Talk:Rayman Legends Retold

World names

Do you think we should move the pages for the Rayman Legends worlds to their new Retold names (i.e. Teensies In Trouble becomes Old Teensie Kingdom, Toad Story becomes The Stinkbog), or should we just list them as an alternate name like Medieval Mayhem? I think we should do the former, since these names represent the locations themselves far better than "Teensies In Trouble" or "Toad Story," but what do you guys think? --RayGamer99 (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

You ask a good question. The rule on RayWiki is that we use the first official name as an article title. However, in this case, one could argue that the original names are those of the paintings, and those in Retold the actual names of the locations. Those are different concepts, and the latter more or less encompasses the former. For that reason, I wouldn't be against renaming the articles, provided the distinction is clearly explicited. Curious to hear what everyone thinks! — 16:00, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I would wait until we have the full game before deciding what to do. --Boomboleros7 18:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Barbara

Hi, I'd like to add a reference to the requests for censorship of Barbara from English-speaking puritan users online over the years, like Wikipedia (both English and French) and French RayWiki did, since there are also comments on X and on YouTube praising Ubisoft for not censoring Barbara. I'd like to add it also on Barbara's specific article, please. Thank you. Purple Bubble (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

This point might be a thing among social media users - I wouldn't know, since I generally stay off of those platforms - but to my knowledge this point doesn't really contribute much to any of the pages, whether it's the main Retold one or Barbara's own page. I would understand a bit more if they did change Barbara's design and that was met with backlash - and even then, I don't think that'd be noteworthy enough to put on Barbara's article - but Ubisoft keeping her design the same in her 3D debut (unless you count her trophy in Super Smash Bros. for Wii U) doesn't seem noteworthy enough to add to the articles. If anybody else thinks that they are, provides a good reason why, and a few other users agree with them, then it wouldn't ruffle my feathers to add these back, but until then this comes off feeling out of place.

On another note, I find referring to these users as "puritans" or "bigots" to be unnecessarily derogatory and condescending. When discussing topics like this, especially on the RayWiki articles themselves, please do it in a respectful manner rather than talking down to people with differing opinions. Even if you're not intending to do so, please don't make it sound like you are. Let's do our best to keep this place impartial when covering controversies! --RayGamer99 (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't found the references on Wikipedia, but that website isn't our concern, nor on French RayWiki, which doesn't surprise me since I wouldn't have allow it.

Unless you're refering your own edits, of course.

Thanks Bloodstorm for your vigilance, by the way.

I didn't knew Barbara design was a controversial thing. I'm aware of hate regarding Tily, UbiArt Polokus and others, but not that one.

Anyway, I fail to see the encyclopedic value of these subjective opinions, RayWiki isn't a place to talk about them.

Moreover, that controversy is related to yet another sterile warfare on social medias between "bigots" and "non-bigots", which are clearly not the best sources for interesting and official information, nor objective POV.

By the way, RayGamer is right saying we shouldn't talk about implied people in such terms, whatever you think about them.

Though I would prefer these debates parodies aren't mentioned anywhere. Concern restrengthens them. Ignorance destroys them.

Hey, from my POV, since Retold has been announced, the only persons who seem concerned with Barbara keeping her... "feminine shape" are that guy on Twitter and yourself. Two isn't very representative, if you ask me.

Now, let's be clear:

I don't want this edit war going on. Hunch already warned you all.

We wait for other opinions before deciding if Barbara edits can be included and how.

If I see them again before, and if this talk page is cleaned-up again, I will block any faulty account, "veteran editor" or not. --Boomboleros7 18:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Leaks information/images

Now that the game is officially confirmed, is it necessary to still have images in the gallery from when it was just a rumor/leak?

Perhaps a section could be created to discuss leaks, like on the Rayman Legends page, and include some (but not all) of the leaked images there.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterfan2000 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 10 June 2026 CEST

I think information about both the leaks and the official announcement could be moved to an "Announcement" section. — 18:17, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Points of Order

Briefly coming out of my sabbatical from the fandom in light of the news, just wanted to bring to attention a few things that the Wiki could do with having some official policy on:

Leaks

I noticed that this page went up back when the only information was from leaks. While it was proven to be true, I am of the opinion we should not have live pages for hearsay or rumour, only for official items. Whether or not that should be Wiki Policy, I think needs clarification.

Sources and Tone

I noticed that the statement "Furthermore, the development of the sequel to Rayman 3 will depend on the sales of this remake.[2]" cites The Gamer, the article in of itself was more a collation of various sources of rumours and official interviews rather than itself having generated new information. The item that actually makes mention about sales is the interview that article itself cites - https://www.gamesradar.com/games/rayman/ubisoft-is-planning-a-new-more-adventurous-3d-rayman-game-but-only-if-everything-goes-well-with-its-rayman-legends-retold-remake/

In light of the amount of Game News Websites that regurgitate rumours from Reddit, simply repeat what other outlets state and add their own takes to it, or even worse make AI generated editorials, we need to ensure we cite the sources that come as close to official places as possible. Not places repeating information, or editorialising based on something stated elsewhere. I'd propose changing citations 2 and 5, which currently point to The Gamer to the GamesRadar article, which is where the words from Loïc Gounon are actually stated.

In addition, I'm not particularly comfortable with having that statement front and center in the article. I share the sentiment but I feel it's besides the point when it comes to what the article should be speaking about. The article should be kept neutral and should not be meant to campaign.

Anyways, hope everyone's doing well! --Master (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2026 (UTC)