Talk:Somari

Some info here?

Well, for some information, could i say that Spring Yard Zone is named 'Spring Yand' in level select screen, and in Sonic 3D Blast 5/6, level select just has errors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.178.69.45 (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

speedy deletion

Unless someone puts some content here, this page should be deleted... and I know my previous prod was wrong. Then Masky blanked the page.

--wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 23:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clear a few things up

Yo wj32, I'm sorry for blanking the page. I was just very mad how they couldn't accept my contribution for this article. I want to make Wikipedia better by adding articles that wasn't mentioned, and that there are request articles that I wanted to make in the Computer and Video Games WikiProject request articles section. Next time I edit this article, I will provide more information to the subject and get as much information as possible about it.

-Masky :)

Things are now cleared up :) --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 08:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Release date?

Well, I don't exactly know when it was released, but I've played it in 2002 (possible even in 2001). Now we atleast knoe it was release between 1994 and 2002.

I remember playing it around 1996. BrunoX 01:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

somari

dude, thats soooo cheap! they ripped mario and sonic off! they should be ashamed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.130.19 (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right! I was trying so hard to put my finger on it, glad somebody go it! Boredom Swells (talk) 06:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Brokenness of some of the games features

Should the brokenness of the features such as the rising platforms in Labyrinth Zone be added?

I have been working on a Tool Assisted Speedrun of Somari along with a man called True and have found some absolutely baffling flaws, the best example being the afforminated platforms.

This video is an example of what happens with the platforms: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbqyki (Note: The Lua scripts shown are simply speed and time indicators, they do not modify the game in any way)

I'm not much of a Wikipedian (And do not many of the formatting rules and tags as such), but I have noticed this page is particularly lacking in content.

This information along with the possible unimplementation of some items such as speed shoes (I do hack ROMs you know, never actually bothered to look far into Somari though) could very well be interesting. Flygon (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

---

The lack of attention disappoints me regarding this page, I figured that at least someone else would have attempted to fix some badly written up I did. Anyway. A Tool Assisted Speedrun of the game has been made, it greatly emphasises this games glitchiness. It can be viewed below: http://www.archive.org/download/somaritasbytruereallyfastwhyareyoureadingthisurlitisverypointless/somari-tas-true.mp4 (I am aware the URL is ridiculous, just... don't ask)

My question is, should the games brokenness be emphasised in the article? Or not. Flygon (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

the obscure research project

http://torp.110mb.com/gamesomari.html

Is this a reputable source? Can this be added to external links or no? -Denatured Alcohol ░ ▒ ▓ —Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC).

AFD quotes

• AFD #Whatever it actually was (2nd nomination):
  

"Delete, possible Speedy - Somari only returns 225 000 hits on Google[1]. --Kuroki Mio 2006 19:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)"

Stealth Keep vote or just WTF? 225k hits? Anarchangel (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• (4th nomination): Nominator:

"Lets say I wanted to transfer a Genesis game to NES the same way Somari did, and I changed the characters to whatever I wanted and retitled the game and gave it to the video game pirating people, would that mean that my game deserves an article?"

(5th nomination): "Delete - No evidence of notability. I found two good sources, but..."

Sources

Please don't confuse 'sources that prove notability' with 'sources that are allowed' in the article. You can use primary sources, secondary, etc. within the article. There is no reason to remove references that are informative unless they are violating spam, linkfarm, etc. types of guidelines. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There are so many reasons other than those to remove sources. I'm guessing that Atari HQ is the source in contention. For one, it is not listed on the Video Game project's list of reliable sources. It is listed on their list of all video game sources, which also includes unreliable ones. It has not been verified reliable, and the fact that they have no editorial policy and the author's validity or fact checking is completely non existent as far as we can tell tells us that the source is not good for use. Wikipedia is built on reliable sources, not "sources that aren't spam, linkfarms, etc." - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. You can use primary and secondary sources in the article, but Atari HQ is neither. It can't be used to source content. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that, Blake. As far as I can see Atari HQ exactly matches the definition for a secondary source. Are you saying that you think it is unreliable? -Thibbs (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I am not sure what I meant. Sorry. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Atari HQ may not generally be usable in Wikipedia. As NARH points out, it hasn't been verified as either reliable or unreliable so at this point we don't know if it's an RS. But this particular AHQ article seems to work because it is itself cited by GameSpy (a website listed under "General" RSes at WP:VG/RS.) If this particular AHQ article is good enough for GameSpy (a third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy), then isn't the presumption that it is reliable in isolation (separate and apart from any RS judgment of the rest of the website)? At least shouldn't the burden rest on editors here who claim that it isn't reliable to demonstrate that it isn't? -Thibbs (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It'd be one thingto be used for consideration for making the site a reliable source. However, it is only one element. Without an editorial policy or a history of fact-checking, we do not use it as a reliable source. For example, I've seen several reliable sources cite forums and Bulbapedia, but neither is reliable as a source. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's as simple as that. Imagine if it was the New York Times quoting a random Libyan citizen that "Khaddafi's forces killed every student in the schoolhouse." In a WP article on the topic I could imagine that the quote would survive based on NYTimes' reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Even though the random citizen is completely non-RS, the fact that he was quoted by a definite RS would be good enough for WP. While the random citizen's later quotes might not be usable if he started blogging after the interview to continue sharing his thoughts, his quote that was included in NYTimes would still be reliable.
As I see it that's quite analogous to what we see here where GameSpy quotes a potentially non-RS. Is there any WP policy that covers this area of RSes quoting non-RSes? -Thibbs (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, a single source citing an article does not make that article a reliable source. What is the difference between a reliable source citing a forum and a reliable source citing an article? Since we don't know who the author is, he is as trustworthy as a forum member. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

So I take it that there's no policy covering this area then? Hmm.. Maybe we should post the question at WT:RS. At the very least they may be able to help us determine whether there's any actual policy covering this kind of thing. -Thibbs (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be posed anywhere; it's not up for dispute. Being referenced in a reliable source has never and will never be enough by itself to make the cited source reliable. WP:RS specifically states that a reliable source is one that is known for fact checking and editorial oversight, which we have nothing to indicate that this site does either. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

OK I understand your interpretation of it. Would you mind if I did post a question at WT:RS? -Thibbs (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but I want to make it clear - it is not interpretation, but what the policy actually says. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've posted an inquiry here. -Thibbs (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it seems that there isn't any policy on this issue. The folks at WT:RS basically said that it depends on the particular case. Sometimes it's acceptable to use an RS's source despite the source's lack of specific reliability and other times not. Unfortunately, WT:RS isn't the place to discuss the suitability of specific sources, so I don't think we can get an answer on this specific case from them. From thinking the matter over in my own mind I'm now a lot less certain that the citing RS's reputation in this case has any substantial bearing on the underlying source, so I've removed the Atari HQ citations from the article pending a discussion on Atari HQ's usability as a ref. Thanks for being so vigilant about this matter, NARH. -Thibbs (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Atari HQ discussion

Since restoring NARH's deletion of the Atari HQ refs I have filed a question with WP:RSN to determine once and for all (or at least to provide a first discussion regarding) whether or not Atari HQ is an RS. The discussion can be found here. I've presented the "Atari HQ is an RS" side of the of the discussion, but if possible it would be good to have the input of the editors who have championed the "Atari HQ is not an RS" side so that we can get a well-balanced view. Thanks for everyone's help so far. This'll be GA-class in no time! -Thibbs (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Make sure you bring this up at WT:VG/RS. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I've listed it here. I look forward to a well-balanced discussion. -Thibbs (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well the RS discussion has now been archived and so it is effectively complete for the time being. The consensus that emerged seemed to favor the characterization of Atari HQ as a reliable source. As such I have once again restored these sources to the article. -Thibbs (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem In Gameplay Section

I tried to find a Tag with which to mark a particular sentence in the Gameplay section, but nothing seemed quite appropriate, so I'm making a post here instead. The problematic sentence is: "Other notable differences include the fact that whereas Sonic would lose all his collected rings after being injured by an enemy, Somari always loses a maximum of 3 rings even when carrying a single ring.[6] " Just in case it's not obvious to you what's wrong--my friend didn't see anything wrong at first--let me explain:
1. If Somari loses a maximum of three rings, the part that says "even when carrying a single ring" should be removed.
2. If Somari always loses three rings, the part that says "a maximum of" should be removed.

There's another problem, however. According to my friend, Somari actually loses all rings, regardless of how many were collected, but three appear. In which case I'm wondering if that sentence should be removed entirely. Please look into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.200.105 (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

So for reference, the magazine source for this line states the following:

• "Так что постоянно держите при себе колечка три. Если вас задели, и кольца из вас вылетели, поймайте, если сможете, хотя бы одно, и прите дальше на пролом. Здесь есть еще одна «мелочь»: сколько бы колец не собрали, при ударе из вас вылетают только три."

This seems to back up what your friend is saying (that three rings always appear even when Somari only has a single ring). In other words, Somari would seem to have a glitch that allows more rings to come out of Somari in some cases than Somari had collected in total. If that's true, then it doesn't seem to me that the first issue you identified (#1) is actually a problem. If I understand properly, although it looks like the sentence contains a logic problem, the sentence is actually accurate and the flaw originates in the game's code. Does that sound correct?

The second issue (#2) also doesn't necessarily embody a logical flaw. If Somari always loses rings but the number of rings that come out of him range between 1 and 3 (irrespective of how many he has collected) then it's accurate to say that he "always loses a maximum of 3." Whether or not this is accurate to the way the game plays I don't know. The magazine source doesn't seem to cover this aspect of it so it's really a question of what is accurate to the way the game plays. Even if the sentences are factually correct, however, if you or your friend can think of a good way to reword the sentence so it's less confusing then please edit the page. -Thibbs (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

!

Cool,you think you could add A:DR a page?!