Talk:Rare Replay

References and notes

Shouldn't references and notes be separate sections? The part about Robin composition notes and the other references mixing isn't consistent with other articles on Wikipedia. I tried looking at Help:Footnotes and MOS:NOTES but even then I'm not sure what the Manual Of Style for the notes are supposed to be like. An image on MOS:NOTES suggests that I should do separate Notes and References sections for notes and references, respectively. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

They can be combined or separate per MOS:REFERENCES. (The FAC review generally includes a MOS check.) czar 19:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

R.C. Pro-Am release date

Rare Replay in game has a date of '1987' attached to this title. Either this does not refer to the first release date, or it is simply in error; as I cannot find a source in agreement. In contradiction, there are sources which claim a release date of 1988.:

NA https://web.archive.org/web/20080921015524/http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/gameslist/manuals/nes_games.pdf

EU https://web.archive.org/web/20031227082402/http://www.nintendo.se/product/archive.asp?mainid=5&subid=10&id=2

Should someone come up with a reliable source for 1987, by all means, please do so. Deusfaux (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

to name a few. Given there are reliable sources that support both 1987 and 1988, there's no clear cut answer, so the article should stick with 1987 as that's what's presented in game. (WP:VNT) -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

3/5 of those are merely taking the date from the game itself, which is what's disputed. I remain skeptical of the other 2, and am not sure them being secondary sources outweighs Nintendo's own published sources, but I'm willing to look into it further. To be clear, are you claiming the first version of this game was released in 1987? What platform was this first release on? NES? Deusfaux (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

When I say "the game", I mean RC Pro-Am. The title screen says 1987. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and which platform was that supposedly on? NES? If not, what was it released on in 1987? What's the suggestion here? Also you are aware copyrights can be granted for unreleased works. A copyright mark is still not evidence of when the game was released to the public. And I don't imagine you're interested in wikipedia elevating internal company milestone dates over public distribution release dates, right? Regardless, I'm still making inquiries and will be for some time yet. These are just questions for you. I'm not making a declaration either way. Deusfaux (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

https://nescartdb.com/profile/view/24/rc-pro-am

Both EU and NA NES versions have 1988 copyright marks on the packaging, but more importantly, have stamped manufacture dates on the chips for 1988.

So unless there was a prior release on some other platform I've yet to locate... Deusfaux (talk) 04:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "which platform was that supposedly on"; I very clearly posted footage of the NES version, as it says in the video description. Also, I've never heard of NESCartDB, and based on a cursory glance, I don't think it would pass as a reliable source were it to be raised at WP:VG/S. Regardless, I stand by my stance that if reliable sources conflict with one another, settling on the information provided in two primary sources (e.g. RC Pro-Am and Rare Replay) is not unreasonable. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 04:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

So you believe the NES version is both the first version, and that it released in 1987. I have that understood? Or is it only the second clause you believe? This isn't a gotcha. Deusfaux (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes. There is no source to indicate the existence of an earlier release than the NES version. The title screen of the NES version, Rare Replay, and some of the reliable sources state to have been released in 1987. Therefore, while some reliable sources also assert 1988, it is a reasonable conclusion that the presence of both primary and reliable secondary sources asserting 1987 indicates that 1987 should be regarded as the correct date, at least for this article. I would suggest that 1987 be left as the date on this article (since Rare Replay and the sources about Rare Replay specifically agree on 1987), but a footnote be added to the RC Pro-Am article noting the discrepancy with citations for each date. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 05:15, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

The only primary source stating a 1987 release is Rare Replay itself, in the game choice menu screen. It's not beyond reason the people responsible for RR simply referred to RC Pro Am's title screen.

RC Pro Am's title screen is merely suggestive, but not making a statement as to year of release, as I already laid out. It is merely a statement of the year of copyright.

2 secondary sources of games media also state 1987. These are within articles written 25 and 14 years after the fact, and I'm not convinced they were rigorously researched more taking the title screen at face value.

on the other side of the aisle:

primary source - we have 2 Nintendo official documents stating release dates of 1988 for both major western markets.

then we have photographs of game packaging with 1988 copyright marks for both regions. This cancels out the title screen copyright suggestion, but for the record, it is far more likely to have packaging granted a copyright much closer to product release, than software.

primary source - and then photographs of game cartridges with 1988 dates of manufacture stamped on the chips for both regions. Unlike copyrights, these are marks made necessarily at the time of production.

primary source - Nintendo marketing materials prior to 1988 refer to the game as 'coming soon', but the first publication of 1988 covers the game as having been released

https://archive.org/details/NintendoFunClubMagazines/Nintendo%20Fun%20Club%20News%20Issue%205%20%28February-March%201988%29/page/n31/mode/2up

On the balance, without further higher order sources, I think a reasonable person would lean towards 1988 as the historical truth. Did you go out of your way to contact individuals who released this game? Cuz I did.

I'd be fine with a footnote flipped the other way - sticking with 1988 on the article but that the compilation erroneously (or merely that there's a discrepancy) states 1987. Deusfaux (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

included game versions clarity

I've seen no other suggestions as to how to address the issue of clarifying which materially different versions of games by the same title are included in this emulation compilation, so I take that to mean my current implementation of small text acronyms after games that have multiple versions and thus need clarification, as sufficient. Of course I'm open to other chart styles or ways of marking this essential information. If need be I can point to articles for other video game compilations which all achieve this in a few different ways. The bottom line is, people need to know which game for which original platform is being emulated and included in this compilation, at a glance, in any list form of the titles. Deusfaux (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Or just change "Rare Replay is a compilation of 30 games developed by Rare and its predecessor, Ultimate Play the Game, over their 30-year history across platforms from the ZX Spectrum to the Xbox 360 (1983–2008), up until Rare's Kinect Sports series" to "Rare Replay is a compilation of 30 games developed by Rare and its predecessor, Ultimate Play the Game, over their 30-year history across multiple platforms, including the ZX Spectrum, NES, arcade, Nintendo 64, Xbox, and Xbox 360 (1983–2008), up until Rare's Kinect Sports series." That way there's no need for further notation in the table itself because it's clear from the prose that those other platforms aren't included. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Insufficient. Must be at-a-glance in a spelled out list of the compiled titles, whether said list is in chart form or not. It also needs to specify which titles belong to which platform. Or the ambiguity of your suggestion means one doesn't know if 'Battletoads' refers to the NES version or the Arcade version, for example. 2 completely different games. You've never made any argument as to the cost or detriment of clarifying this information. You've only ever argued for the status quo. Why are you so personally opposed? How does this negatively affect you or anyone else?

...because you're literally the only person who's said it's a problem in 10 years? Also, I think using Battletoads is a bad example in this case since "Battletoads Arcade" is listed right underneath it on the table -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Instructive alternative solutions in order of comprehensive clarity and clean presentation. All are other game compilations with included multi-version titles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles:_The_Cowabunga_Collection

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Gear_Solid:_Master_Collection

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNK_40th_Anniversary_Collection

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic%27s_Ultimate_Genesis_Collection

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Castlevania_Anniversary_Collection&redirect=no

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonder_Boy#Compilations Deusfaux (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

put them in a table with a column for emulated version included. or use color coded cells. or use alphabetical footnotes. there are so many ways to convey this information cleanly, easily. Deusfaux (talk) 06:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

That's how the games were formatted when the article was created. It was eventually decided the current format was better in this specific instance. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Is this really a big issue? There's also contacting Rare directly. – The Grid (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Big in relation to what? Life? No. The purpose of this article even existing? Of course. It's the second question anyone would ask after "what is rare replay?" "a compilation of video games" "Which games?" Contact rare for what purpose? what in the world are you on about? Moreover, why are you only asking the first question to me and not the other user? Deusfaux (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

You made two topics about it and the situation is the year... – The Grid (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

you seem confused. what you've been replying to is one topic on one subject. if youre referring to the other topic on this page, then that's an entirely different and unrelated subject. Deusfaux (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2025 (UTC)