Rayman Pirate-Community

stan423321 wrote: I do not remember "Teensie", this is actually part where I can agree.

Actually I forgot that in Rayman Hoodlums Revenge, "Teensie" is mentioned in singular like that. I remind this again when filling a little the list of quotes.

Oh crap.

That said, RHR is not the most canon thing in the universe (although actually I discussed with my friends what would R3 expansion based on it be like).

We're soon gonna have to decide on this, at least as concerns what we already know. Let's start with the Darktoons: while I finally don't think we should create a separate article for them, I'm not sure whether we should rename the Antitoon article either. In fact, I'd be tempted to mention this alternate name at the beginning (“Antitoons, also know as Darktoons”) and create a Rayman Origins section just like we have for other games.

It would feel pretty strange if we chose one name, and started referring to Antitoons as Darktoons or vice versa. Maybe the R1 paragraph of the Antitoon article could call them Antitoons, and the Origins paragraph could call them Darktoons? The same goes for the Livingstones and Lividstones: leave the R1 section of the article as it is, but refer to them as Lividstones in the Origins section.

spiraldoor wrote:It would feel pretty strange if we chose one name, and started referring to Antitoons as Darktoons or vice versa. Maybe the R1 paragraph of the Antitoon article could call them Antitoons, and the Origins paragraph could call them Darktoons? The same goes for the Livingstones and Lividstones: leave the R1 section of the article as it is, but refer to them as Lividstones in the Origins section.

That's the same I idea I share.

Sure, I may not have said it explicitly but that was part of the plan. My point was on the renaming of the article itself, which I don't think is required.

No, I don’t think it’s required either.

No, don't rename the articles, just let them as they are. What it can be done is just redirect the RO names to the original names, and then in the article introductions, presenting the RO names in the part of "also known as" and being named like that in the correspondent RO sections.

I guess you could make a case that ‘Teensie’ should be moved to ‘Teensy’, since it’s more of a grammatical correction than a name change, but it would be very inconvenient to have to type ‘[[Teensy|Teensies]]’ every time you mention them in the plural.

We do that for many articles already (e.g. ‘[[Stone man|stone men]]’) so I don't think this would be much of a problem (unless you want to correct all the links, which might take some time but isn't absolutely necessary in my opinion); I'm more concerned about the accuracy of the new spelling: shouldn't we wait for the game to confirm it?

I suppose so, but there’s very little doubt that they’re going with ‘Teensy’ – it’s the spelling they’ve used in every single piece of pre-release material.

There were indeed a lot of changes from R3 to this game weren't there?

It's best not to think about it.