Talk:List of Choro Q video games

history

the series history is far from complete, I'll get it more or less finished in the near future.

Takosuke 01:46, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

done, for the record. 62.252.192.12 22:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is Road Trip shifting gears?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Choro Q video games. 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/20100315124633/http://www.nex-ent.co.jp/Product.html to http://www.nex-ent.co.jp/Product.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 02:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Choro Q video games. 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/20040925233950/http://www.takara-game.ne.jp/ to http://www.takara-game.ne.jp/

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) 18:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Master System?

Hello,

Just noticed that the 1984 Choro-Q game is only listed as being for Master System. This was surprising to me, given the Master System did not come out until 1985 and I did not recall it having a Choro-Q game. Looking at the citation, it says that an MSX Choro-Q game from 1984 got an unlicensed Korean port as part of a multicart. Given this information, I would suggest it is more accurate to list the MSX as the platform rather than the Master System, is the existence of the unlicensed Master System port notable enough to be mentioned in the notes column?

I'm also not entirely sure on "Obscure Titles" as a section header. I haven't had the time to dig into Wikipedia style guides yet, but looking at other wikipedia lists of video games "spin-off" or "side game" is likely more appropriate.

Thanks IguessIamhere (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Documentation

I decided to leave a discussion as per policy since there seems to be an ongoing issue leading unnecessary problems. I believe it is needed to say that users who are reverting the information need to work together to help make the information more clearer. One can only do much but one should not remove information unless it’s really non existent. As an individual editor I can only spot so much information and acknowledge so many issues. I would like to continue preserving the information when I am able but would continue to ask people to be more considerate for readers who may be looking into the games and spend time assisting with the edits. While definitions and terms may differ from user to user. One can spend time to clarify and help make edits or suggest edit fixes instead of spending time to remove factual information of the existence of each game. I hope to continue working with the people here and helping people gain more knowledge on a obscure game series.LunaHydreigon (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I left a long list of reasons on your talk page why your revision of the table violates Wikipedia policy, including a lack of reliable secondary coverage (i.e. not official websites), copying from another wiki with no attribution. Please read the various rules I linked on your page. The changes made to the article were done to bring it into compliance with those rules, though there is still more work that should be done. It is not the responsibility of other users to fix your text, and reverting to a version that violates those policies expecting someone else to fix it is rude. Filling in information is good, but your contributions should adhere to Wikipedia's rules and policies from the start rather than copy-pasting it from elsewhere and leaving it to someone else to clean up. A better use of your time would be to find what's missing, along with reliable sources to back it up, and plug those into the existing table. Also, nothing needs to be "preserved" because the text is already available on the Fandom wiki and in the revision history of this article. It's not like it's going to disappear. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe it should have been discussed here involving this page since I was unaware of any notifications to the talk page as I am on mobile and away for the time being. The guideline states to talk it out on the talk page and you did not do that, such I was unaware of your concerns and problems.

Though explaining my reverts are rude when you should have initially discussed the issues here is saying a lot. If anything, on the initial revert, you could have incited a talk page to calmly speak about the matter of concerns.

Also users may use the Wikipedia as it’s suppose to be a viable (but not citable) to find mostly factual information. Users may also use Wikipedia as a preference as well. What is the point of the Wikipedia is there lacks information of a topic that may be more well known to someone else and that someone else is unable to document it? I believe you are being accusatory and rude, and whether it’s your intentional or not.

But that’s besides the point. I’m not here to point fingers and all I want is proper factual information to be available to fans and normal users alike.

If this table is considered against the norm, the original table you continue to revert continues to do the same. If I remember correctly, the Huper Racing 5 is considered as an arcade cabinet for example. One can argue it as apart of the list of games but it can vary on the definition.

I’ve already spent an extensive amount of time doing my own research and providing citation. While maybe there is an error and all within. One can simply remove such links and provide that a different citation is needed. another user has done such a thing and a citation tag can be added to the page.

Though out of all respect, I believe the Wikipedia is a place for all of us to work together. I am not saying you specifically need to make said changes. But it shouldn’t be up to one user to fix all the changes because it doesn’t comply with x y z. With that belief, I believe it is wrongful thinking as it is human to make errors and be unaware of one’s own writing.

Anyways, when I’m available I’ll take a look accordingly, but I’d advise you to please do not make accusations and cause a revert war over a lack of initial communication. One can peacefully resolve everything by simply speaking to one another and discussing it on this talk page as per policy.

I provide a disclaimer that I have written this on mobile so I will not be able to provide any substantial links and so on to what I may speak of at this current time.

With all respect, LunaHydreigon (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Admin here. I'm not part of the dispute, so I'll let you and anyone else work through the problem solving here. But there's a few issues with not following Wikipedia process correctly.

1. We need to be following WP:BRD.
2. Wikipedia works on a consensus-based system for handling disputes. And when there is no consensus on how to proceed, we default back to the original version. That's the version prior to the proposed changes.
3. On Wikipedia, we need to be following WP:V. Everything is supposed to be sourced to reliable sources. So, while both versions have issues here, the proposed version includes a massive increase in unsourced content, so if nothing else, that's a massive policy violation. Sergecross73 msg me 15:51, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I've gone through and removed entries I couldn't find citations for, and cited everything else to good secondary sources. So now we have citations for every console and handheld game, while PC and mobile games are absent. Those should probably be in their own tables on the article, provided sufficient sourcing can be found. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for clarifying and intervening with the matter. I'll late a note of your provided information as they are much more clear and direct without any possibly accusatory, assumed statements, or even judging my personal documentation on differing websites, whether or not it is intentional or not or even passive aggressive. Thus I'll make the fixes according to as follows in a polite manner and using the pages you have linked as references to continue my positive experience to provide factual information about this obscure series that can be Abandonware under the idea of that, while the IP remains active, the game as a series has not been active on the console side for over a decade, with the last release being Choro-Q Wii. To clarify, the IP itself is only active in Japan and they only use it currently to the toyline which is what the series initially originated from.

I politely provided fixes documentation under the provided links regarding:

- All "Choro Q" is fixed to "Choro-Q" as per the original Choro-Q page. (Honestly, would request for this page to be fixed under List of Choro-Q Video Games OR, proposed Choro-Q (video game series) to be aligned with pages like Wipeout_(video_game_series) as there is a toyline series). This is noted on their official page as "Choro-Q" for their latest toyline written on their TOMY US website.

- Japanese Titles, I believe this format remains readable as Choro-Q is primarily of Japanese origin. Bellow would show the translated versions.

- A note, will be using Video Game - Sources as a reference to redo citations properly and accordingly.

- Changed Publisher to Publisher(s) as some may or may not contain multiple publishers.

- Changed Platforms to Platform as none of the games were released on multiple platforms. Though, some games may share the same overseas title and cover, they are not the same game, according to their Japanese counterparts. Helps with clarity.

- Also the to clarify, the original table I was based on one of the table from back in the day that had remained up for an extremely long time. Whether or not it was in compliance or not is not known to me and probably falls under the same circumstances as of current which has cleared up from what I understand is, the table tells what is needed for the game series for users of the Wikipedia to be able to do their due diligence with the help of this page.

- Updated the initial description a bit more. We don't really have proof of the games being considered as "Budget Titles" but one can go into their own research to look for what the original MSRP prices are for the western market. Though, I believe the word spinoff should be used as the game series is mainly a car racing series and there are some games that involve tanks, planes or ships. Someone can spend time writing it better since I'm not too keen on writing out summaries and getting to the point, thus I usually focus on lists and tables, but for now this is my take from my years of researching the series.

- Removed any broken links since they do not have pages and cleaned up code/formatting. Added links for certain companies that have Wikipedia pages. Added back Japanese names that were missing.

Bellow is the top down references and fixes accordingly by original names (for less confusion) with detailed summary which can be up for discussion without reverting each other works, if anything, through mutual editing and discussion:

- チョロQ - Provided full release date as notated from the Penny Racers (1996 video game) page. Provided Archive.org link to scanned cover image that shows the alternative 1.02 cover. There are two names for the Japanese version. If need be, I can seek citation for the first version. I also have both of these in version, but have no way to scan them at this current time for Archive.org. Most likely there is already a scanned version. A note, one can separate it as two different releases due to having a slightly altered name, but they are the same game, thus I think they should remain together unless there is a better way to display that the game has 2 different named releases in Japanese.

I have noted down Template:MobyGames under the ref tag. I'm not familiar with using the same page formatting for the referencing the citation side, so feel free to fix it so it is combined (if that is possible). This is used for the date and initial name for this title. It is noted that there is discussions of using Moby Games as source, but if it's built into Wikipedia, it appears to be usable still. You may refer to the initial page of Template:MobyGames#See_also so I believe this can remain up unless a different source is found from an article, official website and so on.

- チョロQ2 - Added back JP Wikipedia links, proper embedding. While the page does not exist on the English side, the game was only released in Japanese and thus, at least should link to that page where users may use built in translators to learn about the game or at least see what information is there about it on the Wikipedia.

Added back the full initial date of release that is stated in チョロQ2.

- チョロQ3 - Added back JP Wikipedia links, proper embedding. While the page does not exist on the English side, the game was only released in Japanese and thus, at least should link to that page where users may use built in translators to learn about the game or at least see what information is there about it on the Wikipedia.

This has two different publishers, due to the PS ONE second re-release by Atlus. I think it should be noted down that there are two version releases of the game for the Japanese region. While having a physical copy without being able to upload the source properly to Archive.org, one should look for a citation for it as I may not be able to find it at the current time. Believe, possible article can remain under a situation of where more citations is needed to prove authenticity of the more or less obscured changes in publishers.

Added back the full initial date of release that is stated in チョロQ3.

チョロQジェット レインボーウィングス - Added link to Actrovison. It's noted to be linked as such on the チョロQ_(ゲーム) page. It does say it's some sort of television related topic, so further research is needed on this much more obscure title.

- チョロＱパーク - Extremely undocumented title from my understanding. It also is noted to have two different developers. While this website's image (here in this picture) shows that it was published by Takara, citations from elsewhere are needed. One would also need to double check if the original release and the SEGA SATURN COLLECTION were re-released by the same developer unlike other previous ones where Atlus (for example) did a re-release.

Date of release is taken from Choro-Q Park.

- チョロQマリン Qボート - Changed citation to official website. I'm not familiar with using the same page formatting for the referencing the citation side, so feel free to fix it so it is combined (if that is possible). This is used for the date and initial name for this title.

This has two different publishers, due to the PS ONE second re-release by Atlus. I think it should be noted down that there are two version releases of the game for the Japanese region. While having a physical copy without being able to upload the source properly to Archive.org, one should look for a citation for it as I may not be able to find it at the current time. Believe, possible article can remain under a situation of where more citations is needed to prove authenticity of the more or less obscured changes in publishers.

チョロQ64 - I believe there should be a proper citation for also the EU release just so both can be citated, but due to having the same name. The citation is hard to find for my case.

Pulled the reference for this game's release date from Famitsu.

Changed Locomotive Corporation to Locomotive.

- コンバットチョロQ - Changed citation to official website. I'm not familiar with using the same page formatting for the referencing the citation side, so feel free to fix it so it is combined (if that is possible). This is used for the date and initial name for this title.

This has two different publishers, due to the PS ONE second re-release by Atlus, thus added Atlus' official website as reference.

- ハイパーカスタマブルGB Just a note, Finding an | improper source for Electronic Applications which is also known as Eleca. While we should leave it as is, I believe further documentation about this is needed, whether it was known as Electronic Applications or Eleca during production. This is one of the more or less obscure titles that has hard to find information for citations.

Added back the 30th as the title of the reference states today being | July 30th is the game's anniversary. I believe this may be creditable enough to reference exact date of production.

- チョロQ ワンダフォー！

Uhm, right away, a bit out of character, but I know while it is from Kotaku... Personally, and this is my opinion really from the translation developer POV. This [reference] does not seem to have information on its release date. If anything, it speaks about the English Translated that I was involved in creating... Thus, as a developer of the unofficial translation...this, in politeness, isn't a proper reference. The production team, its lead, and I are not official translators for the Choro-Q series and it is identified as a fan-translation for the english version. I've now replaced it with the official E-Game (defunct) website's citation instead as it properly documents the game logo.

Note, similar issue with others: I'm not familiar with using the same page formatting for the referencing the citation side, so feel free to fix it so it is combined (if that is possible). This is used for the date and initial name for this title.

Reference added for date of release via Gamedrive.jp.

This has two different publishers, due to the PSO ONE second re-release by Atlus. I think it should be noted down that there are two version releases of the game for the Japanese region. While having a physical copy without being able to upload the source properly to Archive.org, one should look for a citation for it as I may not be able to find it at the current time. Believe, possible article can remain under a situation of where more citations is needed to prove authenticity of the more or less obscured changes in publishers.

- チョロQ64 2 ハチャメチャグランプリレース

This reference provides no date...? And a note of IGN calling it Choro-Q 64 2 can be considered slightly unofficial or shortened for journalism since the official name full is チョロQ64 2 ハチャメチャグランプリレース.

Changed Locomotive Corporation to Locomotive.

Reference added for date of release via Gamedrive.jp.

- パーフェクトチョロQ

Pulled the reference for this game's release date from Famitsu.

| improper source for Electronic Applications which is also known as Eleca. While we should leave it as is, I believe further documentation about this is needed, whether it was known as Electronic Applications or Eleca during production. This is one of the more or less obscure titles that has hard to find information for citations.

Reference added for date of release via Gamedrive.jp.

-チョロQHG

Pulled the reference for this game's release date from Famitsu.

-チョロQHG2

A note, a Korean version exists, thus I will leave the Korean title there, but its the matter of finding Korean articles on this is difficult on my end since this cannot be used as a reference. I believe it's not documented on archive.org since on my own research in finding a copy of this game, it's very difficult to find any info on it.

Added back the Eurogamer ref for EU name confirmation.

Provided official website ref for official name confirmation for Japanese.

Reference added for date of release via Gamedrive.jp.

ATLUS THE BEST re-release, published by Atlus has been added with official website documentation.

- 新コンバットチョロQ

A ATLUS THE BEST re-release exists for this game, thus placed reference published by Atlus has been added with official website as documentation.

A note, a Korean version exists as I own a copy of such, thus I will leave the Korean title there, but its the matter of finding Korean articles on this is difficult on my end since this cannot be used as a reference. I believe it's not documented on archive.org since on my own research in finding a copy of this game, it's very difficult to find any info on it.

Provided reference for official title from developer website.

Added official BHE name and date reference.

- コンバットチョロQアドバンス大作戦

Placed a N/A for developer, game is one of the more undocumented ones. It may state it inside the game itself, but this is one of the Choro-Q games I haven't played to at least put something there. The box itself provides no information unless it was produced and published by Takara. Either way, documentation on the development side is hard to find and may be needed to confirm developer.

Provided full date via Gamedrive.jp.

- ぼくのチョロQ

Reference added for date of release via Gamedrive.jp.

-チョロQドバンス2

improper source for Electronic Applications which is also known as Eleca. While we should leave it as is, I believe further documentation about this is needed, whether it was known as Electronic Applications or Eleca during production. This is one of the more or less obscure titles that has hard to find information for citations.

Provided Atlus' reference for title confirmation for Japanese.

-チョロQHG3

Reference added for official name from official e-game website (defunct).

ATLUS THE BEST re-release, published by Atlus has been added with official website documentation.

For now, I'll remove Conspiracy Entertainment as a publisher since the game wasn't actually officially published. Now, the magazine that was use to reference it may state such, but I personally do not know about said magazine to use it as a reference for confirming who the publisher would be. Hopefully that makes sense. If that information is confirmed, I believe it can be supported with the reference or another reference.

Provided full date via Gamedrive.jp.

ATLUS THE BEST re-release, published by Atlus has been added with official website documentation.

- チョロQ!

Added reference for official name from official website.

Pulled the reference for this game's release date from Famitsu.

Fixed developer, it's been noted on Road Trip: The Arcade Edition page that the developer is Hudson Soft. This is also noted on VGMdb] as well.

Reference added for date of release via Famitsu.

- チョロQHG4

Added reference for official name from official website.

ATLUS THE BEST re-release, published by Atlus has been added with official website documentation.

Added official BHE name and date reference.

- チョロQワークス

Added reference for official name from official website.

Added official BHE name and date reference.

It is noted on BHE's website that the distributor is Atlus, but copyright is owned by both Takara and Atlus. Assumingly, this is because Jack Frost is in the game, which is Atlus' mascot from Persona, therefore, copyright to Atlus. I've removed Takara as one of the publisher with knowledge of the information from the official website.

- チョロQDS

N/A

- チョロQWii

Added reference for official name from official website.

Added official BHE name and date reference.

All links provided from me should be from citable sources such as Archive.org, Mobygames, and official websites (primary sources) the games are from, if not please correct as possible by either unlinking or finding a different citation. I understand that primary sources can be problematic, though I believe in this case, it ok as they are only referencing the official name of the topic and official release dates, thus shouldn't fall under the No original research context (from what I understand) as they do not reference any sort of monologue game development and those that have text of their advertising campaigns - once more the official release date and official logo are being reference at most.

External Links

Since I had a done a lot of past research, I've provided all available official websites under here so that they are available to users. A note, Fumio Tanabe is a friend of mine who you can spend time researching about the work he had done for E-Game. If putting his link in there is not ok for whatever reason, you may remove it. I had noticed it on the Japanese [:ja:チョロQ_(ゲーム)] page and assume it may include any website related to all developers including the individuals, if they have such social media and he would count as a developer of the team who has activity on the Japanese side of social media.

Please note I had spent another 12 or so hours or so providing more research. I hope of the day a peaceful resolution that involves learning together, helping each other and making sure information is placed on the page correctly is achieved instead of using reverts on an attempt of hard work. Thus, I have provided a detail notation of my edits for the help of understanding and possible identifying details that may need to be retouched on or another user may go back through and provide better data or resources.

I hope to continue working on this page peacefully with others because, whether or Fandom or here, I want users to feel like they can find proper documented information of the Choro-Q games at most. From there, they can do their own research as necessary as the individual pages of each game may remain too obscure or hard to document due to the game series side of the franchise is considered to being Abandonware with little news sources and known magazines (if anything they may only be in Japanese). I also apologize in advance if my writing can come off as improper or rude as well, english can be a difficult language for wording things. Also I had copy pasted some of the documentation as they refer to the same topic otherwise rewriting the same thing over and over is quite unnecessary I think as this is for extensive documentation purposes which, to be reminded, may be correct as necessary and may contain errors as I spent a lot of time going back and forth through the code, fixing or retouching on things, thus human error can occur. But everything should be from my extensive research I've spent over a decade looking into that are from appropriate sources.

I would advise though for future reference, to be careful on using official sources that speak about the translation patches the team and I are involved in. Those I feel are very much unofficial since we, once more, are a dedicated community looking to translate the entire series, not official translators for the company.

Thank you and hope to continue working with everyone! With all due respect, sincerely, LunaHydreigon (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I will also spend some time later to re-update the mobile list as I have primary sources on some of those as well, but this here was a lot of work now. Thank you, LunaHydreigon (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I've reverted to the previous table style, as that is preferred and is currently in use on our featured lists of video games such as List of Metroid media and List of Donkey Kong video games. Any changes should be made within this table format.

Also, as an English language wiki, it is preferred that titles be transliterated in English rather than displaying Japanese text.

For links to wikis in other language, you can use the {{ill}} template, as it is otherwise difficult to tell that the link does not go to another English language page. For example, linking to Choro-Q 3 is done by typing {{ill|Choro-Q 3|ja|チョロQ3}}. That indicates that there is no English language page while providing a link to the Japanese equivalent.

To cite instruction manuals, please do not link to archive.org uploads of them directly. Instead, use the {{cite book}} template. For example, here is how to cite the manual for Choro-Q 64 2:<ref>{{Cite book |last=Locomotive Corporation |title=Choro Q 64 2: Hachamecha Grand Prix Race |date=1999 |publisher=[[Takara]] |page=6 |lang=ja |type=instruction manual}}</ref> <nowiki><ref>{{Cite book |last=Locomotive Corporation |title=Choro Q 64 2: Hachamecha Grand Prix Race |date=1999 |publisher=[[Takara]] |page=6 |lang=ja |type=instruction manual}}</ref>

Using Mobygames as a source is actually discouraged as of recently, which is why it is currently listed as unreliable on the sources page. Please don't use it for citations.

I would also recommend not linking to so many websites in the external links section, as most of them would be better on pages about each developer or individual game, not the series as a whole. A better external link would be to an official website for the game series, if one exists.

I appreciate your desire to improve the article, and I am happy to help provide guidance, but again, please make sure you're following Wikipedia guidelines and best practices when doing so. I set up the table so everything would already be formatted and all you'd need to do is fill in information and citations. There's no need to revert back to the old style. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, while I apologize for making a large edit, I'll do so in small edits afterwards. I am going to revert it back with the changes because specifically because this article explains there are multiple ways to make a wikipedia table. I think you should had waited for me before reverting it so we can provide the pro and cons of each table. I also provided a lot of decent secondary articles in the original concept.

Unless I'm specifically shown otherwise that the wikipeida MUST have that specific style, I don't think I understand why it's not universal to all games, especially games with a large amount of content. Choro-Q itself is rather confusing with the english naming conventions, thus, one cannot search in the table you have made.

Anyways I'll provide examples of other pages that use different tables. Just because it's featured, doesn't mean it's a universal table that works with all games. PLEASE REFER TO Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games and [the featured table] I have used as reference. My table is perfectly ok and is sortable. Think about the issues the other table has. There is "Gadget Racers" for the GBA, Gamecube, and PS2. Not to put my personal experience in this, but I run the Choro-Q community for both Fandom and Discord, many users have discussed about the difficulty of identifying each game. Others express the confusion. This is why we have a visual guide on the fandom [page] If you spend time to take a look at each game's logo, many share the same logo but are completely different games. Please wait to discuss the pros and cons with me before reverting my changes and wait for me to respond. We are human and we have lives to live, we cannot be on Wikipedia 24/7 to respond right away, let alone see a notice.

Anyways bellow will be table examples of other pages:

Wipeout_(video_game_series)

List_of_Square_Enix_video_games

Spyro

Kingdom_Hearts LunaHydreigon (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:BRD actually means that since my table was the one in place for several months before this back and forth started, you are the one who has to discuss before implementing your change, not the other way around. Also, the article you linked says NOT to use standard wikitables:

Q) What about wikitables?

A) For this type of list, try to avoid them. They're useful/necessary if you have a hundred items and your page would be a mile long if you gave each game it's own big row, but you lose the ability to actually give detailed information for each game. You gain sortability, but you don't really need that for game series lists: you're not going to have 100 games in a series, and most series have a distinct order. Final Fantasy did without, and your series is smaller, I guarantee it.

Sortability is not an important factor, especially when the series only has 20 entries. I suggest either using {{video game titles}}, as I did, or {{Video game table}} if you want each release date to be clearly delineated. (Also, the Japanese text really shouldn't be there, nor should that long list of external links.) -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

You honestly didn't see the note of let me write as I'd like to point out links to discuss the matter as you had reverted without waiting for a reply so we can debate on the table. Yes I acknowledged the Bold statement, but I was going to explain the original. I'll take the time to point out the things you were saying on the second line.

Writing in a bit more detail this time. I apologize first and again, foremost that you did not get to see what I had been working on for the past day and unfortunately, I had overwrote your work. Though, from yesterday, you were editing the original template, thus assumed such template is correct. This template as been used on this page for some time. I mean, not to put personal views in place, I had seen this page for the past two decades with the same template. I know plenty of Choro-Q fans and those outside the community who'd like to try to use this page to just see what other game the series have.

I believe you should have spent time to discuss it here about how you wanted a new table designed. On the newsletter I had noted the first option was perfect. It was like the original but provides much more information. The table is used on the List of Square Enix mobile games. Yes it is mobile games, but the benefit of this table lay out is users can sort by name and availability. Going back to using this fandom front page for logo reference. You will notice that multiple tiles share the logo. Some games share the same logo but they are available in different countries. Then of course, all games are different and are not related to each other in terms of a sequence. I will be using fandom wiki pages just to point out the different games because not all of these games are available on Wikipedia to show off correctly.

Scenario:

I want to look up a game called gadget raceers. I'm from America, therefore I am on PAL. Though, I don't remember what game it was. I go to look up the game penny racers, it will reveal multiple titles:

- Gadget Racers on the N64

- Gadget Racers on the Gameboy Advance

- Gadget Racers on the PS2

- Gadget Racers on the Gamecube

- Another Gadget Racers on the Gameboy Advance

- Another Gadget Racers on the PS2

As someone who may not know much about Choro-Q, this is confusing, especially when some share the same logo or name. Then what if, I am the viewer who forget about the regions or get confused of which game is from what region. Thus, this is the issue. The Wikipedia does not have articles for these games to properly have them be linked. A lot of these games probably underdocumented to the point it may not be possible to have their own pages due to the lack of secondary articles covering this series. If you take a look, the games also share a universal name "Penny Racers" but are quite different games as well. This is why I propose that the table should stay as is because, it needs to be sortable to find the correct game. With the addition to the side telling if it's JP, NA, or PAL, it will help viewers find the game they are looking for and help them research into the correct game, whether they are looking to buy, looking to find more information, and so on.

While yes, the game list is much shorter than Square Enix. For viewability and readability, it's much more easier to view in order to find the correct tiles. The [List of Taito games] page also uses this concept, but its slightly altered from the and does not look like the initial. Yes it's long, but it's slightly different to fit the needs of the page. Then there is Spike Chunsoft third-party games list. Choro-Q is roughly 24. This page is 29, ignoring the lengthy initial gamelist above. These styles are different to what is shown, but based on the original structure seen here as it's a type of wikitable. Then you have the Spyro page. They have much more less games, approximately 17. Their structure is not listed too well on the newsletter feature. The table provides enough detail to understand the game list, while not sortable. There is clearly no right or wrong way to create the table. There is also the Final Fantasy (video game papge which shows the exact style this page was using minus the extra region identifications I had added, they have 20 or so games, and you say this style does not work?

Again, you had initially changed the table without asking to change to the new format. As you already know were were in a unfortunate case of an edit war because of our disagreements, initially with the reliable sources. Thus, I made those changes, unfortunately, because I did not split my edits through the day, it caused me to overwrite a table I was unknown too. Yes, my fault for not checking I will admit that. I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia standards on editing, but of course, that isn't an excuse either as I could spend time doing more search. It may much more normal here to do smaller edits and not do something similar to overhaul the page.

This is a mid insert, so it might not flow as well with what's already written. Basically, Wikipedia does not and will not have all the games listed. I do not plan to go check and make every page because I am not a writer. I just do documentations with lists and factual information, at least attempt to. Writing isn't all too well on my end, and thus, I asked one to wait to discuss the pros and cons. I have to think about the way I write as I am told I can come off as harsh or can miscommunicate what I am explaining, thus the lengthy responses.

Going to the pro and cons though. I'll start the initial table you had posted that I was unaware of during my editing.

It's the second version I see here in the newsletter. It does cover all the original release dates yes, but honestly, The amount of research that is so nonexistent on the western side, it makes it hard to find credible sources to be like "yes this was made on xyz" while unofficial sources can be like, no actually it's zyx. We are lucky with the japanese with their official websites for the most part that documented the exact dates. Logically, we can stay with posting only the years, or month and year, but I feel like, since the information for the original release is there, one would want to match it? Then there is the explanation of how the game names are, extremely hard to tell, they share the same name, but are different names. It makes it even more confusing, one would have to scroll up and down to try to find the right game, assuming it's the game they were looking for. I do like the much larger note list, but, knowing how obscure notes, what notes would one say (minus developer info)? "The game is a pure racing game," "This game has RPG aspects." Honestly the only information I could think of is how, while I have no source, but from working on the Wonderful Translation, Wonderful is suppose to have this external item that would show you the town map. I still wouldn't be able to find a source on it because we didn't find out about it until the main dev said "there's code for this thing to connect to this thing". A lot of Choro-Q sources are through unreliable sources, thus is the issue. And those sources that exist are primarily in Japanese, making it difficult to find. I mean, two have Korean releases, and no one knew about those unless you somehow ran into a random picture on the internet. I can say, for example of a truth that you can take with a grain of salt: I own a copy of Shin-Combat Choro-Q from South Korea. It comes with stickers unlike the other releases, but it's not even in Korean. This might be better example. I own a copy of the trial edition for [youtu.be/OaW6i4m6Sec Shin-Combat Choro-Q]. But this video I linked, it's not credible at all because I am not a journalist or so on. But the media exists? If on wikipedia everything needs to be written with reliable sources, adding notes would be hard. I know there's probably a lot more negative than positive in this, but I have a hard time finding a positive due to explained issues,a side that yes it looks really nice I agree, yes it could display the dates better and so on. A late mention I forgot to say while looking at the Eidos game list it just mentioned the first release for the games. I mean, going back to they don't even have exact dates and their game list is written out because they don't have a lot of games.

I think I already explained the benefits of my list, unless you really want me to explain them again, as they are noted throughout this post.

Though, your last post stated "I've gone through and removed entries I couldn't find citations for, and cited everything else to good secondary sources. So now we have citations for every console and handheld game, while PC and mobile games are absent. Those should probably be in their own tables on the article, provided sufficient sourcing can be found," this statement from you was posted roughly the same time and according to [this edit]. Thus, assumed the table is ok. I went back and added more as so much was missing, and some information was incorrect. I took advice and provided much more citations to support, specifically, why the game is named such, and what date they were relaced. While I did that, I did researching into using primary sources. They are not recommended, but can be ok for certain scenarios. In this case, the reference was to actual publication dates and naming conventions. It was not to pull information to describe said information based on the video, advertisement and writing. At least that's what I understand in the reliable sources page.

Anyways going to note what you had said, point the [WP:BOLD]. Now this can go both ways. I was in the middle of making a table and had mentioned in a previous post, when I get home, I'll take a look and what was said. I also believe I said I'll make edits accordingly. (Apologies if not). And you did not know I spent a lot of time working on it that lead into the following day. Honestly, I could have submitted a partial edit and be like "This is what I got so far, I need to rest, so please take a look to see if everything is good." That again, is my fault whether or not I'm familiar with how Wikipedia works. Now, "Do not feel upset if your bold edit gets changed or reverted." When I say this can go both way, it could also mean how I overwrite your work which I say is an accident, but you can say otherwise. That is fine. We both have the right to be upset because there was miscommunication. We want to make a difference for the wikipedia community and have it be in order the way we wanted.

Now, everything takes time, because when I first started editing the article, I really was ambitious and wanted to provide information but was upset that the wikipedia was misleading or lacked information. It wasn't on purpose, just no one knowledgable or wishing to do the research. As seen here I had learned from what the other user kept insisting at the time. At this time I didn't know I was participating in an edit war that I had started because of my linking and how it was a violation. I was too determined and didn't do enough research, thus I went back and properly fixed everything. The same user went to remove any other links. Then you would appear and explain there were more links that weren't allowed, but would go on my page and say "If you are dead set on updating Wikipedia's coverage, however, I strongly urge you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's rules and policies before doing so. It is not the responsibility of other users to clean up after you, and continuing to restore your version without meaningfully addressing the issues at hand will likely result in your changes continuing to be reverted, and possibly lead to you being blocked from editing." I'm not using this to point out any ill will, rather, I took into account and did my research. Though, while you say, whether it was meant for the other page of this. "cleaning up after you," whether being used as a genuinely concern or not. I hope you understand Wikipedia remains to be a team product and I am a human being. I will need your help and others to catch things I may not catch, thus, I placed a note saying that on my massive update post with all the changes in detail, which I think, while does not cover up the fact I edited in large, but at least provides detail of what happened.

Quoting this statement here:

A) For this type of list, try to avoid them. They're useful/necessary if you have a hundred items and your page would be a mile long if you gave each game it's own big row, but you lose the ability to actually give detailed information for each game. You gain sortability, but you don't really need that for game series lists: you're not going to have 100 games in a series, and most series have a distinct order. Final Fantasy did without, and your series is smaller, I guarantee it.

So... you're saying that the Newsletter where I quote "Feel free to ignore this whole section and just pick the template that you think is prettiest. I won't judge. Well, not much, anyway." is wrong? It is posted by someone who is of authority no? Honestly I have no idea where this is quoted, I apologize if I am missing it, but just don't see a Q/A in the contents. Though, it is noted here that for games at least provide references, external links, release dates and platforms. The external link is strange on this page, but it was always there, and I went "ok, lets add onto it." Then you will come and say:

"I would also recommend not linking to so many websites in the external links section, as most of them would be better on pages about each developer or individual game, not the series as a whole. A better external link would be to an official website for the game series, if one exists."

The links I provided were technically, all to official websites. I assume you wanted me to remain broad, so I deleted the ones that weren't individualized. Maybe that would be better for [Choro-Q]]. At the end of the day I saw you had deleted it all. Then what was the point of telling me that? Quite confusing when you go back on your word. Either way, I mean, I found it strange. Whether or not its on there, is pretty extra and was pretty hidden regardless. If you wish to teach me, I think maybe it's just better to provide the links you have been providing. It's ok to say you made a mistake as well. Not imply bad, I only provide a suggestion so apologies if it comes up as such.

Going to this:

"To cite instruction manuals, please do not link to archive.org uploads of them directly. Instead, use the {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help) template. For example, here is how to cite the manual for" =example here because I don't know how to embed this=

Manuals? At least I don't recall putting a manual on there, if anything just one. I believe I used archive.org. Honestly, I just took a look at it, and it redirects to . I did recall looking at one but going "800 pages and my internet spends 1 minute to load each scan? This isn't a good resource to use if I can't find the page". So I went with the video. With all the information I placed, I'm pretty sure there's a couple of wrong redirects here and there. Of course, when pointed out, I can spend time changing it, especially if it's noted in talk. You can explain to me simply or of some sort "Hey this is x but not y? Can you fix this? The source is wrong." I would be able to look into it because I know someone else can't find the sources that I did. There is also just replacing the source on your end, but that would be more work on you. Again, I am human, I make mistakes, I spent too many hours making sure the table was an improved version of what it was originally, and of course fatigue sets in. I honestly had other things I needed to get done, but I really wanted to be committed to this for one more day to help the community (Choro-Q) and the wikipedia community out when they come to visit the page.

Apologies in advance for the weird linking, yes I remain unexperienced with the formatting and is use to how Wiki Fandom works, but I think the main goal for me was to try to explain how I feel about how we should go along with page and also answering your questions. I apologize in advance if anything is written weird, or comes off as hostile, again, this is why I wouldn't go and work on making Choro-Q pages on the wikipedia. I mean, even on the fandom I run, I tell my other admin to write the synopsis for some of the pages because what is written there may or may not have been written by a younger or more modern me and I know it's probably poorly written.

I hope I answered all the concerns and questions and hope we can discuss more about the table, though to no offense, I'd like to find a resolution of course since I have other things I'd like to do in life. Like for example, if you wanted a note section, we can included it somehow? Or maybe you have an idea how to fit your style in with what is needed but make it sortable for users in some way? To answer my concerns about readability due to the poor naming conventions this game series has.

Hope to continue talking, LunaHydreigon (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I noticed I missed this part of the statement and didn't answer it, you said a table you had made months ago? I think this is the same table we are using via this edit?

I decided doing edits on when I saw it get edited to this?. Feel free to clarify, I mean we can go back to this original layout if it's your preferred. We can remove the JP/NA/PAL part then add the notes back if that's what you're referring to. Unless you're meaning months, like way before February? Genuinely confused. Please do link the edit! LunaHydreigon (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Nothing about the Video Games Titles template prevents anyone from figuring out which game it's referring to. They're all still listed by their Japanese titles in chronological order, the regions it was released in are listed right under the title, and it clearly indicates which platform each one is for. Furthermore, your table removed the international release dates along with their citations; it is less helpful just to say "yes this came out in America and Europe" than it is to actually list the exact date they came out in those regions, which would be more helpful to the reader. Ironically, the format of a standard wikitable provides less room for the sort of information you're trying to convey.

The Titles template also allows for greater room for expansion. Notice how List of Donkey Kong video games, a featured list, has extensive notes for each entry? That's a much better place to put the kinds of details you're interested in adding, such as information about the genres of spinoffs like the Combat games, or details about re-releases. That's why I tried to incorporate some of your changes into it, such as mentioning Atlus publishing some of the re-releases, as that sort of thing is better suited to a notes section than trying to make it fit a standard table. Like you said, a lot of these games aren't going to have enough sources for their own articles, but the Titles template makes it much easier to have more detailed information on these games even without it. If you're serious about expanding Choro-Q coverage, it will be MUCH more helpful for that in the long run.

Also, I did not "go back on my word". Half of the external links were for developers and publishers, who should not be listed in the external links for a series article at at all. The other half are for individual games and not the series as a whole, which are more appropriate for individual pages. Notice how List of Final Fantasy video games, a featured list, does not have any external links to the developers' websites, or to official websites for individual games. If there is not a single official website for the series as a whole, then there isn't really a need for any external links.

Once again, I understand that you're trying to make genuine improvements, which is why I'm showing you that the Video Game Titles template is both a more common standard for good articles of this nature, and offers more room for details that a standard wikitable does not, making it easier to actually provide information about games that don't have full articles.

If you want an alternative, I would once again suggest using the Video Game Table template instead, seen in List of Kingdom Hearts media. It clearly states which region each game came out in, including the date, and once again leaves plenty of room for notes and other details. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to leave a quick notice and leave a quick response. I have some plans for the weekend so I'd like to spend some time on that.

But just to quickly answer as it remains to be quite late on my end, but I didn't want you to wait for me and so on because I have personal things I would like to get going with.

I'll label it as 1-5 as per paragraphs! A little less informal, but I hope it'll imply as necessary! I also won't be providing links because of the lack of time and I think it may be unnecessary for me to spend another hour writing another detail post.

1. Referring the international releases, I did so, only because when I saw the previous reversion you had made, it did not show such. It was on the much older table. I honestly didn't like the idea of not having the information available. Though at the same time, I think it will be a struggle to find full information of when these games were released. I may or may not have a large amount of unreliable sources is the thing throughout my course of helping build out the community, learn more about the series, and help fans. Of course, I can link you such things if you want to look into further research to find such information. Like noted earlier, we can't be using unreliable sources, but I can note basic information from the fandom and japanese wiki as a starting point. We can also notate it as citations needed as well? Would that be fair? I spend some time looking at the template again, you are right, they do use the Japanese names instead of the english. Users themselves can be like "wait it might be this name?" Search it up, and find sources that refer to xyz since google AI may just summarize material from both fandom and wikipedia, though of course that's user research if that make sense!

2. Details I think are nice, it's something the much older version of the table use to have which I had come to know, as far as I'm aware in my memory over the many years. There are unique information per games, such as the pocketstation (I remembered what it was called finally) for wonderful. My thing is, this is just a me aspect. I would prefer someone else writing the notes as I'm not too well with my grammar and english. I very much know I can get super wordy and not get straight to the point, thus the other user (whom did the HG 4 page on the wikipedia) would be the main writer for the Fandom Wiki. I can focus on very simply descriptors. Though again, information is hard to find. Now I'm not sure about how to quote things from real life sources. Like, I and some users in the community do documentation in our own ways. I specialize in buying real life and rare materials. I can provide some factual information, but there's no reliable sources to confirm such things, aside the physical material:

- Choro-Q HG has a Collectors Box for example, comes with the game, a Choro-Q toy and a doll.

- The Two South Korean releases come with those stickers you put on memory cards (not aware of the terms)

- Some games come with trial editions.

- Some games are associated Choro-Q that were promoted on the posters, such as Wonderful, Combat, and even Choro-Q3. They were only obtained via lottery or probably a "if you buy this game, you also get this, and only x amount of buyers will get it" kinda thing.

- Some games have books. HG4's guide book ended up being on the BHE website in website format. As far as I know, they started doing that since HG3. HG3 also has it's own as well in a similar format.

I also still need to spend time to figure out this supposed masterdisk I have for Choro-Q! and find a compatible reader or a PAL Gamecube which is a unique item itself.

Anyways, thus is examples. Of course, when time need be, I can provide source pictures, but I will not be able to do scans. And I feel, even if I could upload it to Archive.org, it would feel a bit bias of me to use my own documentation for this page? Hope that make sense! Again, something I would prefer telling someone, helping with research and figuring out how to reference such things.

But the note section does add a bit of interesting information, just depends on how much one can add, or what constraints it would be, if that makes sense!

3. On the initial post, you said to limit the information provided on external links. I took it as a generalized statement for the page and it needed to be cropped to just some specific ones. So apologies for the misunderstanding! I do agree though, it doesn't belong there. At a viewing standpoint, its very buried. I think its better for the Choro-Q page or the individual pages too. This is more focused on just making a list after all.

4. I took a look at the kingdom hearts template, I believe that is easier to read, personally. But it feels much closer to what it was original was back in day. I would link, but it was a bit before I started editing. Someone had made the table but the notes were underneath but were built into the table I was using, if that make sense. I think I may have linked it here already, but if not, apologies. Best way it's, my table, but then they add a whole combined roll under each game with a line of text describing whatever it is they would write down. While your template has its up and downs, the one you currently have, I think, it would work for something like the Donkey Kong page as you mentioned, because for that, each game was replicated for different devices. For Choro-Q it's very much 1 name to 1 console. The way the dates are written makes it feel convoluted to me, kind of how the table was originally where it would list all three. It just felt like it's too much information in one place? Though, then again, you have the two games with the Korean version, but those can be put in notes (ironically, one can also add both games were never translated to Korean but are 60fps PAL games practically).

Anyways, I'll leave it at that so you can continue editing. If anything, can you take a look at the sources I provided to help make the support years or whatever information you may need? Those sources, though, admittingly, mostly primary, are quite useful for confirming the exact dates for the Japanese side. They may also contain other information, or can be added to the notes, as some are actual official websites of the game which provide unique information (HG4's website will show production cut notes, a map of where characters live, list of parts, etc). Most of them are defunct or becoming defunct. I think it's good to preserve them as a source here if possible or make it a note/trivia depending on context.

Anyways, hope I answered everything! Apologies for any miscommunication in between! I'll check back on the talk on monday or something. Again I didn't want to restrain you from editing because of our disagreement and some miscommuncation. I think it was a lot going on, and things might have gotten misinterpreted, whether on one side or another. Like you said, at the end of the day we want to information to be available, its just the matter of "how".

With best regards and hope to speak to you soon, LunaHydreigon (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I've converted the whole thing to the Video Game Table format like Kingdom Hearts now; it seems like the most ideal format based on our discussion. It should be set up well now for you to continue expanding and sourcing things. Good luck! -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

More admin advice: While everyone is encouraged to be WP:BOLD, when wanting to make major changes to an article, it's often better to discuss them first, so you don't see all your work done by editor(s) that oppose the reworking. Another pro-tip is not to make massive changes in a single edit, but to break them up into multiple smaller ones. That way, if editors only oppose some of your changes, it's easier to only remove the opposed changes and retain the other changes. Sergecross73 msg me 22:29, 10 July 2026 (UTC)