Talk:ENA: Dream BBQ

Add a concise plot summary

We should split the "Gameplay and plot" section into two separate sections, titled "Gameplay" and "Plot" respectively, and add a concise plot summary of Chapter 1 - Lonely Door, that, per WP:VGSCOPE, excludes detailed instructions, strategy guides, and excessive fictional details to the "Plot" section. It should also be placed in its own subsection of the "Plot" section titled, "Chapter 1 - Lonely Door", like what the article for Deltarune does. 1isall (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I decided to answer you here, since we are moving forward to rewriting the Gameplay and Plot section and improving article.

I suggest similar idea to what we with @ObserveOwl used: one of us separates gameplay and plot sections, and writes everything what he thinks should be on one of the two topics (for example, plot). Then the editor publishes his work, and the second editor enters and edits his topic (in this case, it will be gameplay).

When both of us will finish our edits, we discuss them on this talk page topic, thinking what we can add or remove in our texts, maybe search for more sources or fixing grammar, etc. I think this is the most simple and effective editing pattern for two people, which won't cause conflicts or misunderstanding. I would like to edit the plot section here, but if you want to do it then I won't insist))

If you agree with such "editing style", please answer me here. In my time zone, it is too late, so I won't be on Wikipedia for the next 8-9 hours. Celtoi (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful suggestion, @Celtoi:! I really like the collaborative approach you outlined, and I agree it’s a simple, structured way to work without running into each other.

I’m happy to go along with this plan! I think the idea of one of us expanding a section (either plot or gameplay), then the other coming in to refine, followed by joint review/discussion, is a solid method. As long as we treat the initial new revision as a starting point open to revision, I think it’ll work well.

I’d be fine handling the gameplay section if you’d prefer to take the plot — but I’m open to switching if you feel more strongly about doing gameplay. Just let me know. Once one of us finishes a first pass, we can notify the other here, then go into the refinement phase.

Looking forward to working on this with you! 1isall (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. As you have noticed I've already rewrote the Plot section, and now we have gameplay left. If you want and can, you can do it yourself, or, as I see now, I can try to write it too, while you will correct my mistakes and review the text. You're very good and checking the information, making sure it follows Wikipedia standarts and is understandable for the reader. Celtoi (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I've been checking for typos and awkward phrasing in the new Plot section. I have completely rewritten the Gameplay section, too. 1isall (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we should also add the other route from the CORE to the Plot section. You know, the one where ENA falls into the river, leading her to the Lost Village. 1isall (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Celtoi: I noticed that you added the phrase "which may point at her military past" to the Plot section of the article. I don't recall the game or any reliable sources stating this, so it appears to be your own original research. I'll most likely trim it from the sentence to stick to just the visual description, like: "ENA wears a student cap with a navy blue ribbon and silver emblem." Let me know what you think, or if you've come across a source that supports the military background idea! 1isall (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

There were some cut-scenes in the game where ENA is clearly showed in a war-like situation. Military past is a popular community theory as far as I know, though if you believe that this isn't a logical thing then I can agree with you. Celtoi (talk) 11:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, @Celtoi:! I understand what you're referring to — I may have seen those scenes too, and now I know that the theory is discussed within the community. That said, since Wikipedia relies on verifiable and reliable sources, we’d need a published source that explicitly connects ENA’s outfit or background to a military past. Otherwise, per the no original research policy, we should avoid speculation — even if it’s logical or widely believed.

I’d suggest sticking with the visual description for now, and if a reliable source confirms the military background theory later on, we can definitely bring it back in. Sound good? 1isall (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Hm... I think you a bit misunderstood here: it is impossible to cite everything. There are simply not enough information in the published articles to tell you about the game, so when describing plot there is no need to source all of your information with every single world. In our case, it is simply about how logical is the thought about ENA's military background. If there will be sources, we will add them for sure, yeah. Celtoi (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, @Celtoi:! You're absolutely right that not every sentence in a plot summary needs a source — per WP:PLOTSOURCE, summaries can generally be written based on what's clearly shown in the work itself. My concern was more about the part that interprets ENA’s cap as implying a “military past,” which goes a step beyond just describing what we see. Since there’s no direct confirmation of that in the game or sources, it feels more like synthesis or fan theory. A simple visual description would still be accurate and policy-compliant until we get a reliable source that makes the military connection explicit. 1isall (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Also want to ask you about your edits, because you were doing... a lot. This can't be seen as gaming the system, but it is a bit hard for me to see what you've added, so, if I can, I want to ask you about making at least a bit less edits so I can read them all, it will help not only me, but, I think, all other editors who watch the page. Celtoi (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Totally fair! I’ve been doing a lot of small edits lately, mainly for clarity, grammar, and phrasing consistency. I can try to group more of them into fewer revisions to make the history easier to follow. Thanks for pointing that out — I really appreciate your collaboration on this article! 1isall (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, I've seen your earlier edits to the Plot section (link) and would like to explain why I will be reverting some of them and proposing compromises on others.

Edits I will be changing back:

• I will definitely remove the re-addition of "the location known as" before "the Red Outworld". This phrase doesn’t add any useful clarity and could be seen as redundant. The phrasing already works well without it, which is why I believe it should be removed.
• Similarly, for "the Hub location is filled with smoke", the "location" re-replacement doesn't feel quite as specific as referring to the Hub itself, which is an established setting in the game. I will revert it back to "the Hub" to maintain clarity.

Edits where I propose compromises:

• I propose that we should come up with a neutral, out-of-universe phrasing for this sentence: "In the CORE, ENA enters the player can enter a giant Bathroom that leads her to Theodora, the Genie of the Lonely Door." Since it's in the Plot section, we should still refer to ENA, not the player. Maybe something like, "ENA can optionally enter..."
• Similarly, for "The Purge Event can be reached through solving a maze located inside of the sleeves of the Taxi Driver, after which ENA enters can enter the taxi in the Uncanny Streets...", we should do the same thing, also replacing it with "ENA can optionally enter..."

Let me know about your thoughts on these proposed changes. I think these compromises strike a good balance between clarity, neutrality, and staying consistent with Wikipedia’s out-of-universe style. I'm happy to collaborate further if you have alternative suggestions! 1isall (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@Celtoi: I just wanted to let you know that I've tagged the Plot section with the In-universe template because I recently realized that it's currently written largely from an in-universe perspective (e.g., describing ENA's actions as if we're following her directly, quoting character dialogue without framing, etc.). Since this is a Wikipedia article, it should ideally present events from a neutral, out-of-universe viewpoint.

For now, I’ve just added the template and mentioned it in my edit summary, but we, alongside other editors, should rewrite it later to align it more closely with an encyclopedic tone. Let me know if you have thoughts or would also like to collaborate on this.

Thanks! 1isall (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, if you can, it would be wounderful if you made less edits, that will help me and other editors to understand the changes!

"the Hub is filled with smoke" here is more accurate, I agree. I just thought that only the specific place in the Hub was filled with the smoke, but it turns out I was wrong.

Also, I see you often change "the player can..." to "ENA..." which is a bit incorrect because the player MAY do that, but may not. Maybe it will be better if we will say "ENA" when something unescapable happens, which must happen in the plot, like "ENA falls into the abyss" when we describe the ending (read below). So in the Lost Village section we should say "If the player falls into the white river in the CORE", because the player may not do that.

Also, in the same section we should say "After talking to the Theodora, the player will be taken to the Smoke Room". "The player" feels better here because we already used ENA in the previous sentence. Also, "talking to this Theodora" is an overthinking, simply because we don't know if there are two different Theodoras or not. From our perspective, there's only one Theodora, because its the most logical thing here without any further theories, and, as you know, we can't allow theories to be here.

I think it will be better if we will alternate "ENA" and "the player", to avoid tautology and misunderstanding, except when we are in the situation described above. I do understand why we can prefer wiritng "ENA" in the plot section, but the problem is that the game has no pre-history and its plot is really made like a game itself. So I really think that we should describe both ENA and the player, like in Deltarune article's alternate route, and we shouldn't be afraid of "the player".

Also I want to question you about "in-universe style". I doubt that the text we wrote is describing the game as if it was real, and I also doubt that our text is more "in-universe" than, for example, the plot text of Deltarune or Touhou articles. I see that this feeling may be caused by the amount of new termins and the style of the game, but it is literally impossible to descibe ENA's plot without making such things! (that's also the reason because I originally didn't want for plot and gameplay to be separated) The game is simply too surreal, so I see no need for "in-universe style" sign here. BUT, maybe there are other reasons that I missed? And if so, how should we transform the text for it to be not "in-universe"? Celtoi (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Concerns about recent manual reversions, past reversions, ownership behavior, and discouragement of collaboration and bold editing

In a nutshell: Multiple good-faith editors, including myself (1isall), Mania Chimera, and TheEpicApartmentLord, made constructive edits to the ENA: Dream BBQ article—such as grammar fixes, stylistic improvements, plot expansion, and properly sourced content. However, Celtoi reverted nearly all of these edits without clear explanation, discouraged collaboration and consensus, and exhibited signs of article ownership. He also reverted Mania Chimera’s and TheEpicApartmentLord’s edits in rapid succession, likely violating the three-revert rule (3RR) on two separate occasions, and requested page protection that was denied due to a lack of actual disruption. While two of his reversions may be justifiable, the rest appear to stem from personal preference rather than adherence to Wikipedia policies or guidelines. This pattern of editing needs to be addressed.

Hello, everyone. I should’ve brought this up earlier, but I’ve been working on this message while juggling other tasks. I’d like to raise some concerns regarding the editing behavior of Celtoi on this article (ENA: Dream BBQ). Specifically, he has manually reverted good-faith edits made by me (1isall) without clear explanation. His actions discourage collaboration and consensus, conflict with the spirit of bold editing, and appear to reflect article ownership.

It’s not just me—Celtoi has also used the undo function to revert edits made by Mania Chimera and TheEpicApartmentLord, again without meaningful justification. While his edit summaries directed us to the Talk page to “discuss,” this raises concerns itself (explained below).

My edits (manually reverted):

In a nutshell: I made changes to grammar, style, and clarity. Of the six reversions, only two (regarding "tasks" and title formatting) appear justifiable based on guideline. The others seem to reflect personal preference.

• In the lead, I changed "related to the YouTube series ENA" to "based on the YouTube series ENA". The latter is more precise and encyclopedic. Link
• I rephrased "the player explores the world…" to "Ena explores the world while…"—a clearer and more relevant phrasing. It was reverted to the former but with a typo, "palyer". This was likely a rushed revert and was silently fixed hours later. Link
• I changed "in-game tasks" to "their tasks". This is debatable, and I now acknowledge "in-game tasks" might be clearer—so this one is arguably justifiable. Link: See above
• I changed "Ena aims to get to the "Boss"…" to "She aims to get to the Boss…", improving sentence flow and avoiding repetition of the character's name. It was reverted to the former, but with apostrophes around Boss (see below). However, the use of pronouns "she" is accurate and improves readability. Link: See above
• I removed quotation marks around character names such as the Genie, the Boss, and the Lonely Door. Celtoi replaced them with apostrophes. Character names—being proper nouns—should not be enclosed in quotation marks or apostrophes unless they’re nicknames. Link: See above
• I italicized Lonely Door as the name of a subcomponent within the game. Celtoi re-added quotation marks, which is arguably justifiable per MOS:MINORWORK, though it’s still open to discussion. Link

TheEpicApartmentLord’s edits (mass-reverted):

In a nutshell: They updated stylizations, removed quotation marks from character names (like I did), and expanded the plot—constructively.

• Replaced every instance of "Ena" with "ENA" to match official stylization and branding.
• Removed quotation marks around character names—consistent with standard style guidelines and is the same as what I did.
• Expanded the plot for narrative clarity, improving depth without being overly detailed.

Mania Chimera’s edits (also mass-reverted):

In a nutshell: They rewrote the lead and added two pieces of information, one of them properly citing a source.

• Rewrote the lead: "ENA: Dream BBQ is an episodic video game currently in development, created by Peruvian animator Joel Guerra. It serves as the fifth installment in the ENA series, and the first interactive game in the series." This aligns with WP:LEADSENTENCE and WP:VG/LEAD.
• Added: "The first chapter, titled ‘Lonely Door’, was released on March 27, 2025. More chapters are currently in development, and are planned to be released as downloadable content." Information like this is considered informative and relevant, though it would be better if it cited a source.
• Added a sourced sentence: "…and was met with universal praise for its story, characters, and surreal aesthetic." The sentence cited a GameRant article, helping support notability and verifiability.
• Fixed a grammar error: "are in currently in development" to "are currently in development."

All of these edits were good-faith, constructive, and aligned with core content and style guidelines (e.g. WP:MOS, WP:VGSCOPE). Despite this, Celtoi reverted nearly all of them—often without specific edit summaries—and told me and Mania Chimera to “discuss on the Talk page” after reverting, rather than initiating discussion himself. This is a known misuse of WP:BRD, particularly per BRDWRONG.

Problematic edit summaries:

• To Mania Chimera: "If you want to edit the page redically, you should discuss this on talk page, I think."
• To me: "1isall, I highly recommend you not to do so many edits, it is hard to revert them. You fix some contriversial grammar parts, I recommend to first talk to me in the talk page section. Hope everything will be alirght."

Aside from the ironic spelling issues, these summaries reflect OWNBEHAVIOR — notably example #3 in the ''Statements'' subsection: “I'm an expert on the subject. If you have any suggestions, please put them in the talk page and I will review them.” Wikipedia encourages bold editing and collaborative discussion—not gatekeeping by a single user.

3RR and page protection

Celtoi reverted 4–5 edits each by Mania Chimera and TheEpicApartmentLord within minutes. These count as two separate violations of the three-revert rule (3RR), which prohibits more than three reverts in 24 hours on a given page.

Upon reverting another one of my edits, with the edit summary, "Why you keep adding such strange edits, I must request semi-protection I think", Celtoi also attempted to request page protection, claiming: "The page experienced a couple of vandalic edits made by non-auto-confirmed users…" However, the reverted edit (addition of the year 2025 to the lead) was clearly constructive, and the request was unsurprisingly denied, likely due to the absence of actual disruption.

While editorial disagreements are natural, Celtoi’s behavior consisting of article ownership, unexplained reversions, violations of the 3RR, discouragement of participation, misuse of BRD, and not assuming good faith—suggests a pattern inconsistent with Wikipedia’s collaborative model. I recommend we engage in a broader discussion to set editorial standards for the article and ensure that good-faith contributions are properly reviewed. If necessary, I may escalate this to WP:DRN or WP:ANI.

@Celtoi: – Please respond to the concerns outlined above.

@Mania Chimera: and @TheEpicApartmentLord: – Since both of your sets of edits were reverted without clear explanation, like mine were, I’d appreciate hearing how that affected your experiences with editing the article. 1isall (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I see the problems you mean. I actually spoke with Celtoi about the reverted edits, and he stated that my edits were considered T-starting an edit war, which I previously didn't know that he reverted my edits. I'm glad you also saw the problems of his preferences since I was trying to capitalize "Ena" as just ENA. Me and Celtoi eventually agreed not to work on the page to prevent any edit wars, but it appears that he hasn't followed through and he is editing the page to his preferences and this needs to solved in some way involving an admin. Thank you TheEpicApartmentLord (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, TheEpicApartmentLord! I really appreciate you confirming that Celtoi reverted your edits without clear discussion and that you two had agreed to step back—only for him to not keep his end of the bargain and continue editing unilaterally. That kind of behavior definitely reinforces the concerns I brought up, especially about ownership and edit warring.

I agree that admin involvement may end up being necessary if things don't improve. For now, I think it's important we try to build consensus on this Talk page and give Celtoi a fair chance to respond and engage. If he doesn’t, we’ll have a stronger case for taking this to dispute resolution or ANI.

Thanks again for your input—it's really helpful in showing that this isn’t just one editor’s opinion. 1isall (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome. Now we wait for his response. TheEpicApartmentLord (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Also, almost all video game articles have the year and genre mentioned in the lead section. "[Game title] is a [year] [genre] developed by [developer] and published by [publisher]." Not trying to get into a disagreement with you, but I'm just saying. 1isall (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I'm sorry if my reverts were seen as an act of vandalism, though I'll try to explain. I do not act as a Wikipedia King, in other words I do not say that I own the article. I am always open to discussions and good edits, and none of your edits were reverted fully. Some of information you added was good, mistake correction is very good, I'm always glad to see it.

Your edits (1isall) (manually reverted):

The series is not based on ENA. They are connected somehow, but the character is different, side characters are different, everything is different. Theese worlds are related, not based aboslutely.

The player explores the world. Absolutely. There is actually no difference between these two varians, though I believe that player is better, since player controle Ena, which means player = Ena, which means that we better say player since the player is the original source. All other your edits here are based on this, because if we mention player we can't say about Ena with "she" pronoun.

Quotation marks are questionable. I believe they are better when we are talking about in-game termins for the first time. Both 'Genie' and 'Boss' are nicknames. However, I don't say that they absolutely should stay there, maybe you can explain why they shouldn't be there? I'm open to a discussion.

TheEpicApartmentLord’s edits (mass-reverted):

Ena is a name. As far as I can see, it is written in most sources as just 'Ena' when we are talking about the character. Though, I do not say ENA isn't right (it is actually written on the official Steam Page), I'm open to a discussion here![1][2][3]

Expanding the plot (in our case), as far as I can know, is overdescribing the gameplay. I believe that with such small article it is non-encyclopedic to write everything about gameplay in details. THOUGH I do not say it is bad now, I am open to a discussion here!

Mania Chimera’s edits (also mass-reverted):

I... didn't revert that? If I did, I am terribly sorry, because everything is okay with these edits! Mania Chimera did everything right as far as I can see, maybe their edits contained something was somehow suspicious to me? I am very sorry if I reverted this in consciousness.

To everyone:

I see that I am seen as an evil editor who thinks the article is his ownership, makes bad reverts and every time something happens, sends everyone on the talk page. I DO NOT claim the ownership, I agree that I'm pretty bad at writing words, though I just want to discuss everything I can.

About Other Things:

3RR: I reverted edits that I believed were vandalism. If a user made a 4-5 edits it is strange that I can't revert more than 3 of them, I guess? I am really afraid of the edit war, so please understand me right.

Page protection: I agree that there is not enough vandalic actions on the page, the problem is that no one discussed anything, including TheEpicApartmentLord or you (1isall). I explained some of my actions above, and I do not deny that my other actions could have been harmful.

Edit explanations: What I write there is really OWNBEHAVIOR, so don't take it seriously, please. But I deny that my behavior is similar to #3 "Statements": I am NOT an expert in the subject, and I do not revert edits just to simply "review" them and only then publish them, I want to simply discuss them for them to be as accurate as possible, and the fact that I reverted them means that I disagree with them. But, I agree that I could have been started a discussion on a talk page, maybe I was too blind to see a real problem.

To TheEpicApartmentLord: Where we "eventually agreed not to work on the page to prevent any edit wars"? I am pretty forgetful, but I don't remember (and see) that we agreed on this. If you think we did, maybe it was a misunderstanding? Sorry if I did something wrong again.

Small Conclusion:

I am a bit shocked that you see my edits like this. I repeat another time that I am always open to a discussion, agree that most of these edits were done in good faith, and believe that we can make the article better.

@1isall and @TheEpicApartmentLord, I want to hear your thoughts on this, and, if possible, discuss what we can add on the page. Maybe then we will finally understand each other. Hope @Mania Chimera will join us. Celtoi (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for finally responding, @Celtoi:. I appreciate that you’ve taken the time to explain your reasoning and acknowledge some of the concerns raised. Let me address the specific edits again:

My edits (manually reverted):

• For "based on" vs. "related to", I understand your point, and it's true that Dream BBQ introduces new characters and isn't a direct continuation in a traditional narrative sense. However, given that it stars ENA (well, a different ENA), uses many of the same visual and tonal motifs, and was developed by the same creator as part of the larger ENA world, I think it’s fair to say the game is at least derived from or set within the universe of the original series. So while it's not "based on" ENA in the sense of adapting a specific storyline, it's still part of the same creative lineage.
• For "Ena explores" and use of pronoun "she" vs. "the player explores", while the player does control ENA, the game presents her as a defined character with personality, dialogue, and story presence. Referring to her in this phrase as “ENA” rather than “the player” aligns better with how the game is framed narratively and visually. Saying “ENA explores the world” is clearer and more appropriate for an article about a character-driven game. Eventually referring to ENA by the pronoun "she" after the first mention of her is a little less repetitive compared to constantly referring to her solely by her name.
• For character names in quotes, I’d like to acknowledge a small oversight on my part: I completely forgot (and I think all of us forgot) that the Genie's real name is Theodora. So, yes, I believe "Genie" is indeed her nickname (I guess?). I think we should insert her real name somewhere in the article to prove that. As for the Boss, we do not know their real name (if they even have one) yet. So, we should keep it out of quotation marks for now.

TheEpicApartmentLord's edits (mass-reverted):

• For ENA vs. Ena, primary sources refers to her as ENA, though, as you said, secondary sources refer to her as Ena. It's somewhat debatable, but it's definitely good to discuss.
• We should only concisely describe the plot, without including detailed instructions, strategy guides, or excessive fictional details, per WP:VGSCOPE. If you want to discuss it, reply to the topic "Add a concise plot summary" above.

Mania Chimera's edits (also mass-reverted):

I don't really need to discuss any of Mania Chimera's edits because, Celtoi, you said that there was nothing wrong with them. They were informative and relevant to the article, and should be re-added (especially the material citing an independent, reliable source).

Let's address other things now:

• 3RR: I understand you believed the edits were problematic, but just to clarify, the three-revert rule applies regardless of how many separate edits another user makes. Reverting more than three times within a 24-hour period, even across multiple consecutive edits by the same user, is still considered a 3RR violation unless the edits are clear vandalism, copyright violations, or other obvious policy breaches. Since the edits in question appear to have been made in good faith, they don’t qualify as vandalism. If you’re ever unsure, the best course is to discuss on the talk page rather than risk breaching 3RR.
• Edit summaries: Just to clarify what I meant: your edit summaries often reflected the “come to the talk page” tone, but not the “I’m an expert” type of ownership behavior. I didn’t mean to imply that you were claiming authority over the subject—only that some of the reverts gave the impression that discussion had to happen before any changes could be accepted, which can still be interpreted as a mild form of gatekeeping if done repeatedly without initiating talk page discussion yourself.

Conclusion:

I think now that everything’s out in the open, we can hopefully work more constructively together on improving the article. I appreciate your openness to dialogue, and I hope we can use this as a fresh start toward collaborative editing. Let’s keep talk page discussion ongoing if any disagreements arise moving forward, so we don’t fall into the same cycle of unexplained reverts or misunderstandings. I’m happy to help refine parts of the article together and would welcome any suggestions you have as well. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Let’s rebuild trust and focus on improving the article together. Thanks again @TheEpicApartmentLord: for speaking up, and hopefully, @Mania Chimera: if they're aware of this, will join in soon too. 1isall (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and for the Lonely Door, that's the character's (not talking about the chapter of the same name, which CAN be in quotations) real name; they are widely known as that, so it shouldn't be in quotations. 1isall (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Glad to see you too, 1isall! If you allow me to answer, here are some of my further thoghts on the topic:

Your edits (1isall) (manually reverted):

I think set within the universe of is the most accurate here. I agree that this is the same creative lineage, absolutely.

Hm... I guess I can agree with that? Ena is seen as an exact character, unlike some other games we can't choose our name or somehow specify our own character. I think since the player controls Ena, we can use both words, with "=" sign between them, maybe to sometimes avoid tautology?

With Theodora, I think it will be good to mention her somewhere, since we are talking about the plot of only the first chapter, and we don't know about plots of future chapters. We actually know another Genie named Pierro, who should appear in the game and who maybe confirms the fact that "Genie" is a nickname? With Boss, I still think it should be written in quotation marks, since all characters that were introduced as "the Boss" had their own name, so I think the real Boss have their name too? Also we should mention that ENA herself was a Boss (the dialogue when she says about " teach you to grow your own one in a few short steps!", which shows that Boss is a title or a nickname.[4]

Mania Chimera's edits (also mass-reverted): I've added most of the content that was previously published by Mania Chimera in the initial paragraph. Also added "set within the universe of" there, because I decided to make these changes now since, as far as I can see, we both agree on these changes?

3RR: I am very afraid of the edit war, and I don't want to start a discussion on a talking page if no one except for me wants to discuss it. I'm aware of the 3RR rules, I don't say that these edits were vandalism, sometimes I just forgot about the number of reverts I did =/

I think now we should concentrate our attention on the expansion of plot, and maybe to finally separate the section. I have previously worked on this article together with @ObserveOwl (Talk:ENA: Dream BBQ#Restoration), who wrote a big part of Development and Reception sections. When we worked, we just decided that we focus on different sections of the page, and when we finish writing them, we both publish other text and then correct each other. Celtoi (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful response, @Celtoi:. I’m really glad we’re reaching more common ground, and I appreciate the care you’ve taken to respond to specific points. Let me follow up on each of them:

My edits (manually reverted):

• I agree that "set within the universe of" is probably the most accurate phrasing. It’s a good way to describe the connection without overstating continuity, and I’m glad you updated the article to reflect that.
• As for "player" vs. "ENA", I see where you're coming from, but I’d argue it's better to use “ENA” consistently when referring to the character in a narrative context and "player" in a gameplay context. She’s not a silent avatar or customizable protagonist—she has a voice, defined personality, and role in the story. While it's true the player controls her, the game presents ENA as her own character, not a blank slate. So saying “ENA explores the world” reflects the game’s framing more accurately than "the player explores". It’s also more consistent with how Wikipedia handles character-driven games. So, I propose that in narrative and storyline contexts, use "ENA". For gameplay contexts, use "player".
• For character names:
  • I completely agree that Theodora’s real name should be included somewhere in the article to clarify that "Genie" is indeed a nickname or title. I wasn't made aware of the other Genie named Pierro (I think their name is actually spelled "Piero") until now, so I think they're a great supporting reference for this too.
  • For "Boss", I still lean toward not using quotation marks until or unless the character’s real name is revealed in-game. As you mentioned, "Boss" is likely a title, and the fact that ENA used to be one helps support that. Instead of using quotation marks, we could just clarify in prose that it’s a role/title rather than a proper name.

Mania Chimera’s edits:

Thanks for reintroducing most of Mania Chimera’s content. If it’s now integrated into the article in a polished and accurate way, that’s great. I’ll double-check and see if anything else can still be refined or restored.

3RR:

Thanks for the honesty here. I completely understand that it’s easy to forget how many reverts you’ve made—especially when responding to multiple edits in a row. That said, just to clarify again: the three-revert rule still applies even if one user made multiple consecutive edits. Since the edits in question were made in good faith and not obvious vandalism, discussing them on the Talk page is always the safer approach.

I did in fact start a topic earlier about adding a concise plot summary Talk:ENA: Dream BBQ#Add a concise plot summary, and I would really like to collaborate on that with you and anyone else interested. That’s why I’m here—to improve the article with community input and avoid edit warring altogether.

Moving forward:

Splitting the plot into its own section sounds like a good plan if it grows any further. I’m also really glad to hear about your past collaboration with @ObserveOwl:, and it’s nice to see continued work on the article’s development and reception sections.

Let’s keep working together to make this article both accurate and well-organized! 1isall (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

all i'll just say is that i think ENA should be capitalized as everyone else capitalizes and so does the creator, but I respectfully do not want to be part of this argument anymore, thanks TheEpicApartmentLord (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! Just letting you know that all instances of "Ena" have been replaced with "ENA" for consistency with official stylization. I appreciate your help! 1isall (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Plot section tone and phrasing concerns – request for help and feedback

Hi all, I've noticed that the current Plot section contains a number of phrases that sound in-universe or instructional (e.g., "the player must do X", "after talking to Y"). I've recently cleaned up the Gameplay section to fix this same issue there. Since Wikipedia aims for a neutral, encyclopedic tone, I’m looking for help in rephrasing the Plot section appropriately in the same way.

Would appreciate feedback or assistance in cleaning up the tone while preserving the meaning. Thanks! 1isall (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Taking a look at it now. I already have concerns about a few things, primarily the length of the Plot section. I'll put them in list format below for convenience.

• WP:VG/PLOT says "the article's plot coverage should be proportional to the plot's importance in the game, as determined by its weight in the article's source material." Comparing to the Plot section of Final Fantasy VII, the word count is only a 111 word difference (1111 words to 1000 words respectively). But when determining said weight by the source material at first sight, there are more references in the Final Fantasy article and the plot section is solely sourced from walkthroughs. The weight of the plot in the sources should be evaluated, and the plot summary adjusted accordingly.
• The non-free picture of ENA meeting Theodora should be removed, as it is unnecessary to use an image when the text itself already suffices. I'm skeptical of the rationale for using the image of ENA and Froggy in it's current state for the same reason as the Theodora image, but needing an image to highlight the main cast (in this case ENA and Froggy) could be a sufficient rationale. Though I would prefer a solo image of ENA in place of the current image.

On another note, the article could (if possible) another piece of non-free media to demonstrate the surrealist art direction, though I doubt this could be demonstrated with a single low-quality image. Maybe two could do it, or an external video link to the game's trailer would do. Anyway, I'll look at this article further when I can. Maybe we can even shoot for GA! – Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 07:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay! I will definitely remove the image of Theodora. Also, did I mention that I'm concerned about certain phrases sounding in-universe, such as "we understand that ENA is seeking a job"? I will definitely have to rephrase them to sound neutral in tone. If we continue to improve this article, maybe we will even get to FEATURED! 1isall (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I have questions about image: what is wrong? The image is my screenshot of the game which is, as far as I know, still is the ownership of the game's creator. I think we should illustrate the article more, since it explains strange things which are for some reason described by "1isall" as "in-universe". If we won't demostrate anything to the reader, then it will be harder for them to understand what is going on. Celtoi (talk) 09:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@Sparkle and Fade: When you're ready, could you help me rephrase the Plot section? 1isall (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Decided you to answer here, because I see that your edits are removing the text into more in-Universe like style, like "mysterious door" and "suddenly...". I'm afraid if you will try to rewrite the Plot section as I did, you may achieve a neutral, but even more in-universe text. I still recommend you to read more video game articles, since as far as I know you're editing from February, and maybe you a bit lack experience? I still hope for the best, and we should discuss our edits together more, since I think we both won't give up this article until it will be perfect) Celtoi (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, how about we make compromises on how to phrase certain things? BUT, you've also been adding some excessive, unneeded details, like the inspiration for Theodora. That detail in particular is irrelevant to the plot.

I'm also trying to get help from other editors, like @Sparkle and Fade, because I believe we will need some help in rewriting this section. 1isall (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Details are important, they make the text more rich and interesting to the reader. Though, I agree that it is unnecessary) I understand your view on this, so I'll try to not add more unnecessary phrases, moreover I cleaned a lot of them in my previous edits. Also want to ask about the Hub "" quotation: why won't we add them? Quotation marks denote the "unrealness" of the article, making it less in-Universe, and the Hub here is the name of the location, and I personally think we should add quotation marks at all first location name uses, which will increase the formality-officiality of the article. But maybe I'm blind here? I do understand that according to Wikipedia's rules we shouldn't do that, but one of the main Wikipedia's rules in common sense, which is defined by a group of editors. So I want to hear your thoughts on quotation marks once again.

I don't say that getting help from other editors is bad, I think that if other people like @Sparkle and Fade will help us it will be better for everyone, moreover Sparkle and Fade is quite experienced in such topics as far as I can see. I just want to participate in editing too) Celtoi (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I might go and ask some editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games to help out. Mind if I do that? 1isall (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, names of locations, whether real or fictional, should never be written in quotation marks. (Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Names and titles) 1isall (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying! It will be good if you asked help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, though I think when there are three of us it will be a lot easier. By now I think we should thinking about shortening the plot, which is funny because its length is the main reason why I didn't want to do this at the beggining) I'll try to do the best I can there. Celtoi (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Also want to ask you and @Sparkle and Fade if we need more images, like the image of the Purge Evenr or Purge Event's labyrinth. I think due to "surrealness" of the game we should illustrate it with at least two images aside from the game cover. Celtoi (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

An image of the Purge Event (maybe inside) and/or the Uncanny Streets could suffice, but it could only be justified if reviewers put emphasis on the environment and setting. This could also work for other aspects; for example adding images of several diverse characters where reviewers highlight the game's culturally diverse inspirations for its characters, though I think this would only work if we provided examples of the inspiration for each character (e.g. The piggy pank Kane emerges from featuring Kintsugi).

On the topic of the Plot, there are many things that can be cut out without losing vital information. For example, the sentence(s) about ENA paying the toll for the Purge Event should be cut. There are some other issues with the article I've just noticed, but I'm going to bring this up in a seperate reply for clarity. – Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 04:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Not sure if paying the toll paying the toll part can be cleaned, although if we trying to minimize the size of the section it definitely should be removed. An image of Purge Event of labyrinth will clarify the look of the things mentioned in text to the reader. The image of Theodora (for example that I included) in opinion is the best here, since it demostrates both cultural design of the character (based on Nazka pottery) and is an important part of the plot. As you mentioned, I agree that if we want to demostrate cultural inspirations we should demostrate more than one character, maybe Kane or Shoryo for Japanese culture, Heh-Ito for Selk'nam culture (South America) along with many Peruvian-insipred characters. We can write under each image exact inspirations, I think. Despite it is strange from classical Wikipedia article's view, this may be extremely helpful and pretty interesting for the reader. Celtoi (talk) 08:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we should have one image of the gameplay in, of course, the Gameplay section. It could be in any of the areas. 1isall (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

What images should we pick then? I can make a screenshot directly from the game myself, or we can use already published, such as the Purge Event maze image from here Celtoi (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Plot section tone and phrasing concerns – request for help and feedback

Hi all, I've noticed that the current Plot section contains a number of phrases that sound in-universe or instructional (e.g., "the player must do X", "after talking to Y"). I've recently cleaned up the Gameplay section to fix this same issue there. Since Wikipedia aims for a neutral, encyclopedic tone, I’m looking for help in rephrasing the Plot section appropriately in the same way.

Would appreciate feedback or assistance in cleaning up the tone while preserving the meaning. Thanks! 1isall (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Taking a look at it now. I already have concerns about a few things, primarily the length of the Plot section. I'll put them in list format below for convenience.

• WP:VG/PLOT says "the article's plot coverage should be proportional to the plot's importance in the game, as determined by its weight in the article's source material." Comparing to the Plot section of Final Fantasy VII, the word count is only a 111 word difference (1111 words to 1000 words respectively). But when determining said weight by the source material at first sight, there are more references in the Final Fantasy article and the plot section is solely sourced from walkthroughs. The weight of the plot in the sources should be evaluated, and the plot summary adjusted accordingly.
• The non-free picture of ENA meeting Theodora should be removed, as it is unnecessary to use an image when the text itself already suffices. I'm skeptical of the rationale for using the image of ENA and Froggy in it's current state for the same reason as the Theodora image, but needing an image to highlight the main cast (in this case ENA and Froggy) could be a sufficient rationale. Though I would prefer a solo image of ENA in place of the current image.

On another note, the article could (if possible) another piece of non-free media to demonstrate the surrealist art direction, though I doubt this could be demonstrated with a single low-quality image. Maybe two could do it, or an external video link to the game's trailer would do. Anyway, I'll look at this article further when I can. Maybe we can even shoot for GA! – Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 07:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay! I will definitely remove the image of Theodora. Also, did I mention that I'm concerned about certain phrases sounding in-universe, such as "we understand that ENA is seeking a job"? I will definitely have to rephrase them to sound neutral in tone. If we continue to improve this article, maybe we will even get to FEATURED! 1isall (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I have questions about image: what is wrong? The image is my screenshot of the game which is, as far as I know, still is the ownership of the game's creator. I think we should illustrate the article more, since it explains strange things which are for some reason described by "1isall" as "in-universe". If we won't demostrate anything to the reader, then it will be harder for them to understand what is going on. Celtoi (talk) 09:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@Sparkle and Fade: When you're ready, could you help me rephrase the Plot section? 1isall (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Decided you to answer here, because I see that your edits are removing the text into more in-Universe like style, like "mysterious door" and "suddenly...". I'm afraid if you will try to rewrite the Plot section as I did, you may achieve a neutral, but even more in-universe text. I still recommend you to read more video game articles, since as far as I know you're editing from February, and maybe you a bit lack experience? I still hope for the best, and we should discuss our edits together more, since I think we both won't give up this article until it will be perfect) Celtoi (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, how about we make compromises on how to phrase certain things? BUT, you've also been adding some excessive, unneeded details, like the inspiration for Theodora. That detail in particular is irrelevant to the plot.

I'm also trying to get help from other editors, like @Sparkle and Fade, because I believe we will need some help in rewriting this section. 1isall (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Details are important, they make the text more rich and interesting to the reader. Though, I agree that it is unnecessary) I understand your view on this, so I'll try to not add more unnecessary phrases, moreover I cleaned a lot of them in my previous edits. Also want to ask about the Hub "" quotation: why won't we add them? Quotation marks denote the "unrealness" of the article, making it less in-Universe, and the Hub here is the name of the location, and I personally think we should add quotation marks at all first location name uses, which will increase the formality-officiality of the article. But maybe I'm blind here? I do understand that according to Wikipedia's rules we shouldn't do that, but one of the main Wikipedia's rules in common sense, which is defined by a group of editors. So I want to hear your thoughts on quotation marks once again.

I don't say that getting help from other editors is bad, I think that if other people like @Sparkle and Fade will help us it will be better for everyone, moreover Sparkle and Fade is quite experienced in such topics as far as I can see. I just want to participate in editing too) Celtoi (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I might go and ask some editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games to help out. Mind if I do that? 1isall (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, names of locations, whether real or fictional, should never be written in quotation marks. (Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Names and titles) 1isall (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying! It will be good if you asked help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, though I think when there are three of us it will be a lot easier. By now I think we should thinking about shortening the plot, which is funny because its length is the main reason why I didn't want to do this at the beggining) I'll try to do the best I can there. Celtoi (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Also want to ask you and @Sparkle and Fade if we need more images, like the image of the Purge Evenr or Purge Event's labyrinth. I think due to "surrealness" of the game we should illustrate it with at least two images aside from the game cover. Celtoi (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

An image of the Purge Event (maybe inside) and/or the Uncanny Streets could suffice, but it could only be justified if reviewers put emphasis on the environment and setting. This could also work for other aspects; for example adding images of several diverse characters where reviewers highlight the game's culturally diverse inspirations for its characters, though I think this would only work if we provided examples of the inspiration for each character (e.g. The piggy pank Kane emerges from featuring Kintsugi).

On the topic of the Plot, there are many things that can be cut out without losing vital information. For example, the sentence(s) about ENA paying the toll for the Purge Event should be cut. There are some other issues with the article I've just noticed, but I'm going to bring this up in a seperate reply for clarity. – Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 04:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Not sure if paying the toll paying the toll part can be cleaned, although if we trying to minimize the size of the section it definitely should be removed. An image of Purge Event of labyrinth will clarify the look of the things mentioned in text to the reader. The image of Theodora (for example that I included) in opinion is the best here, since it demostrates both cultural design of the character (based on Nazka pottery) and is an important part of the plot. As you mentioned, I agree that if we want to demostrate cultural inspirations we should demostrate more than one character, maybe Kane or Shoryo for Japanese culture, Heh-Ito for Selk'nam culture (South America) along with many Peruvian-insipred characters. We can write under each image exact inspirations, I think. Despite it is strange from classical Wikipedia article's view, this may be extremely helpful and pretty interesting for the reader. Celtoi (talk) 08:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we should have one image of the gameplay in, of course, the Gameplay section. It could be in any of the areas. 1isall (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

What images should we pick then? I can make a screenshot directly from the game myself, or we can use already published, such as the Purge Event maze image from here Celtoi (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Section break

On another note, I'm unsure on where to put the detail about the word "Genie" being replaced with "BATHROOM" should go. As a footnote, I feel it would be too inaccessible, and I also can't find a good spot to put the footnote within the text. As prose, it would probably be too clunky/detailed to insert in itself. What do you guys think? – Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 10:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Good question. Here's my take: It does seem like an important detail, but since it doesn't seem to fit as a footnote or anywhere in prose, I think we should exclude it for now. Maybe if we continue to improve the plot, a space to insert the detail could open. 1isall (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Why do you think it is not important? You deleted my image of Bathroom, and I can take that, but how the reader will understand what Bathroom is? We must mention this at least as a note what is going on, I pretty much insist on that. Or, we should explain what "Bathroom" is through a different way, like an illustration. Celtoi (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

1isall, also, when this article was created, it was originally thought that this will be a video game article also mentioning the original series, because creating a separate article for it isn't planned. In other words, info about series in this article should exist; Celtoi (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

How about we just merge it into the Development section instead? (It may be already there, but we'll just expand that with such info.) We can look for a suitable source from this list provided by @Cukie Gherkin: User:Cukie Gherkin/ENA Dream BBQ 1isall (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

The game is really connected to the series; I think it is rational to mention this fact on the initial paragraph, which will give the reader more correct understanding of the topic. Though, if you disagree on this, then we should ask @Sparkle and Fade about this. Celtoi (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

As far as I've seen, most video game articles care about series continuity between games, but not between other forms of media. (TV, movies, books, etc.) DBBQ may be part of the ENA franchise, so maybe we could put that in the infobox…? We should definitely get more opinions on this. 1isall (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Hm, then we will need to create a separate article about the Series itself, but as far as I can see there are almost none direct sources on this topic, though I may be wrong. That is also the reason why we originally agreed on placing this detail here, because there seem to be not enough sources for a separate article (by now?) Celtoi (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, let's continue this (so that it doesn't look like we're edit warring, which could result in both of us getting blocked). Did you check the list of sources by Cukie Gherkin? There is a mention of the original ENA there. Maybe cite that! 1isall (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we should both say that we are not edit warring, absolutely, and we are trying to achieve a compromise. So, if we can find at least 3-4 sources, I think we will be already able to create a small stub article. There was already a draft on this topic, as far as I remember. Celtoi (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm planning to add the series parameter to the infobox with ENA as the series. Since ENA isn't strictly a video game franchise (it started as an animated series), I'm a bit skeptical about it. Do you agree with me doing this @Celtoi? 1isall (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much fair, moreover you've already done that) Next is maybe creating a separate article about ENA web series? I'll see if it is possible at all. Celtoi (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I tried to search for sources before I even found out the game got an article, and I came out empty-handed. As it stands, the web series itself isn't notable enough to have its own article; only the game is. Sad, but true. Our best bet is to find enough context about the series to put in the Development section.

As for the Bathroom detail, we need to provide context to the reader as to what the Bathroom is. We need to rewrite the first few sentences of the second paragraph of Lonely Door to properly explain the deal with the Bathroom. Once we resolve these issues, we can get an uninvolved party to look at the section and see if the OR and in-universe tags still apply. – Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 23:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Celtoi:@1isall: Please stop removing or adding the Bathroom detail until a solution is found or it may be seen as edit warring. I have removed it for now because it is too clunky or jarring to fit in the text. For a basic idea, maybe something like "... At the Uncanny Streets, ENA finds that the word "Genie" is replaced with "BATHROOM" when she says it. ..." or something similar (but not just that). I will work to find a suitable way to write it until then. – Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 11:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The way you mentioned is 100% in-universe styled. We should avoid that. I don't see any problem with the way I wrote my text, but if you do, then I can't ignore you since you are one of the editors here too. So, what exactly is wrong with my text in your opinion? Can you write it here, please? At any case, we really should mention this somewhere because (I've already said this) the reader won't understand our "Bathroom" mentions, if we don't explain to them what's going on. We shall mention this in any form, like a note (I've already done one, but we reverted it) or a mention in the text. I suggest two of the veraints I've already did, but I'm waiting for your suggestions too, @Sparkle and Fade, and, maybe, @1isall should join us to here. Celtoi (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

If or when we find a way to insert this detail, I think we should mention "subtitles" to help in providing a real-world perspective of it. That's the only thing I'll say about this Genie/Bathroom thing for now. 1isall (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, we should take this into account. And also: we completely delete the series' idea? Like we won't say anything about "series" at all, though we will write about the web series of ENA on this page? Celtoi (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@Sparkle and Fade: Rain rocks is the official term for the gray cubes in the ENA series. Therefore, it wouldn't be considered original research. Is it possible to include it in the plot summary in any way? 1isall (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Although, do you think we should find a source to back it up? 1isall (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@1isall, From my perspective we should clarify what we mean, something like "crystal-like formations called "rain rocks"", because I think "rain rocks" will be strange for an average reader. I also see this as a compromise between your and @Sparkle and Fade's versions, @1isall. Also, as far as I see, there are no at least a bit reliable sources mentioning rain rocks, although from community websites we can figure out that this is the original name. But, technically, we can say that rain rocks isn't official because there are no sources. This is my opinion here. Celtoi (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

1isall, per Celtoi's points: The term 'rain rocks' being the official name is unverifiable (not by reliable sources) and thus needs to be changed. As for the series, we will write about it in the Development section in proportion to reliable sources' discussion of it. I will continue working on the Plot section to try and include the Bathroom detail properly until then. On another note, should we change the picture of ENA and Froggy to just ENA to better fit the non-free use rationale? Sparkle and Fade [public] (talk) 05:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@Sparkle and Fade, I think the article needs more illustrations, so we better not change the image. By now, the reader at least can understand who is Froggy, considering he is a "second-main" character, with who the player talks almost everywhere. We mention him in the beggining of the article, so I don't see any reason why the image can't be non-free use rationale. So if we are no going to add new images to the article, let's at least left our current image. Celtoi (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I guess "crystal-like growths" is a good alternative. To me, it does give out a similar description. 1isall (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

But wait! In "Auction Day", the first episode of the original ENA series, ENA calls it "rain rocks". Couldn't we cite the original video as a primary source? 1isall (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually, ignore that. I meant this: the game itself is what most of the plot summary cites. Can't the term "rain rocks" just cite that? MOS:FICTIONPLOT 1isall (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, you're right, it's not explicitly stated in Dream BBQ, so, yeah, let's just exclude it and keep that alternative. 1isall (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Celtoi, we still should not include the webcore detail in the lead because it places emphasis on something that doesn't appear in the article body in contradiction of the Manual of Style (a guideline). It being "something we can clearly see" and the community "always mentioning it" is not a valid rationale because that is original research. However, it should definitely be included in either the Development or Reception section because it is relevant to the article and to "leave a small mark" as you said.

On another note, we should include the detail on how numerous characters claim to be 'the Boss' throughout the game, definitely relevant and significant. I will BOLDly put it in for now and see what happens from there. Happy editing! – Sparkle and Fade [public] (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to let you all know that "Uncanny Streets Dark" is still the official name of the location, so the word "Dark" should be the last word of the name, not the first. 1isall (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

However, I am open to discussion. Should the name stay or not? 1isall (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Celtoi: and @Sparkle and Fade: I would actually like the reason why you initially agreed to change it to "Dark Uncanny Streets". Thanks. 1isall (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I would actually rather remove the name altogether and opt for something like "the upside-down canyon area covering the Uncanny Streets's sky" or skipping straight to the Purge Event detail, though I prefer the former. – Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 04:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I know that "Uncanny Streets Dark" is the official name for the location, though this is practically an inversion, which may cause some questions. And also as far as I know "Uncanny Streets (Dark)" is the actual name, since it is in the name of the soundtrack. I think it will be better to add brackets here. Celtoi (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

And here I mostly agree wtih @Sparkle and Fade, since all these questions with location names with "official" and "non-official" are actually not necessary, and we can easily avoid them by simply removing them from the text. Celtoi (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I would have to sort of disagree here, the name of the location is more specific. We should just keep it in there, but like Celtoi said, with parentheses. 1isall (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Simply naming a location rather than explaining what the location is in the text removes context (and possibly plot details) from the section. It is a relevant detail, providing context for the discussion of surrealism and cultural inspirations while demonstrating those things in itself. A name takes that away from readers and, in my opinion, would damage the article. – Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 21:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Then how about we explain what the Uncanny Streets Dark is after its initial mention? That way, we won't have to remove it, and we provide needed information to the readers! 1isall (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I feel like distinguishing that section as the "Dark" Section would warrant also distinguishing the first section as the Uncanny Streets (Bright). I generally just see it as redundant to tag the name in addition to the description. Also, we are noting the place's description because it is a relevant detail, as it may be symbolism to "crossing into the afterlife" as suggested by certain characters' dialogues in the Uncanny Streets and the gravestones littering the Dark section; this is not the case for the Bright section as there's nothing inherently noteworthy about the location itself outside of the Wanderers (the flying hippo-snake-prism things). – Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 04:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

You are right: the main part of Uncanny Streets does have the word "Bright" in its name. "Uncanny Streets" would refer to all the areas in it. 1isall (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)