Talk:Jet Set Radio/Archive 1

Archive 1

Re-Write

This article needs a lot of help. There's large sections that can be merged and there's a lot of needless dividing. I may be a good idea to put in a reccomendation for gaming collaboration of the weekGrzesik 23:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur, yet I sadly have no idea how to do that.Fdgfds 18:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Did a bit yesterday. More ideas on what needs to be done? -Dwiki 19:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

PAL Version

I think the European version is different to the other, at least in as much as the soundtrack: Off the top of my head, there is a track called "Recipe for the perfect afro." Can anyone contribuite to this? 81.86.34.245 16:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The European soundtrack removed Dragula(and possibly some of the other tracks?) in favour of 'Recipe For The Perfect Afro' by Feature Cast, 'Many Styles' by O.B. One, and 'Funky Plucker' by Semi Detatched.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010626081945/segadreamcast.ugo.com/reviews/europe/jetset/

Stx 08:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Marketing - Jet Set vs. Jet Grind

I'd like to hear if anyone has some story behind the renaming of the game for the USA market. Were they going for a more "Xtreme" name by using "grind"? Navstar 06:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it seems some Jet Set Radio does already exist in USA ; so copyrights stuff, I guess.

glitches

the last two glitches might have to be removed, due to them being original research... a video of them on google video would be great. that migth be all it takes to substantiate that. i guess the game itself could be the source, but again, slippery slope there about verifiability and original research. i'll leave it, but it might be worth noting.

---

"By grinding on a railing near the elevated train tracks and jumping upward to a rooftop behind the building, the avatar can then oversee the level's exit and motion onward to seemingly impervious space. This glitch has been tested and is claimed to have occurred in some instances."

I can understand editing it to denote how it's yet to be verified, but this wording choice violates the english linguistic checksum - "the building" is no longer specific, "impervious space" is anachronistic, "oversee" is incorrect, and so forth. I'd edit it, but I'm planning on breaking out my dreamcast and seeing if I can record those glitches to render the issue moot. Fdgfds 00:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Several months ago I attempted to reconstruct portions of this article due to an onslaught of meager explanations and inadequate linguistics. Due to the fact that I have only commenced gameplay several times, it was an arduous task for me to personally verify any of the glitches listed--ergo, I kept them as is. Also keep in mind that all of the glitches listed are ostensibly in reference to the first NTSC North American release.

Nevertheless, the use of "impervious space" is not veritably anachronistic, although it could be classified as paradoxal. As far as "overseeing", the user does have the ability to examine the exit or "oversee" the exit--an area which is ordinarily impalpable. A daily use of pyschoactive drugs may hinder one's ability to classify the real from unreal. Salluste 04:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've re-added the glitch I was talking about, and provided a link to a YouTube video of it. I've also added/added video for another glitch which is somewhat related.Fdgfds 01:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Where are they now?

Somewhat OT, but in researching the soundtrack for this game, I reached a dead-end trying to figure out who or what "The Reps" are, and what they're doing today. Does anybody have a clue?

I'd heard that they were assembled solely for this game, but I can't verify that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.230.53.232 (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Character List?

Isn't there enough characters that appear in the franchise to justify a separate article listing everyone and a simple description of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sega Uranus (talk • contribs) 23:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if they make another JSR I think it would be worthwile and I can name every single character in the game series and their alternate names if you need help with it. As for now I think we should concentrate on the current Jet Set Radio game articles and try to improve them. (Patmancav 66)

Jet Set Radio Advance

I just came across Jet Set Radio Advance and gave it a cleaning- perhaps an editor familiar with the subject matter would like to clean it a little further? Cats, refs and an infobox would be improvements. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Roller Skates

What was the name of the roller skates they used...I remember them being magnetic over drive or something like that.

Far as I can recall, they were powered by "neutrium batteries" J-Kama-Ka-C 23:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

They were "magnetic in-line skates powered by netrium batteries"

"THE NAME OF THE RECORD IS THE DEVIL'S CONTRACT, WHICH IS SAID TO HAVE THE POWER TO SUMMON A DEMON!" I just thought that if you were looking for information on the record you could use the stuff Proffessor K says as a reference.

I also wish to add that Pots the dog is a playable character and he is unlocked after you do the 'Simon Says' style trick missions in Benten Cho as not all the playable characters are listed. The ones missing are Love shocker, Poison Jam, Noise Tank, Gouji Rokkaku and Proffessor K himself. (Patmancav66)

Hidden characters can be unlocked by collecting Graffiti souls besides the usual methods. I think the article should state some of this sadly you do not get many sources on the internet that can be used as references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patmancav66 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

They were Overdrive Magnetic-Motor Skating Shoes,(OMMSS) fLOOTURES —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flootures (talk • contribs) 01:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Story Parallels

i think its worth noting that the story of Jet Grind Radio is very similar to the movie "The Warriors". I am however unsure where to put this infromation and how far to expound upon it, possibly a "Trivia" section..

Unless you can find a published article that mentions that parallel, any mention of it would be considered original research and be in violation of Wikipedia's no original research policy. 68.229.166.111 (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Gameplay?

As someone who has never played this game before, this article leaves me with no information about the actual gameplay of this game. Typically video game articles have an entire section on gameplay, why is it missing from this one? Somebody should add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.252.128.20 (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I second this, it's a major gap in this article 2001:610:308:692:BC7A:10AA:9770:5AA7 (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Tom Bingle/Inky had nothing to do with this game

This line is almost entirely false:

"The graffiti featured in the game was the work of Banksy collaborator Inkie, who was Sega's head of creative design at the time."

The only bit of truth is that he was working at Sega at the time the game was released. in 2000 however he was just a graphic designer, not the head of creative design, for SEGA Europe, not all of Sega. His first credited work for Sega was as Manual Designer for Toy Racer, a game that was released 6 months after Jet Set Radio.

sources:

his proile on giantbomb:

his profile on mobygames:

Further proof, here are the complete credits for Jet Set Radio:

Skip to 1:53 to see the complete list of graffiti artists who contributed to the game. That complete list is: Erik Haze, Edge, Uecho, Enas, Higuchin, Chikpon, K-Chap

Not only is he not listed as a Graffiti artist, but he is not credited or thanked for anything anywhere in the credits or manual.

It's possible the person who put that erroneous information in had confused Inkie for Erik Haze, although playing the game or watching video of it should make it immediately apparent that it Haze's work is all over the game since much of the graffiti in the game are stylized representations of the word "haze."

Further, in the short documentary about the game that came out alongside the HD release spends about 1/4 of it's time with Erik Haze talking about his impact on the game, how much work he created for it (including the Logo and other incidental art), etc. There is of course no mention of Inkie, since he wasn't a contributor to the game. The documentary can be viewed here:

RareBitFiend (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

References

Many Styles and Yappie Feet

Weren't BOTH tracks excluded from the HD re-release? I've played the game, and I KNOW I haven't heard Many Styles, but I don't think I've heard Yappie Feet in-game either. I may be wrong, and may be confusing it with 'On the Bowl' which sounds very similar.

Also, the track list says 'Recipe for a perfect afro' is Pal only, when it's in the HD release. Soo... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.79.80 (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Cel Shading

I see some arguments about this game and cel shading. The graphical style and use of cel shading received a lot of media attention at that time, so it should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by And Thus, I Can Do It (talk • contribs) 21:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

steam port

the game was also released on stema for pc http://store.steampowered.com/app/205950/ this should be added to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.217.41.192 (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jet Set Radio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305225318/http://whatculture.com/gaming/retrospective-jet-set-radio.php to http://whatculture.com/gaming/retrospective-jet-set-radio.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303162222/http://www.sega.com/jsrcontest/ to http://www.sega.com/jsrcontest/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead edits

OK, I see I've been reverted again. Here are the problems I attempted to correct in my edit:

• anti-establishment themes from Fight Club - we need to italicise Fight Club and explain that it's a film (a year of release is nice too)
• The game was well received among critics.... - a verbose way to say "the game received positive reviews"
• ... won and nominated for multiple awards. - clunky syntax that suggests it "won for multiple awards"
• Its success inspired a mobile phone version - what is your source that it was its success that inspired a mobile version? is "inspired" the right word here at all? This is not clear or direct
• The game also received a high-definition port - as I wrote above, it's a video game, it didn't receive anything - this is a clunky way to say "it was ported"
• several instances of restating the subject - "the game" - when it's already established (ie "it" will suffice)

The fact that you have reverted this on the basis that my version is "not concise", despite being 160 characters shorter, suggests that you don't know what concise means. Blue Pumpkin, if your goal is to get this article to GA standard, we're going to have to hammer these copyediting issues out. Popcornduff (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Your edits gave incorrect information, that is why i said it wasn't concise. To me, concise is "brief but comprehensive" not just "brief period". The previous revision insinuated that the sequel JSRF received the remaster, instead of the original game. Also, you removed the fact that it won awards and only left that it was nominated for them. To a reader, it suggests it didn't win any awards.

If you want to attempt to edit it again and the information doesn't insinuate anything false, then you are free to do so.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Those two points are fair enough - I've restated my version with the fixes. (Might have been simpler for both of us to just fix them instead of a mass revert?) Popcornduff (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

You haven't been wanting to meet me halfway in the previous discussion so far, or addressed my concerns. And i was planning on making even bigger adjustments but i'm pressed for time. I will return in 9 hours.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Date

Blue Pumpkin Pie:

Date first sentences has a tone closer to a report than encyclopedia. Also the word "titled" is only used once in this section. not redundant enough. I argue that Date-first sentences as an opening paragraph are being phased out.Not a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It doesn't have encyclopedic tone

Can you explain this further? What is unencyclopaedic about beginning a sentence with "On such and such date"? What is your evidence that it is being "phased out"?

Also, regarding Also the word "titled" is only used once in this section. not redundant enough - the point is that it is possible to rewrite the sentence so you don't have to use the word "titled". Removing unnecessary words is a priority; it has nothing to do with how many times the word is used. Popcornduff (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: The paragraph was too short and only mentioned two mobile games. Starting off the paragraph with just the date of the first game sounded more like a report, than an encyclopedia. Reports state facts and chronological order but cohesion isn't always important for them. In my opinion, being cohesive is vital for it to have an encyclopedic tone. The previous revision also caused the paragraph to be open-ended. In my revision, I attempted to make the paragraph more cohesive by adding in an opening statement: "Jet Set Radio received two mobile versions." I also kept the sentences connected to each other. And because the lead sentence mentions there are only two, the paragraph isn't open-ended.

I said that the structure for sentences beginning with dates is being phased out, but to be honest, I said that because I didn't know you thought it was an acceptable sentence structure and I haven't seen any good articles that use it the way you have. If your primary concern is the word "titled", I'm willing to compromise.

Is this an acceptable compromise? Jet Set Radio received two mobile versions. The first is Typing Jet; a 2D sidescrolling game in which players escape the police. It was released for Japanese mobile phones by Sega on June 22, 2001.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 04:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The only danger of starting sentences with “On <date>” is when it’s done disjointedly and repetitively (ie WP:PROSELINE). That isn’t a concern here. I don’t understand your perception that it is “being phased out”, report-like, or without “cohesion”, and I don’t think you’ve provided any evidence or rationale for that.

The text you propose has several problems. For example, "receive" is not the clearest verb; Jet Set Radio is an inanimate entity, it’s not in a position to ‘’receive’’ anything. That's also not the right use of a semicolon.

But the main problem is that your text commits you to writing double the number of words without more clarity or information. My concern is not that we have to use “titled” but that we have to use more words at all, to no gain.

You begin with “Jet Set Radio received two mobile versions”, then introduce each version with “the first” and the “the second”. This is redundant when you then tell us about two mobile versions. Readers can count - we can see there were two of them - and as you introduce the versions in chronological order with dates, it’s clear which was released first.

This might be easier to see with a different example. Try this:

1: I ate two pieces of fruit on Wednesday. I ate the first, a banana, at 12pm, and the second, an apple, at 3pm.

2. On Wednesday, I ate a banana at 12pm and an apple at 3pm.

Do you see how the second one contains exactly the same information but with fewer words? Popcornduff (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The only danger of starting sentences with “On <date>” is when it’s done disjointedly and repetitively (ie WP:PROSELINE.)

That is exactly what is happening in this revision: [1]. Its disjointed.

The text you propose has several problems. For example, Jet Set Radio did not “receive” anything; it’s an inanimate entity, it’s not in a position to ‘’receive’’ anything - this is not the clearest verb to use.

My intentions were to add an opening sentence that is connected to the entire paragraph. I'm willing to compromise to change the wording so long as you are willing to compromise as well. We can say "Two 2D versions of the game were released"

But the main problem is that your text commits you to writing double the number of words without more clarity or information. My concern is not that we have to use “titled” but that we have to use more words at all, to no gain.

Double the number of words is an exaggeration. I believe the revision you had was not concise and it was vague and an open-ended paragraph. The gain in my revision is "cohesion". I disagree completely about this being "the main problem".

You begin with “Jet Set Radio received two mobile versions”, then introduce each version with “the first” and the “the second”. This is redundant when you then tell us about two mobile versions. Readers can count - we can see there were two of them - and as you introduce the versions in chronological order with dates, it’s clear which was released first.

The goal was not to state which one was first, and which one was second. I'd argue you are reading it incorrectly, but instead I will repeat that my goal is "cohesion". That each statement in the paragraph was interconnected or had a flow. Again, I'm willing to compromise. For example, it doesn't have to say the "The second is...". We can have it to say "It was followed by..."

1. I ate two pieces of fruit on Wednesday. I ate the first, a banana, at 12pm, and the second, an apple, at 3pm.

2. On Wednesday, I ate a banana at 12pm and an apple at 3pm.

This hypothetical is not a 1:1 scenario for this one we're talking about. What you did was convey the exact same information but in a single sentence. And that is still a more valid opening statement than what your revision had. You didn't disjoint the two into separate sentences (like how it is in your previous revision). And there is no Wikipedia article for "Things PopCornDuff Ate on Wednesday". But if it hypothetically did, i would argue that it would still attempt to have an opening statement that summarizes or connects the entire paragraph(s) together.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, so you're just saying things are disjointed and vague without providing any demonstration for these claims. Let's ask someone else. Popcornduff (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like you've read any of my concerns. Please give my concerns the same level of attention that I gave for yours.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing to respond to. Your concerns amount to calling my version "not concise" (despite being much shorter), "vague", "disjointed" and "open-ended", all of which I find confusing. You need to back these claims up with concrete examples and clear explanations. What is "vague" about it, for example? Popcornduff (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

the definition of open-ended: "having no determined limit or boundary."

the definition of disjointed: "lacking a coherent sequence or connection."

Here is the version you posted earlier:

On June 22, 2001, Sega released a 2D sidescrolling game for Japanese mobile phones, Typing Jet[c], in which players escape police.

A version of Jet Set Radio for Game Boy Advance was developed by Vicarious Visions, developers of the Game Boy Advance Tony Hawk Pro Skater games, and published by THQ in North America on June 26, 2003, and Europe on February 20, 2004...

The statement in Pink is lacking a coherent sequence or connection with the following statement in cyan. In other words: It is disjointed. Because they are disjointed, there is no proper setup for these statements.

Let's compare it to another section that does exist in the article and not some hypothetical scenario. The HD Remaster section has an opening statement that summarizes or gives a boundary of what the section is about. Another example is the Reception section. It tries to section off each aspect of the review into their own paragraphs. "Graphics" in one paragraph, "Music" in another. "Common criticism" is a sentence of its own (in which I intend to expand). Cohesion is of the utmost importance. And if it's not truly coherent, then it's not truly concise.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Pumpkin, but I'm not buying it. You're simply bolting on sentences in the name of "cohesion" that don't need to be there - they add no information or clarity. I can think of a few ways that my version can be reworded or rearranged, but if you're bent on dressing everything up in ribbons, nothing I suggest is going to help us there.

This "boundary" stuff is baffling. The paragraphs you quote are in a section titled "Mobile versions". It's clear what sort of information is in that section, and where that section begins and ends. It doesn't need further demarcation.

I'm even more confused by your comparison to the HD remaster section, which begins "In 2012..." - ie, it begins with a date, ostensibly the grounds for your initial objection. If anything, this sentence is an argument for the approach I'm advocating for - cut to the chase and give us the facts.

This is getting off the point, but the article is currently riddled with writing problems. The next sentence of that HD remake section is: The port of the game was handled by spanish developer, BlitWorks after approaching Sega and were impressed with the results provided. Spanish needs an uppercase S; BlitWorks needs a comma after it; and the grammatical subject disappears completely in the final clause (who was impressed)?

This isn't going to cut it for GA. Popcornduff (talk) 10:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Popcornduff, any grammar issues can be addressed and won't impact GAR unless there are too many grammar issues to address and even bigger issues with the article. So yes, this is getting off point and doesn't add anything to the conversation other than point out "Look how bad you're at this".

Second "In 2012" isn't a specific date. And the sentence addresses two different things. The HD remaster still adds a sentence that encompasses the entire section. your revision only addresses the first game. And no, it's not clear when it ends. Are there more mobile versions out there? It doesn't clarify. It only ambiguously lists two of them without any coherent thought.

Your revision's solution was to separate them into two half-paragraphs. Which if there was enough content, I would believe it would be acceptable to do. But because there isn't enough content to make two full paragraphs, I merged them to be a single paragraph. You brought up WP:PROSELINE. WP:PROSELINE mentions disjointed to be a problem, and I've confirmed that your previous revision has that issue. Concision is not the same as "less words".Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

You have "confirmed" bupkis. WP:PROSELINE does not apply to the paragraphs you quote - I mean, for crying out loud, it's only two sentences long and only one of them begins with a date. Moreover, the solution to WP:PROSELINE problems is not to add filler sentences.

You can't seriously believe that opening with "In 2012" is OK but "On September 1 2012" isn't. You're just throwing sand in your own eyes. Let's hope some other editors chime in. Popcornduff (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: I'm going to only ask once that you respect my opinion as I respect yours. "Bupkis", "for crying out loud", "Your only throwing sand in your eyes" is not appreciated when responding to me. I've expanded gameplay, reception, development, and re-verified release dates. I'm working as hard as I can to make this a GA article. I want to make sure everything I do is to help improve the article, not the opposite. I'm not here to insult you, and I take your concerns just as serious as I take my own concerns. So I'm going to stop this conversation, and instead go to WT:VG, and give a clear explanation of what the issue is so that others can give their input.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

They also add nothing to the conversation and are generally unhelpful, not to mention. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 04:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, I apologise for snapping.

It is frustrating being told things like "I have confirmed that your revision has that issue" when the essay says nothing to apply to the revision in question at all - I should never have brought it up in the first place. The arguments from Blue Pumpkin Pie simply do not make sense. Popcornduff (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Reception section

An issue that I have with the page is actually the reception. It makes next to no mention of the gameplay, with the vague statement about critics praising its arcade-style gameplay (even though it's only followed by a single publication). In my eyes it also needs to have a lot of the information sorted or spread out, and I think a lot of the writing doesn't flow properly or is of good quality. Something like Galaga (a GA) is probably a good idea of what the reception should be like. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 20:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Namcokid47: I moved your comment to a section focused on your concerns because it's completely unrelated to the problem from the previous conversation. I can expand the reception on the gameplay section too. Flow or cohesion is important to me too, and I want to make sure the reception section is the most cohesive it can be. Can you elaborate on what Galaga achieves that you prefer Jet Set Radio to do?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Namcokid47: I expanded the reception to include more commentary on the gameplay. It may not be perfect because it can take me a few days to highlight the right commentary from reviews. I also removed the statement about the arcade-like gameplay and replaced it with something more broad that's true among all reviews. I'm still working on trying to get it closer to Galaga's style, but I'm not sure what to take from it. So if you are willing to guide me in that process, I'm more than welcome to try it. Let me know what you think, or if you want to edit it and make some adjustments, that's fine too. If anyone else is reading this too, they're also welcome to expand and revise the reception section as well. I don't own this article, I just contribute.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not so sure if Galaga was a good example for me to use considering much of its reception is based on the many ports and not the original arcade release. Regardless, what I meant is that there should be chunks for each part of the game (such as its graphics, music, gameplay, story and whatnot) in that section instead of them being spread out from one another - for instance, there could be a paragraph detailing what critics thought of the graphical style and another about what they liked or didn't like about the gameplay. Make sure to weave reviewer's statements into sentences too and not just have them listed one after another - ex. "while GameSpy and Eurogamer liked blah blah blah, Kotaku thought blah blah blah". Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 04:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I made some adjustments. Right now its setup as "Gameplay" first paragraph, "Visual style" second paragraph, and "Music" third paragraph, "HD version" fourth paragraph, which I'm considering dissolving if there's more input. The reviews don't have too much varying opinions, but I'll look back and see what i can find. When it came to the camera controls, they all pretty much said the exact same thing.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections may be useful. Popcornduff (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Vice commentary on soundtrack

This is about the following statement and its placement in the article:

Vice described the music as "energetic, rhythm-heavy and defiant ... a multicultural melange of youth culture and an irrepressible, joyful sense of revolution" and "a central consideration of play".

It is currently in the "Soundtrack" section, but i originally moved it to the "reception" section. Popcornduff disagrees and moved it back. The statement is a personal opinion. All Vice is doing in the reference is giving commentary on the game. Although I agree there are some descriptors, it is mostly reception. Originally there was more Vice commentary in inappropriate areas like the "Development" and "Gameplay" section. What do you think Vice is saying when they add "A central consideration of play"?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 11:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Vice is saying "the music is an important part of the game".

I see the logic in having this in the reception section. But I think it's more useful in the soundtrack section. Yes, assessments like the description of the music as "defiant" and "joyful" are subjective, personal opinions - but that's absolutely appropriate for a section describing the quality and style of the music based on quotes attributed to reliable sources. This is normal - see the Music and lyrics section of The Eraser, for example.

If the Vice quotes were more along the lines of telling us whether the soundtrack was good or bad, then it'd unambiguously belong in the Reception section. Popcornduff (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I see the logic in having this in the reception section. But I think it's more useful in the soundtrack section.

Why would it be useful there? It would be a different circumstance if these were widely accepted descriptions of the soundtrack by multiple credible sources, but I disagree with highlighting Vice's commentary. It's more like undue weight.

but that's absolutely appropriate for a section describing the quality and style of the music based on quotes attributed to reliable sources.

That's not how the section is being used. That Soundtrack section is made up of development and release information.

This is normal - see the Music and lyrics section of The Eraser, for example.

This is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. I understand The Eraser is a GA you worked on, but this isn't a WP:ALBUM article, this is a WP:VG article. And not all GA articles do that. Look at Tranquility Base Hotel & Casino. I may even have to bring up in its respected wikiproject on the subject because I don't see organization method widely accepted.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

A soundtrack section should describe the soundtrack. It's already doing that - it lists the genres, for example.

I accept that the Eraser example is an other-stuff-exists scenario - I was just showing you an example of how this sort of thing can be done, and which you might have found convincing. Wishful thinking. Do you think it's inappropriate on the Eraser article?

Ask away on whatever project you feel would be helpful. Popcornduff (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

At the moment, the Soundtrack section isn't isolated, it's a subsection for Development. The listing of the genres is related to composition. I am looking into more information to see if there is room for Music of Jet Set Radio and Jet Set Radio Future article somewhere along the line. But my stance on the subject still remains that commentary on the soundtrack should be left in the reception section. Its undue weight, in my opinion, to use these descriptions as if they're official or hold significant weight. Especially because it's from just one source. But if there were more, i'd say they shouldn't be highlighted individually.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's WP:UNDUE to include a reliable source's description of the music in the music section, especially when it's in keeping with every other source. It certainly is not presented as "official". Popcornduff (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Undue weight has nothing to do whether the sources are reliable or not. As to whether it is in keeping with other sources in the article, it has yet to be proven. But if it truly is a common opinion, then we don't need "Vice" as the main one describing it. That's why its undue weight, because why are we highlighting one source above all others to describe the soundtrack?

Here's my compromise. If there are reliable sources, we will use the common descriptors. However, we won't be quoting or using ornate or poetic tone. We keep it straight to the point and keep only the keywords they're describing it. Anything else can be interpretted positively or negatively.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

If you want to go and do the work to find multiple sources that use these neutral terms, go for it. Popcornduff (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's another thought. The main reason I want to keep that Vice quote in the soundtrack section is that it offers a decent, useful description of the music from one critic. I think the soundtrack section really needs some description about the content of the music beyond just listing genres, as it's an important part of the game (as reflected by the number of reviews that mention it). So if you can find some other sources that describe the music, that might be another route to covering that base and dropping the Vice quote (though I still don't see what's wrong with using the Vice quote in the first place). Popcornduff (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

In my honest opinion, that's no different from reception.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jet Set Radio/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Namcokid47 (talk · contribs) 14:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Trying to clear out the GAN list at WP:VG. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 14:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Namcokid47: Its been a week and a half. Just making sure you haven't forgotten about the GAN.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry, I haven't forgotten about it :). I've just been busy with other articles for the time being. I'll try getting to this later today. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 17:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Take your time. i dont have a deadline.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Namcokid47: Just a friendly reminder for the GA nomination. No rush.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

From a cursory glance an issue I have with the article already is that much of it is not sourced, mainly with the gameplay and development. Some might find it redundant to do so, but I feel just about every sentence in those sections specifically need to end with a ref, as it helps satisfy WP:V and can easily be verified. Plus it can also help prevent vandalism from users adding a bunch of nonsense without a source, which makes it much easier to justify removing it. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 20:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

i'm working on it now.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 16:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Namcokid47: I believe i covered all the sentences in development and gameplay. let me know if i missed any.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 19:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Namcokid47:—any additional comments? This review has been open a while now with no movement. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Namcokid47 is currently reviewing Lumines: Puzzle Fusion and decided to review this one after. However, i dont oppose anyone who wants to lighten the work load.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 15:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, if somebody else is willing to take over the review, that's fine by me. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 03:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Blue Pumpkin Pie:: I'll take this one, look over the sources, grammar and such. Expect a response by this coming weekend. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Blue Pumpkin Pie: I've had a look through the article. I've done a very little editing, but otherwise the article looks good to me. If anyone wants to make further edits, then please do. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

2Mello - Memories of Tokyo-to: An Ode to Jet Set Radio/Jet Set Sona/Jet Set Radio Live

Should we mention 2Mello's album (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBt8ioYEXBw), the Jet Set Sona Challenge (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVuLr5L1BNU, https://twitter.com/KAINONAUT/status/1230601771682324488) and Jet Set Radio Live (https://jetsetradio.live) in the legacy section? St. Jimmy (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I think they're worth mentioning if enough reliable sources are covering it. I know there's also a quote-on-quote "Spiritual successor" which is more of just a fan game. Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 23:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The over-reliance of low-quality Youtube references

@St. Jimmy Jammy: A lot of the content you are adding are from not reputable youtube users. Not all youtube sources are bad. It would be best to find better sources that are more verifiable from WP:VG/RS. Or if possible, avoid Youtube videos and try using written references.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 18:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Merchandising

Should merchandise from the series be mentioned anywhere? (segabits.com/blog/2015/04/09/the-merchandise-of-segas-jet-set-radio-collecting-that-uki-uki-waku-waku-feeling, shop.sega.com/collections/jet-set-radio, segabits.com/blog/2014/04/30/classic-sega-magazine-corner-the-official-dreamcast-magazine-previews-jet-grind-radio) St. Jimmy (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if we consider Segabits a reliable source.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 22:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

ig but it was one of the only ones I could find St. Jimmy (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

even if segabits is not a reliable source we also have merch from the official SEGA website so that could probably be added --Joncoale (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Let Mom Sleep into Jet Set Radio#Soundtrack

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.

---

Fails WP:GNG miserably. While I am not opposed to the creation of an overall soundtrack article for Jet Set Radio if it is notable enough, the single song clearly isn't, as much as I like the actual song. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support merge. The sourcing for "Reception" and "In popular culture" is very weak. Haleth (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• 'Support per nom. Popcornfud (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support merge. As the one who originally created the article, I propose that an article for the 2000 and 2012 albums are created and redirect the page "Let Mom Sleep" to the album page itself. --Daniel.Nemitz (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support there is nothing in the standing article that isn't said in the target and thus should be merged as my original redirect. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:38, 3 November 2021 (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.