Talk:Rufus (Street Fighter)

Content

I have removed a couple of the extraneous links from this page. A reference article is not meant to be "Everything we can find out about Rufus". It is not enough simply to Google his name every day and indiscriminately list everything that comes up. References should only be used to back up a point that's being made.

Finally, unless Rufus turns out to be from Florda, I won't expect to see any more mention of the Tampa Tribune. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.96 (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's indiscriminately listing anything: the sources are reliable publications and websites. There's no region lock on a reference, just a requirement that if something's cited the source is reliable and verifiable. Look around at any other character article for crying out loud.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if a site is "reliable and verifiable". It shouldn't get added as a reference just for referencing's sake. You need to make or establish notable points, not just provide backup that a certain magazine likes or dislikes a character. If Rufus tops a poll, that might count, but otherwise you're just providing news/publicity updates. See most of What_wp_is_not, especially section 2.9, point 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.96 (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Part of the point of reception is publicity: reception boiled down is literally "what the public thinks about the character". You want to argue with sources, try here. Also point 2.5 subsection 5 covers creating articles based on random news items, such as kidnappings and so forth. Not their use as sources in articles.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with the source itself. That would be silly. I'm echoing that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It doesn't matter that you can find a source to back something up if you are not saying anything worth saying. If you think Rufus is worth having his own article, try providing an insight into his character, or explaining what makes him unique or revolutionary or popular (or unpopular). So far, none of this has been done.

The restaurant stuff, nobody knows what nationwide means. It's either international, or it needs to be explained what nation you're talking about.

Finally, Rufus would probably be summed up by everyone as "a fat character". Surely it would be good to know how fat, by listing his official weight?

Also, please do not remove notability flag without good reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.96 (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Why you keep deleting the popcorn stuff? Since he's only been in one game, we have very little to go on about his character, so this is one of the key details revealed in official artwork.

And gameplay wise, the vitality is a key advantage of this character over all the others... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.96 (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I'm removing the notability tag because I'm contesting the claim. If you want to push it further I suggest you take it to a AfD

Second, nothing here is handled in a fashion that's a collection of miscellaneous info. The promotion section contributes towards the company's handling of the character (in comparison to others such as Balrog (Street Fighter)) while the reception covers people's reactions to the characters in citable media, which is not simply "he's fat".

Third, the weight stat was something that was covered to death for character articles and considered trivial compared to height or three-sizes for female characters which contributed to understanding a character's appearance in relation to another. However saying in the design section Rufus weighs over 200 lbs if it can be cited isn't a bad idea (227, right?) Also the higher defense needs a source, but for the most part is trivial (larger characters in games have higher defense, that's a given).

But like I said, if you feel this shouldn't be here, AfD it. I'm working on expanding it and right now you're just impeding that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I' have taken out the references to the actors again. It's just clutter. Please see Ryu, Guile, Chun-Li or Bison, as well as the 4 non-gaming characters I mentioned before. References would be needed if you were saying something controversial, or something that wasn't easily verified by anyone playing the game. They most definitely are not needed for actors.

"removing the notability tag because I'm contesting the claim"? That's not for you to decide. The point of that tag is that it remains for at least a month, and until a consensus is reached. At the moment this seems to be a one-man article.

Anyway, I'll tell it straight so that you don't waste too much of your time. This is not the place for every quote you can find. IGN saying that he is "a capable fighter" is not worth mentioning, likewise for most of the other quotes. Maybe you could use that reference among a list of 2 or 3 to state that, for example, "overwhelming opinion is that Rufus is the most popular new character" or something (although anecdotaly I'd say that wasn't the case, but it's an example of what you might try to establish). Furthermore, if you want to manage a complete database of all character references and reviews, then that's up to you, but please take it to a fansite hosted elsewhere.

You're making a very big deal out of them being "citable media", when in fact this doesn't matter as long as the points themselves are irrelevant. Wikipedia readers do not need to know whether a certain newspaper likes a character, or whether a website dislikes them. You need to concentrate on making points that are valid and worthwhile. How does he compare to other new and old characters? Does he have any truly unique features or moves? What stereotypes does he reinforce/break? These sorts of questions might add something, but shallow and throwaway one-liners do not.

As for his defence, well that's one of the key elements to his gameplay. I'll dig out a reference if it meant that you wouldn't delete the entry out of revenge 30 seconds after I put it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.96 (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, I just went through 13 other SF characters, and 9 other random characters from games/movies/comics, and do you know how many others saw fit to reference a link that backed up their actor? NONE. It is simply not common practice, no matter what else you may have read. Please quit trying to reintroduce these pointless links. Everybody believes you without a url that says the same thing as can be seen onscreen.

On another issue, related to you revamping the article, I have no objection provided you establish some much needed notability. In particular, you have one week to prove that Rufus is more significant or important than, say, Yun, Hokuto or Alex.

As a pointer, Tiamat's SF canon guide has all of the official backstories translated into English from Capcom Japan at http://www.capcom.co.jp/sf4/cs_stories_index.html . Did you ever take a look at it? Try to pick out one or two of the key story points for inclusion here - I think that would help.

Also, the weight is 185 kg, from a published book, although I think I converted it into lbs before. However, kg seems like the best unit to use, so it's back in.

Instead of trying to revert anything written by somebody else besides you, please be constructive and improve the article by adding material, as I think you are enthusiastic enough to make it happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.96 (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that the only article higher than B-class quality is Poison (Final Fight) for the whole series of characters, and you'll notice it cites the actors. The other articles *should*. When you make any claim on wikipedia, it *should* be cited somewhere in the text. I've been at this awhile. I'm pretty much one of the few guys on the project that works on character articles, and I've helped get several to Good Article status (sometimes as the primary editor working on the aritcle at all). That might sound big winded, but I'm just saying I know what I'm talking about here.

I have one week to prove to you that it's notable? No way, you don't believe it then just slap it up for deletion like I said. Let them sort it out so I can keep working on it. I will say pound for pound this is more said about this one character than most SF characters *period*. And that's actually disturbing.

Tiamat's plot guide, sadly, has been deemed an unreliable source simply because he interprets what other sources say. It can't be used, and shouldn't be used. :(

I'll look for a player's guide for the stats so I can cite a page for them at least. Beyond that I've asked the video games project to take a look into this and offer some input in our debate.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Per the {{underconstruction}} tag, this article should not have notability pointed to it until it's removed or several days of relative stability have been achieved. If at such a time you still feel it does not meet the WP:GNG or we should still make an exception to the rule and delete this, you can propose it.

As for references, generally like the lead, infoboxes are discouraged from having references cited in them if they are later on in the series. So both of you are wrong to some degree. However, sourcing is required for statements like that. If they can be done in-game, fine.

This discussion is a bit hard to follow without the comments from the edit history. But in regard to referencing content, most times it is better to error on the side of caution and add a citation. Particularly when dealing with content related to real, living people. Though there are numerous examples of fictional character articles that do not provide a citation for the actor, there are also many that do: Aerith Gainsborough, Iori Yagami, Soma Cruz, Ayu Tsukimiya, List of Naruto characters, Sailor Venus, etc. All of which have undergone a quality review to make sure they adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Personally, I think the absence of such links actually hurts the article's quality and reliability, and I do not believe that adding such links to reliable sources would diminish it? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC))

In summary: When in doubt, cite. Nifboy (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what Nifboy said. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC))

So what does this boil down to? Notability? Those sources look reliable enough to me. Generally, if a character has been mentioned in as many reliable publications as that, they're notable. Rufus is no exception; he should have his own article. As for how those sources are presented, many GA and higher video game articles specifically mention references from IGN, GameSpot, etc. Would you contest Roger Ebert being specifically cited in a movie article? Also, anonymous user, your sassy comments in this discussion are bordering on incivility.— Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, notability of the character is one thing. Sure, he gets mentioned all over the place, but then, when you have the most eagerly anticipated game of 2009, and that game is reviewed in every single newspaper in the western world, then sure, the 4 new characters are bound to get namedropped and have a one-line description written about them. But like I've been saying all along, he's irrelevant to the story, has nothing original in the way of gameplay, and hasn't truly captured imaginations in a meaningful way. Only time will tell if he becomes as iconic as Ryu, Guile, Chun-Li, Bison, or even, to pick names at random of people who currently don't warrant their own articles, Karin or Sodom. But right now, numbers of Google results are, for the newbies in the following search terms:

132,000 for "street fighter IV" rufus.

157,000 for "street fighter IV" fuerte.

219,000 for "street fighter IV" viper.

2,120,000 for "street fighter IV" abel.

So he's not being talked about as much as any of the others- make of that what you will. If it's consensus that merely being one of the 25 characters in SFIV is enough to make you notable, then I can't object to that, but otherwise, let's not kid ourselves and make him into something he's not.

Another thing is simply the stuff that is actually being referenced. I don't feel that pointing out that Rufus is arrogant adds anything to the article. The main objection? An encyclopedia article is not meant to be an incoherent list of inane opinion and trivia. There has to be quality control so that it doesn't simply become a collection of "every time his name has appeared in print". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.96 (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

After looking through the first half of the article's references, Rufus was described in more than just a single line or passing mention almost all of them. Most had decent sized paragraphs describing his creation and role in the game. And few did say they "captured their imaginations".

In regard to the google numbers (which were surprising different when I did the same searches) a search engine test can be helpful in research, but it is not a definite measuring stick for notability. Search engines do not take into account Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, and do not take into account the quantity of mention in a single hit. For all we know, most of Abel's search results could be one-line or passing mentions.

So while he may be irrelevant in an in-universe perspective (don't know, I haven't played the game), the article's sources seem to point that he's made quite a big splash from an out-of-universe perspective (reviewers and developers talking about the character in context outside of the game), which is the perspective Wikipedia is most concerned with. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

Regarding the most recent reversal by Kung Fu Man, who doesn't seem to understand that wikipedia is a community effort where consensus rules, my points are as follows: I improved the original version of the article, which said "arcade versions of Street Fighter IV", which is not correct. As of right now, and unlike SF2, SFEX and SF Alpha, there has been no patch, update or sequel to SFIV, and so there is just one arcade version. I can't believe anybody would argue against this. It's incontestable. Secondly, the original article said "about 6 ½ feet (195 cm) tall", which I improved. Again, the character was invented in Japan for a Japanese game, and so the original units were cm. Furthermore, the article doesn't even make sense to state the original measurement as "about", and then go on to state something more specific as the secondary unit. Feet and inches don't even come into it, and at best are only a conversion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.96 (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• sighs* I really need a vacation...

Anon, I've pointed out policies, similar articles of GA or higher quality, and so forth. Can you please look at them instead of blindly rushing in there? I mean you do have one point about the arcade factor (I'd forgotten that SF4 didn't have a seprate American development like many arcade games do for translation purposes), but the measurements issue is covered under policy. Fighting with you is impeding the hell out of this article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, funny that ALL of your counterexamples (Reptile, Poison, Necrid) are articles that you have commandeered and made your own one-man projects. Just bite the bullet and accept you are wrong on this one- the units need to be in cm and kg, as they originate in those units because of the game's production staff being Japanese. This is consistent with all wikipedia policies. I can't believe you're even arguing this- just ignore it and concentrate on expanding the other sections!

Please also explain why you want to be less specific and create confusion as to what game(s) Rufus has appeared in? If he's in SFIV, it's fundamental that we say so, rather than being vague and using the word "series" when it's not needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.96 (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What "confusions"? If a character appears in one single title it's part of the series, even if the character appears again in a related title 10 years down the line. Other articles note similar just fine. I don't understand your insistence either on the weights and measurements front either, as citing it in the manner here is for the sake of uniformity. It's not horribly important, but MoS leaves the standard optional and for the sake of reason on English wikipedia it's easier to describe a character's description by conventional measurements more familiar to English speakers than metrics first, and again offers the sake of consistency through articles.

I'll add that through this you've become increasingly antagonistic. It'd be a good idea to start exercising Good Faith...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's not even get started on this. Most English speakers (as indeed, most people worldwide) use cm. "conventional measurement" is cm. Plus, as stated before, the original source uses cm, so converting just makes it more approximate, as you yourself admit in your edits. Let's not use words like "about" and "over" if we don't have to, as an exact source is available (and is recommended by Wikipedia:Manual of Style). This case is closed.

Also, are you really trying to say that people wouldn't understand that a game called "Street Fighter IV" would inherently be part of a series?! In any case, unlike other characters who have appeared in multiple games in a subseries (and indeed multiple subseries within a main series), Rufus is a character from SFIV. This is the most straightforward way of saying it. He has yet to become a series character in its true sense. We need to be explicit and precise, and not use words that aren't needed.