Untitled

[edit]

There I started the clean-up of this article. Removed the tag (which was already on it since June!). I'll finish it later on. --Steerpike 22:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: consider it done for now. --Steerpike 11:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use of the images

[edit]

Why were all the screenshots removed? I don't understand. These are free promotional caps from the game? I have no clue who took them but does it matter? It's always the same image regardless. --Steerpike 15:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we need to know who took the screenshots in general; oftentimes people will rip off screenshots from game sites, which isn't okay. Also, user-made screenshots of Ubi-owned games are free (as in libre), so we should use those instead of other screenshots. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Technically I don't see the difference between a screenshot taken by me or taken by a game site. It could be the exact same shot, and who can tell the difference? Why not put your own name under it? Anyway, the fact is that I don't remember where I got the screenshots. Some from the gallery at mobygames, possibly. --Steerpike 11:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A game site may have a copyright claim, based on their choice of when the screenshot was taken. It's lame, but it's there. If you didn't take the screenshots, they really need to go, to be replaced with screenshots taken by the uploader. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, I could have said I took them and no-one would have been the wiser. This all strikes me as slightly absurd. However, the truth is I don't really care one way or another. I mean, it's been a while since I contributed to this page and have had it off watch for quite some time now. I won't revert it back or anything. Cheers. --Steerpike 15:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Yeah. Basically it's due diligence for sourcing images; if you lie about it, it's your problem when the copyright holder gets annoyed (or when someone notices the images somewhere else). We just need someone to take their own images, that's all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rayman Junior

[edit]

There was a spin off seris called rayman junior... It was centralised on learning, does this deserve a mention on the bottom of the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.137.67.157 (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Raving Rabbids

[edit]

Shouldn't Raving Rabbids be considered a spinoff since it isn't really the same kind of game (minigame collection vs. platformer)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.116.246.5 (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Also it says that its being released for Xbox 1, Game Cube and PS3 which is false according to its page Bushido Brown 12:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rayman no longer exists

[edit]

Now I'm no expert, and neither do I know what was there before, but it seems insane that there are articles called Rayman (video game), Rayman (series) and Rayman (character), but no article under the namespace Rayman as of 19:46 today. Surely one of the three should be moved to the main namespace? U-Mos 20:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Original Rayman.jpg

[edit]

Image:Original Rayman.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Raymano.jpg

[edit]

Image:Raymano.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something Wicked This Way Comes connection?

[edit]

Okay, I noticed today something odd--the boss of the game is Mr. Dark, the last level seems carnival-ish (mainly due to the presence of clown enemies), Space Mama (who appears again in this level) sprinkles dust on you, and the game is called RAYman...doesn't this sound like Something Wicked This Way Comes? Mr. Dark and a carnival appear, Space Mama could be the Dust Witch, and the character is named Rayman, possibly after Bradbury. Think this is worthy of mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.176.166 (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The PlayStation version has fewer lums"

[edit]

Maybe someone could define the word "lum" here. The only definition I could find on wikipedia says "an item in the rayman game", which isn't exactly helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.236.219 (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This idea was scrapped for obvious reasons"

[edit]

"Early in its life, Rayman was going to be about an eleven-year-old boy named Jimmy. Jimmy takes advantage of the realms that he discovers within his computer to create a fantasy world called Hereitscool. When evil invades Hereitscool, Jimmy turns into a superhero named Rayman to save Hereitscool. This idea was scrapped for obvious reasons [...]" Perhaps an explanation of quite what these reasons are would be a good thing, I'm not getting anything especially obvious (unless it's "because that was stupid", but it really isn't all that much compared to some other games). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.243.53 (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar version

[edit]

It seems to me the jaguar version is completely and utterly wrong and rather misleading. It sounds, from reading the Jaguar section, as if the other consoles versions of Rayman were made first and they thought "hey lets make a Jaguar version and ignore parts from the ps1 version etc." Problem is the Jaguar version was the original (and even the release dates on this very article back that up) so that rather than being, for example, "The ability to shrink is also missing from this version and one of the last boss phases (Space Mamas) has been completely ignored" that explanation ought to be in a different section of the article and should read more like "Newer versions, released after the Jaguar original, added the ability to shrink and included whole new areas not seen in the original Jaguar game, such as the boss phase Space Mamas." It strikes me that the Jaguar section is incredibly poorly written. I mean; if you read lord of the rings and Tolkien started to use the future tense to refer to the past, you would be very confused. Well that's exactly what this article seems to have done. 86.134.15.151 (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done…well, kinda. Hey, it's a start! - someone who just all-caged Dream Forest and must now tackle Gong Heights (a breeze compared to Bongo Hills) :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.252.243 (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've found more in regards to the Jaguar version! Feel free to check them out! KGRAMR (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Section Request: Plot

[edit]

I know little of this game, but this article doesn't seem to even really mention a plot. I suggest adding a section with the plot of the game, because it seems this article is implying that the game has no storyline. 70.15.212.110 (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playable on PS3

[edit]

I was looking to see how I could play this game and was disappointed to see it hadn't been added to PSN according to this page, but I went to check and it is on their store! So can we add "PSN" or "Playstation 3" to the platforms list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.241.113 (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The PlayStation 3 version available for purchase on PSN is a PS2 Classic, meaning that the game files from the PS2 version are taken and emulated on PS3 hardware. Per our guidelines, we do not elaborate on emulations in such a regard. Lordtobi () 17:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to the PS Store it is a PSOne Classic: https://store.playstation.com/#!/en-gb/games/rayman/cid=EP0001-NPEF00023_00-GRAYMANXXX000001 As far as I know the PS2 is unrelated, the game was never on the PS2 was it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.241.113 (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2017‎
Correct, my mistake. It is, however, the same result: An old game only emulated on (not ported to) a specific other platform, wherefore it does not belong to the infobox. Lordtobi () 15:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Import from Polish Wikipedia

[edit]

Can we start importing stuff from Polish Wikipedia, mainly legacy and sequels?

Is it reliably sourced? Do we have someone who can reliably translate? That should answer your question. Sergecross73 msg me 01:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Android version anymore?

[edit]

Is there still no Android version anymore? --Jobu0101 (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

GA Review

[edit]

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.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Rayman (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: NatwonTSG2 (talk · contribs) 23:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 09:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I can take this one on. VRXCES (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

Has the nominator significantly contributed to the article? Yes, quite clear you've added a lot to the article.

Does the article conform to the general standards of WP:VG articles including the WP:VG/MOS? Yes, all good here:

Is the article generally well-written? Grammar needs a copyedit. I have the faintest hint that this could be because the article originally was transposed from the French version or had a multilingual editor, which is understandable! See below:

Is the article broad enough in its coverage and contains reliable sourcing?

Do the sources cited verify the text in the article? Spot check TBA.

Are media and links properly attributed and do not have copyright issues? The images within the article appear to be attributed and licensed correctly.

Any other personal opinions or miscellaneous feedback that may or may not be relevant to the nomination? See below:

Plot

Development

Reception

Legacy

[edit]

My question

[edit]
Thanks for your feedback so:
  • Lead P2 S1 - checkY
  • Gameplay P1 S1 - checkY
  • Conception P2 S6 - checkY, remove all commas
  • Completion P2 S5 - checkY
  • Gameplay P1 S3 - checkY
  • Gameplay P1 S4 - checkY
  • Completion P2 S5 - checkY
  • Gameplay P1 S1 - checkY
  • Gameplay P1 S2 - checkY
  • Gameplay P2 S1 - checkY
  • Completion P1 S1 - Replace who with where or who he with and
  • Completion P1 S5 - checkY
  • Release P1 S2 - checkY
NatwonTSG2 (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I'm sorry, I've been interstate. I'll take another review of the article and do a spot check. VRXCES (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I did fix those new changes at the top of the article, there are some fixes and questions like for Rayman Advance which it's a port to the original game, the mentioning of The Spooky Raymansion which i put it here since it unlikely for Rayman Redemption to explain on it Independent article and the information about the fans wanted the fan remake to became an official game is removed alongside with the two citations. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vrxces: This good article nomination has been inactive for over 14 days. Do you have any additional comments? 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 14:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, it's been quite a disruptive time; I'll address this tomorrow. VRXCES (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass

[edit]

Deep apologies @NatwonTSG2: for the delay, I have been away for personal issues. There are still a lot of grammar and copyediting issues unfortunately; particularly noticeable in the Reception section. Not a problem and that's what this process is for, so no stress! But it does suggest more work is needed on the prose, for instance:

Gameplay

Development

P4 S4 - incorporate it
P5 S3 - defined - wrong tense
P5 S4 - each world
P6 S5 - would became is incorrect tense

Release

Reception

Legacy

For the second pass, here what I done.
Gameplay
  • P1 S1/2 = checkY
  • P1 S2 = checkY
  • P1 S3 = checkY
  • P2 S3 = checkY
  • P2 S4 = checkY
  • P2 S5 = checkY
  • P2 S5 = checkY
Development
  • P4 S4 = checkY
  • P5 S4 = checkY
  • P5 S5 = checkY
  • P6 S5 = checkY
Release
  • P1 S1 = checkY
  • P1 S3 = checkY (For DSI and Mobile, it's just titled Rayman)
  • P2 S2 = checkY
  • P2 S3 = checkY
  • P2 S4 = checkY
Reception
  • P1 S1 = checkY
  • P1 S2 = checkY
  • P1 S3 = checkY
  • P1 S4 = checkY
  • P1 S5 = ☒N (This one doesn't really give me a clear vision so)
  • P1 S6 = checkY
  • P2 S1 = checkY
  • P2 S2 = checkY
  • P2 S3 = checkY
  • P3 S2 = checkY
  • P3 S3 = checkY
  • P3 S4 = checkY
  • P4 S1 = checkY
  • P4 S2 = checkY
Legacy
  • P1 S1 = checkY
  • P1 S2 = checkY
  • P2 P1 = checkY
  • P2 P2 = checkY
  • P2 S4 = checkY
  • P2 S5 = checkY
NatwonTSG2 (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks mate. Going at this section by section. Happy to work through this, but the number of mistakes and grammar issues really suggested it ideally needed a copyedit before nomination. I appreciate you actioning these. Also what was the issue with P1 S5? And the point about the headline statements is sort of still there. VRXCES (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned there are still a quite large amount of grammar mistakes in the document. Can you please do or request another to do a copyedit before proceeding? VRXCES (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, did request them a copyedit. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article still seems to still have grammar errors: "in which displays" in Gameplay P1 S1; "control as" in P1 S2; "had lose five of their lives" P2 S3, and that's just starting with the gameplay section. After several reviews of this article, we are still on grammar. Some substantive feedback on the reception section's headlining hasn't been actioned, which makes me feel like I am sort of just relaying changes to bring it up to my own standard at this point. I really appreciate your efforts to improve this article but I think another editor may need to be involved to help bring this article to GA. Apologies for the long delays in this journey but I am sure you will get there in the end. VRXCES (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Rayman (video game)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: NatwonTSG2 (talk · contribs) 18:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: IceWelder (talk · contribs) 17:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Will do this in the next few days, probably tomorrow. Please nudge if I haven't done anything in a week. IceWelder [] 17:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Infobox
Lead
Gameplay
I couldn't find a way to mention (traversal, enemies and combat) in the first paragraph in the gameplay section other than in sentence 3 and 4.
It's to avoid a redundant sentence list of abilities.
Plot
Development
Development – Conception
For this it's just that many of the sources here such as almost all of the magazines' articles don't have/seems to have an actual article title,
Development – Design
Development – Completion
Reception
Comment: I would do either one of these suggestions however, the information about the sales is too small be a subsection and also I prefer the sales to be first in a reception section.
Legacy
References
Retro Collect is a reliable source according to [1], [2] I guess
Gamer Info and Unseen64 are replaced with better sources. The Vrutal source is basically Kotaku which is a situational source. And Vidgames.com may have reviews however, it pretty old website and I'm unsure whether or not, it could be reliable or not.
Other

@NatwonTSG2: This concludes my initial review. Sorry it took so long! Feel free to strike through or reply to individual comments as you work on them. Regards, IceWelder [] 18:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you advice me to clear up tons of ideas and fixes which most of them seems unnecessarily and also I already send a request to the Guild of Copy Editors which was during the article's first GA review so. NatwonTSGTALK 20:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that none of the changes I requested are unnecessary. (If you feel differently on some points, please let me know.) The state of the article at the time of the review was very rought in terms of accuracy, sourcing, grammar, and style. I realize that writing good articles is a lot of work, so I'd rather provide many addressable points that allow us to get the article into shape. Vaguely saying "not good" and failing the nomination is, I feel, not productive.
That there already was a GOCE review is curious; while there certainly were edits, they appear to have missed large issues and the editor also forgot to tag the talk page appropriately.
Once you feel the article is ready for re-review, please let me know. If you need help with any writing aspects, I can help out as well. Regards, IceWelder [] 20:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:IceWelder Hi! I've changed the sales source with a different source. I think that's what it says? Timur9008 (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IceWelder: I feel like this article is ready for re-review so NatwonTSGTALK 16:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'll have another good look over the weekend. IceWelder [] 19:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are still some issues that stand out:
  • Many of the release dates remain unsourced. All dates listed in the infobox should be mentioned verbatim in the body and have a citation to a reliable source.
  • In the above list, you tagged altering the sections in the Development section as done, but the same subsections still persist in the article. As I noted, the section currently tries to awkwardly break apart an otherwise quite linear timeline.
  • Mentions of Steible as an early contributor and Lankhor vanished from the Development section but remain in the lead. Was this a concious choice? If you have good information at your disposal, you should use it.
  • If you wish to keep the sales inside the Reception section, I would highly recommend moving them to the end of that section to improve the flow. Usually, the quality of a game is what drives the sales, so this would also be the correct chronological order.
  • When you say that Vrutal "is basically Kotaku", do you mean in terms of content or as in editors, publisher, or something in that direction? If it there is no glaring indicator for reliability, it should either be replaced or vetted at WT:VG/S.
IceWelder [] 16:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the new issues:
  • All of the release dates are sourced and mentioned in the body in some form because listing all of them would be redundant.
  • It's a bit hard for me to figure out the game's development most accurate timeline and for the sections, I merged two of my old sections into one and renamed them all.
  • Mentions of Steible as an early contributor and Lankhor in the lead section are vanished.
  • The sales in the reception section are moved at the end of the section.
  • And for Vrutal, I do mean in terms of content, and for the editors, I do found some are annoymous and others use their nicknames.
NatwonTSGTALK 01:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The way you describe Vrutal doesn't inspire a lot of confidence and to a casual observer it looks like a low-quality meme site. I also noticed that GamerInfo.NET has been restored. I put up both for discussion at WT:VG/S. IceWelder [] 06:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Schwede66 talk 03:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improved to Good Article status by NatwonTSG2 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

NatwonTSGTALK 20:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Not new enough for DYK, I don't think it's smart to nominate the article after making the DYK nomination. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, TheNuggeteer, this was nominated as a new GA, but the GA nomination was failed on 16 June. Hence, this isn't eligible. Schwede66 03:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]