Talk:Mega Man 4

Doctor Cossack merge

Doctor Cossack is nothing but plot summary of this game and OR-ish description of his personality (except for the MMBN stuff, which belongs in the article for that game). As it is dupe content and per WP:FICT, it should be merged here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What about the Battle Network information? --24.147.128.141 01:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It can go in the corresponding MMBN game article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Robot Masters

I've started a discussion about including Robot Masters in Mega Man articles at the Video Game project talk page. If you have an opinion, please remark here. Lumaga (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article include info on the RMs that were designed by fans of the series? Kouban (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source, absolutely. Lumaga (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Tracklist removal

I removed the tracklist for the so-called "original soundtrack" because there was never an original soundtrack released for this game. The only music officially released for this game is the "Capcom Music Generation Famicom Music Complete Works Rockman 1~6" released by Capcom on the Suleputer label, and the names here didn't even correspond with the names listed there.

http://vgmdb.net/album/255

The track names aren't anything you couldn't guess just by listening to the track, so rather than pretend there has been a special release for this game's music, I think it's best just to remove the listing entirely.

Hellacia (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mega Man 4/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DustFormsWords (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I intend to commence a Good Article Review for this article. (I will also review Mega Man 6 for the benefit of consistency across reviews.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I intend to conduct a Good Article Review of this article. I will start by adding a framework listing the GA criteria, and then assess against each criteria. In all but the best and worst articles I expect to find at least minor ways that the article should be improved prior to getting the tick. It may take me anywhere from a couple of hours to several days to complete the initial review, depending on RL commitments. Each criterion will be marked with a red cross until I have assessed that the article meets or exceeds the criterion, at which time the cross will be changed to a green tick. When the initial review is complete I will let the nominator know via a message on his or her talk page. Thank you for your patience.

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

Prose is now clear and concise, and spelling and grammar are correct.

• Resolved - "the game is widely regarded today to represent a downward shift in the overall quality of the series, particularly for its immediate sequels" - Sorry, I can't parse "particularly for its immediate sequels". Do you mean that Mega Man 4, 5 and 6 are all worse than 1, 2 and 3? Or that Mega Man 4 looks particularly bad because 5 and 6 are particularly good? Could you rewrite this sentence to make it clearer?
• Resolved - "Cossack states further that he will unleash his army of robots upon the world as a "test" for Light to see which of them is best" - Do you mean which of the robots is the best? Or which is best out of Cossack and Light? Please reword to make this clearer.
• Resolved - "A "Wire Adaptor" and a "Balloon Adaptor" are additionally available, which can aid the player in reaching areas not normally accessible." - Sorry, what are these, exactly? It sounds like they are upgrades for Rush. The next sentence talks about "these five power ups". You have only listed two adaptors; are you also counting the three modes for Rush? Please clarify this section.

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation;

The article complies with the manuals of style for lead sections, layout, words to watch, and fiction.

The manual of style for lists does not apply to this article.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

All sources appear in a dedicated and appropriately described section.

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

All content is attributed to reliable sources through inline citations.

(c) it contains no original research.

There is no evidence of original research in this article.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

The article mentions all topics that I would expect for an article of this sort.

• Resolved - Music/Soundtrack - I would typically expect a video game article to have some discussion of the game's composer and its soundtrack, especially as some of the critical reviews identify the music as a particularly bad aspect of the game.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

The article does not go into inappropriate detail.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

   I am unaware of notable viewpoints that are not mentioned by this article.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   The article appears to be relatively stable and does not appear to be the subject of any unresolved dispute.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content;

All images used in the article have excellent, comprehensive and appropriate licensing and tagging.

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Images are relevant to the article and are appropriately captioned.

Overview - My initial review is complete. The article is strong and should be able to be promoted to GA over the course of this review. However, there are three issues under criterion 1a to address above, and one under criterion 3a. Please edit the article to fix these concerns, and leave a message on my talk page when you believe the article is ready for me to re-review it. If editing of the article has not commenced within seven days I will close the review as a fail; otherwise I will leave it open for so long as active improvement is occurring, until the GA criteria are met. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Overview 2 - All my concerns above have been very swiftly addressed; the article now meets the GA criteria and I will promote it accordingly. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect translation of Japanese title

Note a lists the translation of the game's Japanese title, 「ロックマン4新たなる野望！！」 as "Rockman 4: A New Evil Ambition!!" This translation is incorrect, as the word "Evil" doesn't appear in this title at all. 新たなる means "new" and 野望 means "ambition." The correct translation would be "Rockman 4: A New Ambition!!" 209.180.167.175 (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

"Rockman 4 Minus Infinity" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Rockman 4 Minus Infinity has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25 § Rockman 4 Minus Infinity until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)