Talk:Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City

"t-virus" vs. "T-virus"

"Many points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names, can be decided by observing the style adopted by high-quality sources when considering a stylistic question. Unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, follow the usage of reliable English-language secondary sources. If the sources can be shown to be unrepresentative of current English usage, follow current English usage instead—and consult more sources."

— WP:FOLLOW

Boldly changed this back to "T-virus" per MOS:FOLLOW, since the overwhelming majority of reliable secondary English-language sources capitalize the "T" in the term. The only primary English source I've encountered with a lowercase "t" is Resident Evil Zero. Prime Blue (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

In japan the name is always spent in lowercase; its usage fluctuates between 'T' and 't' in the English-translation based on the translators' disgression. I find the English language version of the files to be the secondary - as the translators don't work with/for Capcom they don't have the writers check the translation, leading to many mistakes. 't' was used once in the original game (English) and in trailers (eg. Degeneration; Umbrella Chronicles). As the series is made by Capcom Japan and written primarily in Japanese, I feel that we should consider that version as the primary source and only rely on the English-language version as long as it doesn't contradict the original text.-- OsirisV (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Even a lot of Japanese sources capitalize the "T", it seems they only started to use a lowercase "t" with later games (starting with Resident Evil Zero). But the Manual of Style says to base proper names on reliable secondary English-language sources. If the majority of primary and secondary English sources capitalize it, it should be capitalized on the encyclopedia as well. "t-virus" looks pretty weird, too: more like a stylistic Japanese choice than what is considered standard for the English language. Prime Blue (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Which has become popular with the constant inclusion of "i" in front of a title to suggest technological superiority. I myself have not found Japanese sources that use the capitalized "T", save of course for those grammar-disgressional translations. While "t" first appeared in the English-language 1996 original, most text was changed to show the capitalized version. As these translators were not working with the story writers (or even Capcom), I feel that the English-language version should not be considered a "primary" source. If a German-copy of a book you wrote was full of changes the translator made without your concent, would de.Wikipedia still consider it a primary source? That is what I feel about the translated versions.-- OsirisV (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Concluding, it would appear that with Capcom's (as the copyright holders) continuation with the lowercase font, that we should consider the "t" as the official spelling, and "T" as a mistake or arbitrary alteration on the part of the translator. Furthermore, I am worried that WP:FOLLOW does not seem to outline what should be considered 'primary' when the official English-language version is a semi-independent translation. - OsirisV (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Both the English and Japanese versions of the games are primary sources, as they come from the originator of the subject that is dealt with. As I said, the capitalized "T" appears in many primary Japanese sources ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] – and pretty much all the games released before Resident Evil Zero, though I'll only take the time for one now: [10]). Unless the lowercase "t" is adopted by more reliable secondary English sources in addition to primary English sources, I don't think it should be used as the standard here – it's just too niche at the moment. Prime Blue (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Strange, Dead Aim itself uses lowercase. I guess the spelling is also at the writer's disgression, as well. All I can find are trailers that throw "t-Virus" at the screen and the official Resident Evil 5 websites (the English and Japanese/BSAA ones). As it appears in official Japanese material, I will cease replacing "T" with "t".-- OsirisV (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The correct spelling is T-virus or with a capitol "V" for the word virus.92.235.168.144 (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually 'T-Virus' is an English translation. As I have said above the original Japanese text uses 't-Virus' heavily, particularly when it is referred to by name in-game and throughout the Biohazard Archives, a Capcom encyclopedia.-- OsirisV (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

See also

This probably won't go away soon, so I've taken the liberty of starting the discussion here on whether or not to use a "see also" section. I'll also show the two sides to the argument that have been shown in the edit summaries, along with counters to other arguments (my own counters will be in itallics).

For

The titles listed are either spin-offs based around Resident Evil 2 or are third-person shooters.

Against

• Operation Raccoon City isn't an adaptation of Resident Evil 2; while it contains events from that game, it also references Resident Evil 3: Nemesis. While Darkside Chronicles includes a Resident Evil 2 scenario, the Umbrella Chronicles has a number of stories set in Raccoon City - two of them are based around Resident Evil 2 (with The Fourth Survivor being an adaptation of a specific side-story in that game). As such, Umbrella Chronicles is as notable as its compatriot. As such, I'd like to point out that there are a number of spin-offs set in Raccoon City at the time, including Confidential Report and The Missions.

-- OsirisV (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Against - The navigation template at the bottom lists all games in the series already, and if someone is hardcore enough to want to know about the connection of the plots of the other games, then they can just search out those games on their own. If any of the games are directly important to the events of this game, they could always be added in the body of the plot section or something I suppose. Listed by themselves, without any explanation, is confusing to most readers, (and once much of a description would be added, it'd probably start to turn into a plot section anyways...) Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It was never about any "plots", and even more "plot sections". What are you talking about? It's the other RE2/3 spinoffs, and the other multiplayer RE TPS (RE5-based), obviously. The "plots" are actually absolutely unimportant in this case, these spinoffs are mostly uncanonical and this one is totally uncanonical, too: it's just loosely based on RE2/3, too, and is a multiplayer TPS, too. And there's an empty space in the article because of the reception box. --Niemti (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, when you keep on saying it's "based on RE2", I assumed you meant plot/setting type stuff, because it's certainly not related based on gameplay or sound or something. But either way, my point was that the list as is, without explanation, doesn't make sense to the average reader (ie Wikipedia's target audience), and once much explanation would be added in, I imagine the information would be better placed somewhere than a "See Also" section anyways. (Though I ultimately don't think it's needed at all.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"Based on RE2/3", actually. Which means the zombie outbreak mayhem in Raccoon City, USA, that's all. --Niemti (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not a particularly-good description, as it can easily mislead one into thinking that they are related, plot-wise. They are based around the same events as RE2 and 3, I'll give you.-- OsirisV (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whatever, I'm not here to nitpick over their relationship. The point is, at least 3 people have come by and have been confused as to how it's been portrayed as a list without any explanation present, and have been favor in removing it. It clearly needs to be fixed or removed. What are you thoughts on that. Sergecross73 msg me 17:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

B assessment

A couple of things are holding me back from assessing as B. The Development section seems short. If the info is hard to find, then okay. There's also not a Release section. Add a Release section and put the DLC release info (which is currently in Development) in this section. --JDC808 ♫ 16:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not hard to find, it's a new game. A plenty of news, previews and interviews are available. ...but I didn't follow this game and I'm not interested now enough to research it retrospectively. You can tag it for expansion, if you want. --Niemti (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

suggest change in the ending description

when you can choose to save or execute leon, you arent forced to fight 2 or 1 teammates, if all 4 choose the same side, you fight several umbrella soldiers or leon and several spec ops. the description in the wiki implies two teammates always choose an opposing side, this is only for single player. "cannonicaly", they all betrayed umbrella after it betrayed them and left them for dead. KRISHANKO (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think co-op is relevant.-- OsirisV (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

you would think wrong. this game is meant primarily for coop. just like left 4 dead.if other game's wiki pages make a distinction between different endings, this must too. KRISHANKO (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Might as well respond. While it's meant for co-op, the fact that they call all influence the ending makes our coverage moot, especially as there is no canon ending since there's no sequel to confirm it, being in a different universe. Either stick with the offline version of "2 say yes; 2 say no" as the 'canon' or write down that there are also 1-yes-3-no; 3-yes-1-no;4-yes-0-no and 0-no-4-yes conclusions and none are known to be canon.-- OsirisV (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City. 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/20120322035455/http://au.gamespot.com/news/resident-evil-operation-raccoon-city-free-dlc-drops-april-10-6366621 to http://au.gamespot.com/news/resident-evil-operation-raccoon-city-free-dlc-drops-april-10-6366621
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322195655/http://www.gameshark.com/reviews/4004/Resident-Evil-Operation-Raccoon-City-Review.htm to http://www.gameshark.com/reviews/4004/Resident-Evil-Operation-Raccoon-City-Review.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)