblings http://nintendonews.com/2015/06/fire-emblem-fates-dialogue-stripping-touching/ and https://ladygeekgirl.wordpress.com/2015/07/02/does-fates-have-a-cruel-future-in-store-for-lgbtq-fans/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loominginterval4545 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Not only do those not meet the requirements of a reliable source, but they don't even show that incest is happening - no sexual acts are being done by family members (as far as I can tell from the sources given, at least, which again, aren't reliable.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

you can s rank and have a kid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.246.226 (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source? Sergecross73 msg me 15:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

No one has reported on it because its been overshadowed by the same sex marriage reveals but playthroughs on youtube clearly show you can marry your adopted and real siblings, heres an example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61c8_OwGRxE and also its turns out aqua is your cousin as well and you can marry her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.246.226 (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia only goes by what is verified by reliable sources. If sources don't find it noteworthy to cover, neither do we. Sergecross73 msg me 16:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

like someone already posted its possible to gave a play through with no SSM options at all. Fire emblem has tons of lgbt characters, do you think those should be tagged lgbt category as well? Not to mention the female avatar is canon for nohr and the male is canon for hoshido. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.86.242 (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

1. Avoiding the SSM options in the game does not make a game devoid of SSM content, so that doesn't matter whether or not one can avoid the elements in the game.
2. The category in question is called "LGBT-related video games", so no, this particular category wouldn't make sense for a character. I don't see any Fire Emblem characters with their own article, let alone any LGBT ones, so I don't see how your example would be applied in any capacity... Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I think what he's trying to point out is that awakening and radient dawn have lgbt character, while you said lgbt needs to be part of the plot so why aren't those lgbt tagged?Loominginterval4545 (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

If you can find reliable, third party sources discussing the importance of LGBT elements for the Awakening or Radiant, then the category could be considered. If you can't, then no. Sergecross73 msg me 00:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

as a matter of fact there are multiple sources for those characters, like in this example http://www.gamingbus.com/2012/06/21/glbt-history-in-video-games-2000s-part-two/ . I should also point out that same sex marriage is the norm for games that feature marriage, if they dont then this happens http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27321200[Special:Contributions/66.25.246.226|66.25.246.226]] (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2015

"Gamingbus" is not a reliable source. See this for a list of sources that are acceptable. Whether or not it is "the norm" is irrelevant to whether or not the category applies. Sergecross73 msg me 23:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

i dont get why that wont be a reliable source but heres another where its mentioned http://attackofthefanboy.com/news/same-sex-marriage-now-an-official-option-for-fire-emblem-fates/ so youre just going to apply the tag to every game that features marriage? that really clunky. Its ONE option out of around 20, plus you cant have children units. and depending on your gender there is no ssm options at all. The options here are so limited I dont see the purpose of a tag. 27321200[Special:Contributions/66.25.246.226|66.25.246.226]] (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2015

Gaming bus is most definitely a reliable source. Please sign edits with 4 ~ please!Loominginterval4545 (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying it necessarily should be added to these other article, I'm saying it could be, and its not a valid reason to keep it off of this article. Please read how Wikipedia defines a reliable source and "other stuff exists". It shows why your sources aren't usuable, and why you examples are irrelevant and invalid unless you've got links to discussions that explains where/why policy-based decisions were made. If you can't link to any discussions, then you could just be linking to areas where mistakes are being made. Sergecross73 msg me 00:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

66.25.246.226 gave two reliable sources, Aotf is most certainly a reliable source. You said theres no requirement on how relevant the character needs to be to the plot, i think we both can agree how easily abused that could be. Could a minor one time npc who mentions their sexuality cause for a game to tagged lgbt related? Loominginterval4545 (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

You've made like 20 edits all-time - you don't seem to understand how Wikipedia defines reliability. Read the "about us" page for "Gaming Bus". It's just a random guy and his wife. No credentials. No authority other than being a fan. It easily and clearly fails WP:RS and WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 00:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Attack of the fanboy? plus you didnt answer my other question. Loominginterval4545 (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, please explain to me how Attack of the Fanboy meets Wikipedias definition of a reliable source. Let's start there. Then, explain to me how that is somehow a reason why it would prevent using the LGTB category on this article, being mindful of WP:OSE. Sergecross73 msg me 00:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

They are a video game news a review site much like IGN. why wouldn't they be a reliable source? Ive seen plenty of people source AotFB. I think you've got me confused with the other guy. Im just saying AotFB IS a reliable source. Let me repost what I said "You said theres no requirement on how relevant the character needs to be to the plot, i think we both can agree how easily abused that could be. Could a minor one time npc who mentions their sexuality cause for a game to tagged lgbt related? Loominginterval4545 (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm tired of explaining why you and these IPs are wrong when none of you can provide a valid policy based reason backing your stance on why you're right. You still haven't explained why these sources are reliable, you just keep saying "Well sure, why not?" That's not a reason. Then you keep proposing these irrelevant scenarios. It doesn't matter. We go by what sources say. Countless sources had articles focused solely on same-sex marriage. So the category applies. This is not the place to discuss the category and the many ways to apply it to all these other games. For that, go to the category's talk page. We are only discussing Fates and the category here. And countless sources support its inclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 01:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Attack of the fanboy meets the requirements for a reliable source, heck even metacritic uses them http://www.metacritic.com/publication/attack-of-the-fanboy. Im not here to debate Attack of the fanboy RS , but reading the above posts you said as long as SSM is scripted in the game code it should be tagged lgbt related right? well thats not what the category description says. Its says features LGBT characters as part of the plot. I kinda have to agree with the above posts. Shara is a completely optional character and contributes nothing to the plot. The sources state SSM IS scripted in the game but the description says it NEEDS to be part of the plot. Lets compare Mass effect here. FemShepard could have a SS relationship with that alien chick (forget her name :/) The alien chick is bisexual and was an important character in the plot, hence the lgbt tag. In Dragon age and Skyrim you could have a SS relationship with ANY character in your party. That makes the characters in the game bisexual and an important character in the plot. Same with Fable. If the characters contribute nothing to the plot I dont see the relevance in this tag. Anyway take your time to respond im gonna be out until tuesday. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Loominginterval4545 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 27 July 2015

You seem to be operating on the premise that optional story content doesn't count? I don't follow this line of reasoning. Sources discuss it being part of the scripted story. That is enough. And again, your examples are meaningless if you cant show any proof of discussion that led to these results. Just because you find something somewhere doesn't make it right. By your logic, if someone tagged Sonic the Hedgehog with a "games with dinosaur protagonists" category, and no one noticed, and then you observed it one day, it must be true. just because it's there or absent at a random article doesn't make it necessarily right. Sergecross73 msg me 02:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is going in circles by the minute, and I suspect more people might become harassed by pro-LGBT people trying to impose the category onto people. The consensus stated that they do not want the category, so I request that everybody just accept the consensus and drop the subject before somebody escalates this into a personal attack against somebody.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Chris

"Consensus" means nothing if the majority's argument doesn't have a basis in Wikipedia policy. There's been no harassment, and doesn't seem like there will be either, so I dunno what you mean by that, unless you're just trying to shut down discussion that isn't in favor of "your side" (if that's not what you are doing, I apologize for assuming so). Besides, there isn't really a majority here - there are two IPs, but they seem to be the same person(?) and there's Looming Interval. On the other hand, there's me and Sergecross, whose argument is based in WP policy and has reliable sources supporting it.--IDV^talk 21:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly this. I'm also puzzled by the harrassment comment. Neither side has shown any form of discussion that has been out of line in the least. You'll also note that I have no agenda related to LGBT, and none of my edits outside of this discussion are related to it. (Ironically, let it be known that LoyalMoonie was WP:CANVASSED by an IP, likely because they saw him want to remove a similar category elsewhere. Canvassing is not allowed.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Since I spoke up in the RfC I'll disclose that I don't feel one way or the other about advocating for LGBT rights, at least as far as it's worth discussing here. My reasoning is just common sense and WP policy. If there's LGBT aspects in a game, such as a same-sex relationship between characters that RSes are writing considerably about, then it's related to LGBT, that just... makes sense, doesn't it. And this is just talking on a category level, not even on actual article content level, the former of which the average reader is not even going to care about unless they usually navigate WP through more than the searchbar, which I'd (perhaps naively) assume is rare. I, personally, can't remember ever using or even knowing cats existed when I was just a casual reader who knew nothing of WP behind-the-scenes, but that's just me. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 15:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of the "LGBT-related video games" category on this page

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to include the category. The majority opinion for the most part is that it is mentioned in reliable sources and easily verifiable. AlbinoFerret 00:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

---

This RfC is relevant to the issue above, but it needs to be separate due to both its nature and the fact that the above conversation has become unproductive. There has been some contention over whether to include the category "LGBT-related video games". This is the first title in the Fire Emblem series to feature the option to foster a same-sex romance between your player character and a different character. These sources have a more detailed description of both the character options and the original interview with Nintendo that revealed this information. Regardless of any media controversy present due to interpretations of the relationship options via translations of Japanese version, two or more editors (see above) feel that due to the optional nature of the romances, the category should be removed. They seem to have yet to give satisfactory reasons related to relevance on the cite or Wikipedia policies for the category's removal. Please voice your Support or Opposition to its inclusion below, or have sensible Discussion about the issue. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Support

• If you, as the player, can foster a romance with a character of the same sex, then this game certainly belongs in the category. In a similar manner to the Mass Effect games, it features LGBT characters as part of the plot, so I support the inclusion of the category. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 09:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support - An endless number of sources detail this as an important aspect of the game's plot and gameplay. Below are all sources that dedicated entire articles about the aspect - all reliable per consensus at WP:VG/S.

1. http://www.polygon.com/2015/6/23/8836513/fire-emblem-fates-same-sex-relationships-nintendo
2. http://www.engadget.com/2015/06/24/nintendo-fire-emblem-same-sex-marriage/
3. http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/06/24/new-fire-emblem-will-introduce-same-sex-marriage
4. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-06-24-fire-emblem-fates-is-the-first-nintendo-game-to-allow-same-sex-marriage
5. http://www.vg247.com/2015/06/24/fire-emblem-fates-will-allow-same-sex-marriage/
6. http://www.technologytell.com/gaming/149686/fire-emblem-fates-will-feature-sex-marriage/

And plenty more, just to show its not a fringe viewpoint. Also keep in mind, all that this is about is a tiny little category tagged to the bottom of the article, so its not like there's any WP:UNDUE issues here either. Sergecross73 msg me 10:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support - per Rhain and Serge. If there's a playable character same-sex relationship in the game, it qualifies as related to LGBT and thus for the category. Even if the character may not be a major player in the narrative, using that as a reason to exclude a category, not even coverage in the article, seems like straw-grasping; it's absolutely something that RSes are picking up on en masse of late and as such, it at least deserves the category for now, if not a bit of space in the actual article once the game is released and/or further reported on. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 13:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support - per Rhain, Sergecross, and BlusterBlaster... I don't really have anything to add that hasn't been said already, but yeah.--IDV^talk 13:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Gay themes are expressly mentioned and sourced in the prose... Not convinced by any of the oppose rationales. In fact, I'm having trouble seeing the contention, especially considering how this category is used in other articles. – czar 05:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Agree with Serge and Bluster, it's enough to be included. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Because this categorization is plausible per reliable sources, and although it remains very arguable, there is no harm whatsoever in adding the debatable category. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Rhain, Sergecross73 and Salvidrim's reasonings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support. If sources have highlighted gay themes, then it seems uncontroversial to add the category. In this article, there's also discussion of a controversial storyline. Good enough for me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose - this is a very minor feature, the choices are limited, and depending on the version there is NO ssm options at all. Ok, so since there is two ninjas in here, should we classify this as ninja related video games? 208.54.86.253 (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• That's not a good example. If many reliable, third party sources were reporting on the importance of ninjas in the game, and there's some sort of "Ninjas in video games" category in existence, then yes, that category probably should be added. We go by what reliable sources cover and say, not subjective claims of "No, I don't think its important or prevalent enough". Many reliable sources can verify the importance of this category. Please cite something in regards to policy or category implementation, not these subjective opinions and bad analogies. Sergecross73 msg me 18:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

well actually.. http://www.rpgfan.com/news/2015/3394.html 208.54.86.253 (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Great, but that's still not a valid reason against including the LGBT category. All you've done is make a point in favor for adding the Ninja category. Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Now that you mention it... ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 18:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

wow I laughed didn't know we actually had a ninja category :) 208.54.86.253 (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

if the lgbt characters aren't significant enough to be mentioned in the plot section its not lgbt themed 172.56.7.18 (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

That is yet another personal opinion that is not based on any sort of policy or established precedent, but rather a personal judgement call. Also, even ignoring that shortcoming, there's again the fact that it could very well be added to the plot section the future. This article is still in its early stages, and still hasn't been released in a number of major regions of the world. (Like North America and Europe). Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

the category description SPECIFICALLY says part of the plot. If the characters aren't revelant enough to be discussed in the plot section, its not lgbt related. 172.56.7.212 (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It is part of the plot though. It could be added, which would render this rationale useless. Sergecross73 msg me 22:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

if it could be added, add it. But as it stands lgbt characters are not part of the plot. 208.54.86.144 (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. It's not like, if the Wikipedia article doesn't mention it , it ceases to be part of the plot. Again, we go by what third party sources say. Many sources back its inclusion. We don't write articles according to what Wikipedia says. That would cause all sorts of problems. Sergecross73 msg me 00:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose take frozen for example, hundreds of articles came out saying it parraells lgbt themes, so should we include that in the articles? This logic is kinda flawed. Loominginterval4545 (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC) — Loominginterval4545 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• There is a distinct difference between allusion and actual inclusion in a work. Frozen alludes, while Fates includes. By the way, opposes should be in the above section. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• This is another very poor example. The Frozen is just about interpretation. Fates contains it, and have been overtly mentioned as such by its creator, Nintendo. Not even close to the same. Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Sure, why shouldn't Frozen have that cat? Just because Article X doesn't have the thing, that doesn't mean it shouldn't, and it also doesn't mean that Article X's lack of the thing should be justification for Article Y not to have the thing. ...Boy, ain't that a long pipe. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 19:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I also agree that Frozen is not a good example because this work has a canonical LGTB couple who,e Frozen does not. There may be valid reasons not to include the category but Frozen not having it is not one of them.--67.68.31.200 (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose not much to add i agree with the comments above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.246.226 (talk • contribs) — 67.68.31.200 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That doesn't really work or make sense when the other "opposes" are both invalid due to not being policy based, and are debunked conceptually. Please be aware that this is not a vote. Sergecross73 msg me 00:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

there is no "main" lgbt themes in the game. THe same sex relationship mechanic is not canon. 66.25.246.226 (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is dictated by the content from reliable sources, not "what is canon" or arbitrary standards based on personal viewpoints. Sergecross73 msg me 01:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, that sounds a lot like shifting the goalposts at this point-- it doesn't need to be a main theme to deserve the category. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 12:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose my gripe about this is that the category description specifically states features lgbt characters as part of the plot. The plot doesn't mention any lgbt characters, if the characters arent significant enough to be mention in the plot then its not related. We need to find a way to fit those characters in the plot if we want this category, either that or change the categorydescription to "games that features lgbt characters and general lgbt game play elements" or something along that line. Banpena25 (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC) — Banpena25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The problem their is that the text about plot was user edited by the person that originally created the category. The way a I see it is if there is a dipsute between user edited text on Wikipedia and several reliable sources we should not overule the reliable sources based on User edited content. In other words Wikipeida should not be used as a source for something especially if reliable sources say otherwise.--67.68.162.187 (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The category description specifically states for it to be part of the plot. Its not "overriding anything" and neither is it being used as a source. I dont think anyone on the opposing side is against that same sex marriage information to be included in the article.. it just makes sense to include it given its presence in the media. The category on the other hand was created specifically as lgbt characters as part of the plot, and if the characters aren't important enough to be mentioned in the articles plot, it just makes sense to remove it until sources describe its relevance to the narrative. 66.25.246.226 (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring a lot of already pointed out issues, this stance doesn't fly because there's no standing consensus saying that the Same-sex marriage parts can't be part of the plot. No one has discussed it either way, it merely isn't present currently. If you worked on that sort of logic, you'd be unable to add virtually anything to the article. You'd be stuck on the premise of "Well, it's not in there yet, so it's obviously not allowed, so we can't add it." That's all this "oppose" stance is. Sergecross73 msg me 03:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

If its not in there, it should be excluded until it is. I dont think youre understanding my argument, were taking about categorys here, not actual text used in the article. Look at the other categorys that require it to be part of the plot, such as invasions in fiction, it fits because invasion is in the plot section, while the mentioned lgbt characters do not. Banpena25 (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I just spot checked 2 examples - Fear Effect 2: Retro Helix and Persona 4 - neither mention it on their plot sections at all. This category isn't being implements like this. Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

i havent checked fear effect yet, but persona 4 plot mentions kanji and naoto who are most definitely lgbt characters. EDIT: just did a check on fear effect and there isnt even any reliable sources for anything lgbt related on that page, and there is absolutely no lgbt themes discussed in the article either. 66.25.246.226 (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

other games in this category, such as mass effect and dragon age, include the bisexual characters in the plot section. that doesnt apply here. 66.25.246.226 (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

And as I pointed out, many don't. This isn't a criteria for the category. Besides the fact that, again, it boils down to source coverage, note the category says part of the plot, not plot section. Sergecross73 msg me 00:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they do. The ones that dont are very Poorly sourced. take Fear Effect 2: Retro Helix and State of Decay for example, there is nothing lgbt related ANYWHERE in the article and in the sources. These need to be removed until they are properly sourced. 66.25.246.226 (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Persona 4 has a plot section that doesn't mention a single LGBT theme, and it's a Featured Article. Please, let's stop this, there's just too many holes in this theory... Sergecross73 msg me 01:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you're forgetting that the plot features extensive coverage of kanji and Naoto, who are lgbt characters. Thus, lgbt characters are prominent to the plot. Banpena25 (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't think you're actually reading the plot section very closely. There's really only brief mentions of them directly in the plot section, and nothing about their sexuality at all. Which makes sense - games like Persona 4 and Fire Emblem Fates, have massive storylines, yet on Wikipedia we still have to adhere to MOS:PLOT, which basically says to keep plot sections pretty brief. But just because the overview has to be kept brief, doesn't mean that elements of the plot cease to exist if not mentioned in the Wikipedia article. That's why its still typically included as long as sources can verify its still a prominent part of the game, which can be done here. Sergecross73 msg me 14:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

just because there is gay/bisexual/trans people doesnt automatically issue a lgbt category, they need to have prominence in the storyline, [This] is a pretty good example. Banpena25 (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

i think your misunderstanding, im not talking lgbt themes need to be mentioned specifically in the plot, im saying as long as lgbt CHARACTERS are mentioned in the plot it could be tagged as lgbt themed, as in persona 4 two lgbt characters are featured in the plot section while none of them are mentioned in this game. 66.25.246.226 (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

If all you require is passively throwing a few names in there, then that's even easier of a thing to fix. That's an even lower barrier to entry. Sergecross73 msg me 14:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

not really, since plot sections need to be short and describe only the important aspects of the story. 66.25.246.226 (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Okay, so I've got a question for any or all of the Oppose !voters at this point; Can any of you give any specific, Wikipedia policy-based rationale for why you don't want the category-- that isn't based on your own opinion, or that another article doesn't have it (when it could, in theory, if it were discussed with its editors on the relevant TP), or so on? We can't base editing decisions on personal opinion at the end of the day. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 12:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

lgbt themes are not prominent in the plot take [| this] as an example. just because there is one minor lgbt character doesnt automatically warrant an lgbt tag. Banpena25 (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

So your theory is that all these big mainstream websites are dedicating entire articles to a minor aspect of a jrpg. No way. The volume of sources override your opinion that it's not an important aspect. Sergecross73 msg me 14:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Do souces state it as an important aspect of the game? Banpena25 (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they do. Try reading some I have listed. They dedicate entire articles about it. They talk about the shifting attitudes about it from a Japanese company that once shunned it. Another editor shared a source about a controversy that came from one of the related plot lines. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

On a separate note, I added the "not a vote" tag because I supect some socks and SPAs. A number of the opposes somehow had their first edits be this RFC, which is always suspicious. Many the IPs have had very few edits at all, and seemed to be used interchangably in the discussion that lead to this RFC. Pretty obvious stuff, but I just wanted to throw it out there for the closer. Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2015

The invisble history dlc is an important part of the game's plot. It should at the very least have a topic embedded in the article 177.40.27.141 (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: It's not clear what you want changed. You say "Invisible history" but I believe you mean the third downloadable content, "Invisible Kingdom", which is clearly integrated throughout the article. -- ferret (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I meant the dlc that happens before the events of all three games, which explain how the characters from awakening ended there, the backstory of hydra/anakos,etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.96.91.26 (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You've got to be more specific in what story info content you'd hypothetically want to add... Sergecross73 msg me 03:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a prologue of sorts to all three games, revealing important stuff about the main characters of the game. Look, just search up the web. You'll see that i'm right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.251.115.141 (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that, in these requests, you're supposed to say, much more literally, "I want to change X information to Y information", not "Somebody write a plot summary for me". Additionally, you'll see that there will be a lot more people working on the plot information once the game is released in English. Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2015

Append the following to the end of the "Release" section:

To promote the game, the Avatar of Fates, under the name Corrin, will be added as a playable character via downloadable content to Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U in February 2016. 136.181.195.25 (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Datbubblegumdoe^It's_2016? 23:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2016

Title song name is incorrectly Romanised into "if ~ hitori omuo" rather than "if ~ hitori omou", the verb omo-u meaning to think/consider. 198.53.205.129 (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Done --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 21:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2016

Change the following under the "Release" section, as the character is being released today (tomorrow in Europe):

To promote the game, the Avatar of Fates, under the name Corrin, will bewas added as a playable character via downloadable content to Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U in February 2016.

136.181.195.25 (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Done --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 15:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2016

The gameplay section links to Character class twice within a few lines. HeroKingMarth (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks.--IDV^talk 18:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Do the review scores really point toward critical acclaim?

I see in the article that its being met with widespread critical acclaim, yet the score on metacritic for both versions are 89 and 87 respectively, those are fairly good reviews, but i don't think it translate to widespread critical acclaim, at best its highly positive. 66.25.246.226 (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2016

Soeli is bisexual, she can have s rank supports with only men. 66.25.246.226 (talk)  Not done - Your desired change, and rationale for it, is unclear. Please provide sources as well. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2016

68.106.91.143 (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC) In the reception area the meta critic scores and numbers of reviews needs to be updated. Also in the sentence after that it ends with the word "fellows" and it doesn't make much sense in context, and while I wanted to touch it up; i have to write the request.

Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fire Emblem Fates/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cognissonance (talk · contribs) 02:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Waiting so long must be a bitch. Cognissonance (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• "The gameplay, which focuses around" — Simplify: "The gameplay, which revolves around".

Gameplay

Battle system

• top-down perspective — Link to Top-down perspective
• third-person view — Link to Virtual camera system#Third-person view
• "members of each kingdoms' royal family" — Fix punctuation: "members of each kingdom's royal family".
• "special map tiles that enables them" — Fix grammar: "special map tiles that enable them".
• "with swords and magic beating axes and bows, axes and bows beating lances and hidden weapons, and lances and hidden weapons beating swords and magic" — Minimize repetition by replacing "beating" with "defeating", "besting" and "overpowering".
• online multiplayer — Link to Multiplayer video game
• matches can be carried out with selected players — Improve prose: "matches can be carried out with select players".

Development

• "The game was co-developed" — Minimize repetition: "It was co-developed".
• "an alternative activity for players, and provide a means" — Improve prose: "an alternative activity for players to provide a means".
• "map designing became a larger task that initially anticipated" — Fix grammar: "map designing became a larger task than initially anticipated".
• "main character to marry a character of the same sex is included" — Past tense consistency: "main character to marry a character of the same sex was included".
• "kingdoms were themed after different cultures: Hoshido was themed after Japan" — Minimize repetition: "kingdoms were based upon different cultures: Hoshido was themed after Japan".
• "The Hoshido characters' clothing were based around Japanese culture" — Improve prose: "The Hoshido characters' clothing were influenced by Japanese culture".
• "dark fantasy was used to emphasize" — Minimize repetition: "dark fantasy was used to highlight".

Scenario

• "raising the game's price to that equivalent to" Fix grammar: "raising the game's price to the equivalent of".
• "which would have been unfair to people who only wanted to play one version" — WP:POV: "which would not benefit people who wanted to play one single version".
• "so the full summary for Birthright extended to about 500 pages as a result" — Improve prose (as a result is not needed when so is used as a conjunction): "and thus the full summary for Birthright extended to about 500 pages".
• "Much of the character traits for the royals" — Minimize repetition: "A great deal of the character traits for the royals".
• "One of the principle writers" — Fix grammar: "One of the principal writers".

Release

• "both received a physical release on June 25, 2015 in Japan, and was announced for a" — Fix grammar: "both received a physical release on June 25, 2015 in Japan, which was announced for a". (Referring to physical release.)
• Nintendo (source 51) does not link to the accurate site.

Reception

• "Carter found Revelation a good middle ground" — Minimize repetition: "Carter considered Revelation to be a good middle ground".

Sales

• "Shortly after pre-orders for the special edition were announced, it sold out within a day. After complaints from fans" — Minimize repetition: "Shortly after pre-orders for the special edition were announced, it sold out within a day. Following complaints from fans".
• "Kibayashi reported via his Twitter announce that" — Improve prose: "Kibayashi reported via his Twitter that".
• "current best-selling video game in Amazon Japan" — Fix grammar: "current best-selling video game on Amazon Japan".
• "Birthright and Conquest came in at" — Minimize repetition: "Birthright and Conquest reached".
• "As of March 31, 2016, the physical versions have sold" — Past tense consistency: "As of March 31, 2016, the physical versions had sold".

Overall

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall: The issues I have with the article are minor and easy to fix.

   Pass/Fail:

   @ProtoDrake: Cognissonance (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cognissonance: I've done my best to sort out all the points above. The Nintendo AU reference is dead for some reason, and I've adjusted it accordingly. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

(My first stub version of the article I created linked "top down perspective". I hadn't noticed when someone must have removed it over time... Sergecross73 msg me 16:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC) )

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Pass/Fail:

   @ProtoDrake: よくできました. Cognissonance (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Fan translation additions

This content keeps getting re-added to the article. There's multiple issues here:

1. Half of it is unsourced.
2. The other half is sourced to a fansite's message board. Fansites never meet Wikipedias standards for being a usable source, and doubly so when it's just from their message boards, which violates WP:USERG.
3. None of it is important anyways. It does not matter when a fan translation fizzled out or who took over. It wasn't even closed to finished, and there was never particularly a need for a fan translation in the first place because there was little doubt it would receive an official translation.

Please stop re-adding it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Note for the future: Both editors refused to engage, edit warred, and ended up getting blocked for WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. Sergecross73 msg me 20:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Characters of Fire Emblem Fates merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Proposing a merge of Characters of Fire Emblem Fates into this article. Fire Emblem Fates already has a section covering key characters, and the list, outside of a few main characters, only has a few additional side characters not currently covered in the parent. The bulk of the Characters article is largely plucking information covering the game as a whole and splitting it off. For example, the latter two paragraphs of its reception section are just developmental information showing how localization altered the portrayal of characters without any actual commentary or analysis. Other aspects such as the petting minigame and Soleil's controversy are already discussed in the parent. The discussion of same sex relationships in the sources is largely about the concept of itself in terms of the game and series moreso than the individual characters being romanced, while the only other talking point, Corrin, is largely discussed in only one source, with all of the plot information of Corrin already covered in either Legacy or the plot section.

On the whole this article isn't really saying much and doesn't have much in-depth coverage of its cast that isn't just taking sources that aren't reception and passing them off as such, or taking sources about the game and then re-using the coverage to apply to a smaller subject that's not as focused on. That being said, some of the content in this Characters article is valuable and has some potential for merging; coverage of the same sex relationships for example would benefit the main article's overall coverage of it. However, I feel the coverage for the Characters article is just not enough to meet individual notability of the parent, with high source and content overlap, and also just doesn't have much discussion individually in a significant manner. A merge feels like it would be a more beneficial way of covering the topic as a whole. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support The reception is made up almost entirely by discussion of Corrin or discussion of censorship in the English release. In the former, the discussion on Corrin is rather middling, and additional sourcing is fairly weak. For the latter, there's not much commentary on the censorship, just saying that it happened, which is basically development info (and should be covered on Fates' page if it isn't already). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Gherkin above, but also this has seen barely any activity and comes from a period when several character-based articles were being created, most of which have been merged or deleted. There is barely any actual development commentary on different characters, let alone other aspects, so the article can't properly stand on its own.--ProtoDrake (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Support per all. There's a consensus emerging that I'd like to reinforce. I could reconsider if new sources were found, but a tight focus on the sourced material makes this a suitable size for a merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose No apparent policy-based reason to merge, WP:NOPAGE is not met due to the characters having independent coverage, commentary and analysis both as a group and individually, conforming to numerous other character lists on Wikipedia, with easily demonstratable sources. It absolutely passes WP:LISTCRIT and the votes already made are not based in policy at all, I'd like to remind the closer that discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE, merging is not just bruteforced based on pile-on-type votes and some policy problem with the article must be demonstrated. Addendum: This article began as a list, not a standard article, and should be moved back to its list naming; the standard article titling is potentially sabotaging its viability as a page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'm a little more on the fence on this one myself. The standards have historically been more lax when it comes to "list of/characters of" splits than individual character spinouts. I tend to see them more as a WP:SIZESPLIT, of which the parent article is quite long, and a good landing point for merging short or non-notable single character spinouts too. Its hard for me to endorse a merge here... Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  Given how stereotypical a character list this page is, I'd go as far as saying that if this kind of coverage is not sufficient for a list to exist, then character lists in general on Wikipedia cannot exist. But that would be a fringe and hardline view. I wouldn't mind it being merged if there were some Wikipedia wide consensus that we cannot make lists of characters, but this clearly falls under WP:CSC #2 and #3... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  The issue with SIZESPLIT is that this list is particularly short and the bulk of its relevant information is already covered in the parent, meaning what content is merged would not significantly bloat the parent and only expand upon the pre-existing information; Fire Emblem Fates also isn't big enough where it's near a required SIZESPLIT size. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  WP:PROSESIZE says Fire Emblem Fates, by itself, is currently at 6736 words. WP:SIZERULE says don't split if its less than 6k, but consider it if its above 8K. So all in all, we're in a bit of a gray area - I haven't given a thorough review on how much is redundant and how much should be merged, but my rough estimates would lead me to believe we'd be approaching that 8K mark upon a merge. Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Sergecross73 if it helps I could potentially try drafting out more specifically what content would hypothetically be merged to help make it clear how many words it would be when all is said and done? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  I've reduced it to only have content not redundant to this article: User:Cukie Gherkin/FE Fates. This is a pretty extreme example, as not all of this will be reasonably included in a merge (i.e., Rhajat's details are likely not needed, as those aren't things sources really go into great depth on). Thoughts? @Sergecross73: Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  NOPAGE is inherently a valid policy for a merge discussion and I have discussed in my nom why the overlap indicates NOPAGE is a better proposition for this list. Your argument is largely just Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and while this isn't an AfD, we can't just say that just because similar articles exist we shouldn't merge this one, especially when similar lists may or may not actually meet notability criteria. This is also ignoring the sheer lack of discussion of characters as a set, which is required of LISTN; all sources are either about one character or are simply not reception at all, as has been pointed out above.

  I am confused by the LISTCRIT argument; this nomination isn't about criteria for inclusion at all? It's saying there's a wide content overlap and that the information in this list is duplicative of pre-existing content at the parent and would be better be covered there, which is well-covered under NOPAGE and what other Support voters are concurring with. CSC is also not even a guideline for notability or sizesplitting, it's just saying what common types of lists exist; it's not saying these lists have to exist if they fall under those guidelines, and in fact CSC 2 even says outright "Before creating a stand-alone list, consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a "parent" article", which is exactly what we're arguing here. The article title is also not a concern in this discussion at all and no one has brought it up as such; the content is still inherently the issue here regardless of what title it has.

  Additionally, please assume good faith; accusing voters of dog-piling and "bruteforcing" just because an argument isn't going the way you want is just assuming the worst of editors and their opinions on a matter. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'd also say that calling the support !votes a "pile-on-pile" is nigh objectively false, and I don't know why a user would even type that in this discussion. No one's support was primarily "support per user", each user gave independent reasons why they expressed support. It's also kind of rude, I'd say, to feel the need to remind the closer that they need to understand proper discussion closure procedure. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

  I do believe it was going outside of policy territory and becoming a pile-on. Both !voters explicitly referred to Cukie Gherkin's argument as their main reasoning without addressing the flaws in that argument at all, hence my belief that people were not independently making their own judgements in examining the actual content of the article and assuming that the argument was perfectly valid in all respects.

  First of all, localization (of which censorship was only a part) is a major part of why the game's characters were notable, as the huge amounts of artistic license taken by the localizers led to major changes in characterization for many of the characters, making the game have a different tone for better or worse. It is also not almost entirely about Corrin, as Niles and Rhajat also received critical commentary for their portrayal of bisexual characters, and the fact that they were antiheroic in relation to that. Other characters were mentioned, like Effie getting a personality change to make her more "bro"-like and less kindly.

  Cautioning others to avoid assuming bad faith requires actual proof that they are assuming bad faith in the first place. I don't think there's evidence of that at all. Simply saying that faulty arguments are used and then reinforced is not the same as accusing people of trying to game the system, so I think you are the ones quickly jumping to assume I am acting in bad faith because I am "losing the argument". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

  No one agrees that my argument is flawed except you, so you're essentially saying it counts as a pile-on if people don't have your opinion. That's completely ridiculous. NOPAGE is obviously applicable, almost nothing in the character list isn't redundant to this article. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

  Also, I take exception to the notion that I have accused you of acting in bad faith because you are "losing the argument"? You seem to be talking about Pokelego's comment, and I find it really troubling that you're framing everyone supporting the merger as an individual and attributing what one person said to everyone. No, we are not "the ones" making that claim, and frankly, Pokelego isn't either. Pokelego ascribed your frankly bizarre claim that multiple users sharing their own independent opinions is piling on as an action taken because the argument isn't going the way you want it to. And yes, it is factually not going the way you want it to, so I don't see the issue in pointing that out. Why do you so frequently make comments about the motives of other users in discussions? Not two months ago, you made an accusation at Dead Space#Plasma Cutter merge discussion that the nominator was biased against the article without any evidence. In both cases, it was an article you worked on, so it really feels like you're lashing out over article mergers proposed on things you created. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  You have WP:NOPAGE backwards. It's the guideline for when something is notable with independent coverage but is still worth merging. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support per Pokelego's reasoning. I will also say nothing in here is a "pile on" just because Zx disagrees with someone's reasoning. Also assuming the page would be regarded differently if it was "List of so-and-so" holds no grounds. Third, the localization issue is tied more directly to the game than the original characters and impacted the perception of it more directly.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

  The characters are literally what was changed by the localization. The overall plot remained the same, the personalities of the characters saw major differences, generally making them more lighthearted and adding more comic relief. This is something that is properly discussed in a character list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Zxcvbnm The thing is those localization changes, from what I can tell, are exclusive to this game, meaning it didn't impact how those characters behaved later. There's also not a lot of indication that it had a lasting impact on how those characters were perceived (compared to how Cyan's dialect in the English localization of FF6 stuck, or "Jill sandwich" memes for Jill Valentine).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what you mean by "behaved later" given that the characters largely only appear in FE: Fates. If you mean FE: Heroes, I couldn't tell you whether their personalities stayed the same as Fates. As for the idea of lasting impact, it certainly was picked up on and memed about by fans (as evidenced by this fan comic showing the JP and Western versions of Effie's personality, for example, something the GameZone source also mentions...)

  One of the bigger controversies of the localization was with Soleil. The localizers purportedly made a lasting change to her character by making her overtly bisexual, when she initially just liked the appearance of women in a not necessarily sexual way, as influenced by her womanizer and beauty-loving father. This caused some backlash due to the lack of same sex options for her in the same way as Rhajat. These are things wholly unrelated to the overall plot - Soleil can never even be recruited at all - but still caused a brouhaha. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  I'm well aware it did, I was there when it did Zx. My point is that you're pointing at one localization and saying "the characters need to be a list because of this" when it's more a controversy with the game itself and can be covered there, possibly also in an article for Treehouse if it ever comes about. But I'm not seeing a point for the list, especially when from what I can tell these changes didn't get carried into the localizations of later titles these characters appeared in.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  The localization source is just saying what was changed without any actual commentary; that is dev info, not reception. It's like how we wouldn't use an update summary post to justify reception towards the game itself. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  To jump off KFM's point on lasting significance, these are characters that don't exist only in Fates. They were also included in Heroes, Warriors, and Smash; is there any sourcing, for example, on how these localization changes manifested in any of these games? If not, that speaks to me that the fact that these changes are only discussed in an article titled "Fire Emblem Fates localization facts" tells me that the changes are not independently notable. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Not for nothing, but this seems to be raising the bar far above what is required to pass WP:LISTCRIT/WP:LISTN. I'm not even sure it's merited for a character article, even. WP:SUSTAINED, which is Wikipedia's gauge of lasting significance, doesn't mean a character or group of characters has to appear in more than one game, just that coverage of them needs to be over a sufficiently long period. I'm not sure what being from more than one game has to do with the importance of a character. Especially a mobile gatcha game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  That's not what I'm saying, I'm making the point that the lack of prolonged discussion makes it more difficult to argue that the notability is sufficiently independent. Characters by game obviously is going to have more dependency on the game than the average individual character article, but the point being made is that the article doesn't even exist for the purpose of discussing the cast, it exists for the purpose of discussing the game, which to me indicates that the cast likely isn't sufficiently independently notable. Without size concerns, I'm not seeing a strong rationale to keep split. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose but not much to say other than philosophical differences here. I think these spinoffs are a good idea on WP:SUMMARY-style grounds and always have. This is simply a matter of content organization where a very long section of the main FE Fates article can be spun-off, but it's really just a subsection of that. There's sufficient coverage here in reliable sources for my tastes, although I respect the threshold differs. SnowFire (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Support based on everybody in support's reasons and also I believe that merging the characters sections into the main page would not make the main page too big to read ThePoggingEditor (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Support per reasons above. I do believe merging most of the non-notable characters would be appropriate. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 04:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Support per the nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Break

Following up on this - a seemingly uninvolved editor went ahead and tried to perform the "merge" for this. I'm not sure consensus is there yet. But if I'm wrong and there is, the merge itself should be further workshopped. All they did is just copy/paste the entirety of the character article in the game article, which is certainly not the way to go. Sergecross73 msg me 17:05, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to edit Fire Emblem Fates with a merge and then revert that edit to use as a proof of concept @Sergecross73: - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, done. Please tell me if this edit is insufficient, should a merge be performed (don't mind quality issues, it was just a quick slapdash example): @SnowFire: @Pokelego999: @Kung Fu Man: @Zxcvbnm: @ThePoggingEditor: @Boneless Pizza!: @Shooterwalker: @ProtoDrake: - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I have no objection. Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Seems okay. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Looks good to me ThePoggingEditor (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Looks good here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

To me, I feel like (and correct me if I'm wrong) everyone is in agreement that there isn't much content worth merging, and Fates wouldn't become overwrought as a result - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was feeling personally. ThePoggingEditor (talk) 07:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Should we close and redirect this now?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man I put in a merge close request for this discussion. That should hopefully come at some point soon. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:12, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't feel like anyone doubts the consensus. I only opposed the method of the original merge. Sergecross73 msg me 00:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.