Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 46

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 40 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 50

Websites

The discussion about Cheat Code Central brings up some points. The author of that article based his writing on premier game sites like GameSpot (see also IGN, Gamefaqs). However, on examining these articles it looks like they have some serious issues with cruft: needless detail in explaining each site's specific implementation of generic features (news, reviews, forums, etc), lists of non-notable staff, and lists of awards handed out by the site. These all seem questionable to me. WP:NOTGUIDE has a pretty good summary of how to approach these items. Would anyone object to cleaning this stuff out of the aforementioned articles? Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Doug Bell article up for deletion

He's listed as part of this project so I thought I'd give a heads up Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doug_Bell_(2nd_nomination)replacing notice removed by the person trying to have the article deletedLegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources for DLC

This started as a disagreement at List of songs in Rock Band where I am now trying to get some input at the articles talk page. The basic question is, what counts as a reliable source for inclusion in DLC lists? THe basic problem here is a section of this article contains an unreliable leaked list. I think there should be some general level of standards for what DLC information is contained in its respective article and at what point it gets added to the article (when it is leaked? When it is officially announced? When it is officially released?) Any input on this would be greatly appreciated, and if discussion could be directed [[1]], that would be great. Thanks! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 17:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a very good question, and something that I've always wondered myself. Most commonly I see the issue in music game articles (but that's only because those are the ones I frequent more than others). In the case of a music game DLC article, here are the common causes for people including a song that has not been confirmed by the game creators.
  • Artist/Group announces inclusion. This is especially popular right now with Guitar Hero: World Tour, as a number of artists have come forward and said they will have songs included in "future titles". There was some contention in mid-May when Disturbed's website annouced that two songs would be offered as DLC, but the two tracks it listed differed from the Best Buy annoucement. My opinion is that the artist or group would be considered the ultimate authority on their music, and thus should be considered reliable.
  • Magazine reports inclusion. Most noteably in List of songs in Rock Band, a debate started regarding the validitiy of OXM's list of songs to be released in March. The list was included when first found in Febuary. Not all content from the list was released. It wasn't until June when the content was finally removed. This is one that would apply to more than just music games, as magazines continually post updates and rumors regarding upcoming content. Here too, I feel that a magazine should be considered reliable until proven otherwise. A gaming magazine such as OXM, PSM, NP, or EGM is not going to make up information and run with it. A story that's made it to publishing, they felt they had a reliable source for it. I feel it's acting in bad faith to assume that a magazine article is unreliable (provided it's sources are good).
  • Ads. This is probably the final "motivator" for this discussion. A few days ago an MTV2 commericial aired for a new song pack for Rock Band, it included screencaps which contained song titles not currently available. Of these, three included the words: "NOT READY FOR TEST" or something of that nature. There has been no official statement either way as there was when the original list of DLC was leaked in February. Here is where I don't understand the reluctance. An advertisement is constructed in partnership with the creators. Any footage included is pulled directly from resources provided to the team that assmebles the ad. In the gaming world, promotional videos are constantly referred to as reliable sources for the inclusion of new characters, levels, and content in general. Case in point: Guitar Hero: World Tour, which cites the use of songs in advertisements. While it happens on occasion that content not meant to be revealed slips out, this is different from a leak as it's not being dug out or "stolen" by a sly observer, but rather distributed nationally by the creator's themselves. Whatever info included (intentional or not) should be considered fair game.
  • "Leaks". This is probably most noteable in the Rock Band list again. A DLC file was found to contain a number of song titles that were both in and not-in the game. Since the discovery, a number of songs have been released that were on the list. Here I can see the argument for disclusion (is that even a word). People can claim "leaks" and sources are usually not very reliable. But here I feel that a "leak" should be treated in a manner befitting it's nature. If I claim to have learned of a new XBLA game being released because I have a friend who works at MSFT, that's hardly anything reliable. But if I can point to a document that was discovered (and is confirmed to exist by the source itself) than my claim does become reliable in that instance. Though in the future I shouldn't get a pass because I was right that one time previously.
This is all just my personal opinion on the overall issue of what is reliable and what isn't. Because in the past I have noticed some inconsistencies which cause confusion amoung regular editors as well as casual passersby. -- TRTX T / C 19:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
If a leak gets onto a news page, of a commonly accepted gaming source, then the source establishes that the leak occurred and was notable enough to be published. This is distinct from speculation about whether or not the list is accurate. Thus, it is acceptable to discuss the leak but not necessarily to use the leak as a source to verify itself. Say for example a book's author does an interview, and in the interview he says that his book has received perfect reviews (on e.g. Metacritic). Assuming the interview is reliable (did not make up or misrepresent the author's comments), then it is verifiably true that the author made this statement. However, it does not necessarily mean that the content of his statement is true. That would require independent verification. The article can say "these songs are expected to be in the DLC, according to a leaked song list" but not "these songs will be in the DLC". As long as the reader is sufficiently informed about the status of these songs. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I can speak specifically for the Rock Band list. All three examples (leaked list, OXM, MTV2 commercial) have been reported on by reliable sources. For the two that have been included so far, we only say what the reliable sources do: that there was a leak, etc. regarding this content. That is not the same as saying that the content will be coming out. I don't see any sort of RS or OR issue if we only report as the sources do. This is especially true in the case of the leaked list, which is made more reliable by Harmonix's press release regarding it and the fact that it has been remarkably accurate to date. Oren0 (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I was scouting through the GH articles this morning and came across multiple edits made to Guitar Hero: World Tour based on information found here. This is material sourced from a "leaked" survey, which has been included in the World Tour article under no contest from other editors. This is the kind of inconsistancy which leads to much confusion and conflict between editors. How is this leak (a supposed survey) any more noteable/reliable than an actual commericial? -- TRTX T / C 12:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Is "gameography" a word?

It has a significant number of google hits, but they're entirely from gaming-oriented sources (Moby, IGDA, GameFAQs, to name some). As such, this seems to be more of a jargon word than a part of English vocabulary, so I'm on the fence. Is this the preferred phrase to describe a list of games that a person has worked on? (If not, what is?) Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd go for "published works" instead. User:Krator (t c) 10:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The word "ludography" is used for a list of game of a particular designer, but I've seen it used generally in the context of board games. It's probably safest to use "published works" as suggested (or something similar). --Craw-daddy | T | 10:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Gameography is not a word. It's just a made-up word resembling "filmography" and "bibliography". I remember changing it to "games" instead: [2], but "published works" works well too. The Prince (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
To be exact, it is a word. Anything is a word. But it's recent and not commonly used compared to more established terms. "Published works" is good; the introduction and context is enough for the reader to know that we're talking about video games. Kariteh (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not in any dictionary, so no it's not a word. The Prince (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Anything that is spoken or written is a word. Even invented words like, say, "shmurpal", can be considered a word (an invented word, precisely). Dictionaries describe established words though. Note that this is just a comment; I'm not trying to start a huge debate or something. "Published works" is fine. Kariteh (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know where you get this from, but the bottom line is that "gameography" should not be used in articles. The Prince (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Case settled. It's an invented word, a neologism of questionable significance or even importance. Published works is fine, moving on. Chan Yin Keen | UserTalk Contribs 09:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Simple WikiProject Video Games

[3] Could people from this project consider helping out on the simple.wiki to expand the articles, as well as create a couple templates for the project (or simply confirm if I can just take the code for the Template:vgproj and the vguserbox? Thanks. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You should be able to reuse the templates etc under the GFDL. Let me know if you need a hand with template work. Gazimoff WriteRead 23:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Under that license wouldn't history have to be copied as well? JohnnyMrNinja 10:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Tons of Tecmo lawsuits

While it's not terribly relevant on the project, the pile of lawsuits they've been receiving may result in some significant damages, perhaps they may even go the way of 3D0.

  1. Itagaki's lawsuit's been known for a while - unpaid bonuses for Dead or Alive 4.
  2. According to 1UP, more than three-dozen Team Ninja employees left, and joined the class action lawsuit for unpaid bonuses.
  3. And most recently, the two top executives of Tecmo's labor union are joining suit for unpaid wages, claiming they falsified documents and accounting procedures in regards to employment statuses, overtime pay, and more. Famitsu added that Tecmo's violated a "ton" of employment contracts and regulations, and did not pay employees for working on public holidays or working overtime.

So, just thought it was a matter of significance that Tecmo may become belly up. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... it's possible that we could expand on the information already in the Tecmo article, but per WP:CRYSTAL, we can't speculate about what'll happen to the company. Still, interesting to note - thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

See Zlatko Kartal and Wikipedia:AN#Are_my_eyes_deceiving_me.3F

This article will probably get deleted, I'm just not sure if it deserves some mention in the Football Manager 2008 article. xenocidic (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Video game controversy

{{Video game controversy}}, List of controversial video games - Is it just me or is this an impossibly huge scope? JohnnyMrNinja 21:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it's impossibly huge, but it sure could use cleanup. Individual games and genres should definitely not be listed in the navbox, as controversy spans the entire domain of VG at some level. At least for the time being, I'd remove those and replace it with a link to the list article. This at least limits the POV to one article and reduces the navbox to a more reasonable size. There also needs to be a review on the "Major figures" listed in the navbox, as potentially every notable politician has made some sort of statement directed at or affecting video games as an entertainment medium. The list article for the games, if well-defined, could work, but based on other lists of (insert broad criteria) games, I also share some skepticism there, especially since the main video game controversy article is in need of improvement. Finally, I'd consider renaming the navbox to "Video game regulation", as the only topic that is necessarily about controversy is the controversy article itself. A "video game controversy" navbox should reference actual controversies like the ones listed at Video game controversy#Publicized incidents, but these would need their own articles first. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Article needs deletion?

I'm quite sure this article shouldn't even be on Wikipedia in the first place: DSO Clan --DanielPharos (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

it was speedily deleted per WP:CSD criterion A7. Gazimoff WriteRead 00:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Boy, I guess speedy does indeed mean speedy around here! Thanks! :D --DanielPharos (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Age of Empires on the Main Page

Age of Empires will be appearing on the Main Page on 19 June. If some people could watchlist it and help fight the inevitable vandalism (as well as any other cleanup needed between now and then, etc.) it'd be appreciated. Cheers, giggy (:O) 10:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got it watchlisted now. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 11:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Me too. Best of luck! Gazimoff WriteRead 00:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Native Game Resolutions

The user Cliché Online is currently going through a large number of articles, adding resolutions to them. However, a problem arose when he edited the Haze (video game) article - the creative lead has stated the native resolution is 576p, but the PS3 upscales it to 720p. I pointed this out to Cliché, and the discussion both on (Talk:Haze and his talk page) remained civil (despite him completely misunderstanding the concept of native resolution), until he started accusing me and another user of being sockpuppets.
Anyway, my point is, shouldn't the original, native, resolution be included on articles, if there's a source about it? (this is currently true for Halo 3 and GTA IV). Much Thanks! Fin© 15:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I'm just after seeing that the resolution field in the infobox expands to "Native resolution". Cool. Thanks! Fin© 16:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I left a warning for Cliche and a message on the Haze talk with my own take on the situation. He's clearly stepping over the line in his responses, but he also seems to be confusing the issue as you mentioned. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. There is a subtle but important note - the resolution field refers to the native resolution the game runs at, not the resolution that the console upscales to before video output. Were this to be the case, there would be little point in including the resolution field. I will have a look at the {{infobox vg}} template and see if the documentation can be improved to clarify this point. Many thanks, Gazimoff WriteRead 15:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Gazimoff. I just pointed out in the article talk that it would be impractical for us to list every possible display resolution for every game on every console, because at least on the 360 (and I think it's true for the PS3 as well, but not sure), the game will display at whatever resolution you've selected as your output mode - it'll always upscale or downscale as necessary, and the only major difference in most games is whether it needs to display in 4:3 or 16:9 aspect ratio. The supported resolutions should be listed (if they're important) in the article on the console itself, and we shouldn't be repeating them in each game. If there's a notable reason to list the native, pre-display resolution (like with Halo 3), then it should be included - otherwise, I say we just axe the field altogether for most games. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I've identified a deficiency in the documentation for {{infobox VG}} and provided additional information. I agree that the resolution is only critical if it adds further information about how the game engine renders the scene. If it doesn't, or if the engine can adapt to handle different native resolutions (as most PC games do), then it's unimportant. Hope this helps.Gazimoff WriteRead 00:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Clarified it somewhat - you had 16:10 for wide-screen TVs and computer monitors. For wide TVs it's 16:9 (1920x1080), 16:10 for wide computer monitors (1920x1200). :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Ach, so close! Gazimoff WriteRead 01:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Trade simulation games

Randomran is trying to delete Category:Trading simulator video games. He argues that the category is small and shows no room for growth. First of all, many of the articles are about series of games of multiple titles. Secondly, there is a sub-category with 48 games. I would hardly call that small. Thirdly, I have a list of games([4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11]) that could get added to the category once articles have been written for them. Finally, there's no reason that the category could not show any growth. Developers could release games within the genre at any time. SharkD (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Found some more: 18 Wheels of Steel series (5 games total). Also: [12],[13],[14],[15] and two ([16],[17]) more sites besides MobyGames[18]) which categorize games in this fashion. SharkD (talk) 02:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem isn't notability or research. The problem is overcategorization, overlap, and the size of the category. Randomran (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:FFspinoff

Should this template be renamed like Template:VGtitle, or perhaps merged? Kariteh (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me, and shouldn't be that hard to change as there's only a handful of articles that use {{FFspinoff}}. I would suggest raising it at WP:FF first though, just to make sure. Gazimoff WriteRead 12:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Last time I asked WP:FF about Template:FFtitle no one answered, so I assume these kind of changes are okay. Kariteh (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
In that case, I'd suggest going for it. Once done, please raise a TfD for the unused template, explaining that it is now redundant. Best of luck, Gazimoff WriteRead 18:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Iron Man (video game)

The user PlayFreebirdNow has been constantly adding a list of unlockable armours to the Iron Man (video game) for the past two days. He has been reverted by myself and two other users, after which he became uncivil, despite being given reasons (wp not a gameguide and wp:gametrivia), resulting in his blocking yesterday. Anyway, once unblocked today, he continued on his merry way, readding the info to the article. I'm currently at my 3R limit (I think), and he has consistently ignored warnings and explanations given on his talk page. What's next? Thanks! Fin© 23:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say take it to WP:ANI or at least what's next on the list in dispute resolution. Chan Yin Keen | UserTalk Contribs 01:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
It looks like this user has been blocked for edit warring for a week. If the problem persists post block, come back and let us know. Gazimoff WriteRead 11:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Madden NFL New Task Force

I think we should start a Madden NFL Taskforce. I would be willing to coordinate this. Madden is an extremely popular game that has a couple of articles under it's scope. It is probably the most popular current sports game. And besides, I love it.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  10:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have about five people who feel the same, and you need some space (read: project page) to coordinate, go for it. It's the people that matter, not the topic per se. User:Krator (t c) 10:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox bot

Just thought I'd hash it out here before going to bot requests, but what would people think of a bot that did the following:

Does this sound useful/feasible? JohnnyMrNinja 16:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  • If you're going to parse through on infoboxes, then you should also have the bot reformat the wikicode (won't affect the screen) as to have clean formatting for each parameter (line up equal signs). --MASEM 16:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
And perhaps make it so it changes all variations of {{vgproj}} and the infobox to a standard, consistent name? --.:Alex:. 16:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Video games}} please, I get annoyed that people keep changing the actual template link to one of the redirects. And I do hope that you don't reformat the infoboxen with wasteful space characters, I'd re-edit those right out of every article I touch. The code is not difficult to read. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Masem about the space characters. It doesn't really "cost" anything to have spaces, so I'm not sure what is being wasted, along the lines that WP is not paper and a few dozen bytes won't change the feasible article size, which is measured in thousand-byte units. The improvement in readability is well worth any perceived cost in wastefulness. If the fields become long enough, e.g. multiple release dates, multiple platforms, ref tags with URLs, etc. it makes a huge difference. The thing about the banner template is that I don't think anyone really enjoys typing out the whole name, which is why the redirects are more common. Although it is strange if they are going out of their way to change the template name as that is just extra work for no reason. However, I'd recommend that the canonical name be changed (shortened) so that people manually adding the banner will be more likely to use that instead of a redirect. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with using space characters to line up the equal signs. Just because someone who has been on Wikipedia since 2007 has no problem with reading the code doesn't mean newcomers can't have problems. Editing articles should be as (new-)user-friendly as possible. Kariteh (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
No it doesn't, but for obvious reason you want to make a page as lean as possible. I agree that removing -most- spaces from code is a good thing. I do not agree in removing spaces or code, or changing the way code is laid out if there's a visible change to the article doing so, if the only reason is to lean the code. The article itself comes first and the optimization of that article directly second. It's also more than acceptable to ask editors to have some understanding of HTML and wiki code before they start changing it... that's just common sense, if someone is unwilling to learn how the code works enough to read it as source then they're not going to be much help. Nevertheless the community is available for any technical shortcomings if someone wants to contribute but doesn't know how. And how does my having been here a year make me some kind of elite? I still get called a newbie. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Video Game Project Bot

Following up on the (far) above thread, would there be anyone within the project that would be willing/interested to make a Video Game Project bot? It would mostly be adding/maintaining/formatting project templates, but I'm certain anal-retentive vgproj editors can come up with lists of tasks that would be easier for a bot to do. If not, I'll bring it to bot requests. JohnnyMrNinja 08:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to do random AWB tasks relating to the project (Giggabot) on request, for what it's worth. giggy (:O) 08:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Awesome! I've brought it to User talk:Giggabot. JohnnyMrNinja 09:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Oops. I think the mistake I've made is clear. Apologies. I'll take the talk to User_talk:Giggy instead. JohnnyMrNinja 09:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Now tagging stuff in User:JohnnyMrNinja/vgcats, feel free to add to it. giggy (:O) 10:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources quoting from unreliable sources

There's an interesting case of reliable sources quoting from unreliable sources at Final Fantasy XIII and Final Fantasy Versus XIII. Basically, the timeline of events is:

  • Famitsu publishes an interview with Tetsuya Nomura -> reliable
  • Someone called Duckroll posts an erroneous translation of the interview on the NeoGAF forums, stating that Versus XIII has been put on hold -> unreliable
  • Fansites like [19] report Duckroll's erroneous information -> unreliable
  • Reputable sources like GameSpot and IGN also report the information -> ???
  • Square Enix issues an official statement to debunk the false information -> reliable
  • Reputable sources and fansites alike report Square Enix's press release

So in the end, is the event worth mentioning in Wikipedia since Square Enix issued a statement to debunk the false information, or is it not worth mentioning since it started as a mere mistranslated quote in a forum and since GameSpot and IGN reported it but apparently didn't check to see if the translation was correct? Kariteh (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would delete the whole mess and write from Famitsu (or whatever correct information it had from a reliable site). Reliable sources do make mistakes and we do not have to hold them to it. Jappalang (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Video games

Would someone wise in the way of templates please take a look at my question on Template talk:WikiProject Video games? Thanks. JohnnyMrNinja 10:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Expansion on the Blue Dragon Universe

Alright, the universe of Blue Dragon is huge. I want to know if I should add some more info on the universe. Would it be okay if I make a List of Blue Dragon Monsters article or anything like that?Gears Of War 15:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Strongly recommend not creating a list of monsters. Blue Dragon may be "huge" but it's not yet at Pokemon/Zelda/Mario levels of franchise that would necessitate the possibility of a common enemies list. If there isn't one already, you can start a separate wiki (at Wikia for free or elsewhere) for this type of information. --MASEM 16:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

MGS peer review

Just letting you know that Metal Gear Solid is currently having a Peer review and I would love some more feedback on it (it's also needs a copy edit) as I'm trying to get it back to FA status. Thanks for any help. Buc (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a full review up probably by tomorrow. Since you're looking at FA, I'll review as if it were an FAC. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this too short?

I've been working a bit on Midtown Madness of late. I know it needs a screenshot, lead expansion, and other minor cleanup. Anyways, my question is if there is enough gameplay information, or if I should add more (and if yes, what more can be said?).

And on that note, are there are any places to look for information that I may have overlooked? giggy (:O) 04:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason there needs to be any more lengthy of a gameplay section. Heck, get rid of the vehicle lists and it willprobably be better :-) --MASEM 04:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
See Iridion 3D for an example of a short, featured, game article. If you're asking yourself what more can be said, as opposed to what more needs to be said, you've probably said enough. Nifboy (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
That's a good example, thanks for that. I meant to ask what more needs to be said, though I imagine there isn't any of that either. giggy (:O) 06:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Video game vandalism

Administrators be advised, the article is undergoing repeated vandalism by a couple of IPs. What's strange is that there was a semi-protection icon on the page but no actual protection. Is this article suppose to be protected or was it revoked? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no protection on the article; it expired on June 18. (The template that puts up the protection lock icon is only that, a template - but itself not responsible for protection). --M;ASEM 04:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a bot that removes that template, but it's sometimes slow, I think. In any case, reprotection may be warranted, but in the meantime I've watchlisted. giggy (:O) 05:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Business simulation game to Economic simulation game

I suggest renaming Business simulation game to Economic simulation game. Economic simulation games encompass games where you control the economy of a state or faction. I don't think these can really be thought of as "businesses". It also encompasses games where you trade as a free-lance trader or privateer. The term is quite common, probably as common as business simulation game if you don't take into account academic or professional sources. SharkD (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The article and category were recently renamed based on reliable research and consensus. Economic simulation game led to government simulation games and city-building games being thrown in, and it became an indiscriminate category. You should also wait to see if "trading simulation game" is merged into business simulation before you start proposing a change in scope. Randomran (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, the consensus for the category move was arrived at without significant discussion[20] and only one source was provided for the naming of the article/genre. Are we sure that the sourced name is actually dealing with the same scope as we would like to approach the article from? Do we want to maintain separate articles for government simulations, city building, etc. and are those sub-genres also distinguished/given by the same source? If not, it may be that we are relying too heavily on a source that does not accommodate our needs and it is not just re-wording but re-defining the context of various articles. I'm not saying it's the wrong move, necessarily. I do agree that there is a lot of sprawl with regard to the various flavors of sim/tycoon game, and the effort to reorganize is well-founded, but I think we would benefit from hearing more suggestions about what to do with these articles. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. The only other discussion of the move can be found here and here where the user expresses reservation regarding the move, citing some of the reasons I mentioned. Further, in the second link Randomran goes on about some gobbledygook, saying that there are zero references to the term "Economic simulation". Let's take a look at the sources listed in Business simulation game:
  1. Review - IGN: Trevor Chan's Capitalism II - The author uses the terms "business sim" and "economic sim" interchangeably.
  2. IGN: Joan of Arc Interview - First of all, a first-party source (the devloper) on a single game can't be used as an authority on an entire genre. Secondly, the author of the article (the reviewer) uses the term "economic gaming".
  3. IGN: Air Bucks - IGN specifically lists this game under the genre "Economic Simulation".
  4. Review - IGN: The Movies - Once again, the game is listed under the genre "Economic Simulation" by IGN.
  5. IGN: Big Biz Tycoon Ships - same genre as above.
So, of the seven references Randomran himself provided, five of them are examples of where the term "Economic simulation" is used. Four of them catagorize them in this way, giving them larger scope. This hardly backs up his assertion that there are "zero references". I hate to see Randomran beguiling and misleading people with the voice of authority on a subject like he mislead User:Sven Eberhardt. This isn't the first time Randomran has made bold claims without backing them up with sources[21],[22],[23]. --SharkD (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Edit: And another one here: [24]. SharkD (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Um, assume a little good faith? Why are you so intently focused on me, instead of the discussion we're having? The business simulation article is supported by the most reliable of sources. Randomran (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but your habit of blowing things out of proportion is exasperating. SharkD (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
You have a funny way of demonstrating proportion. ^^^^^^^^^ Just saying. Randomran (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
What is that even supposed to mean? SharkD (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Just that a simple rename proposal erupted into a lengthy attempt at character assassination. A sense of proportion would focus on whether to rename. So let's do that. Randomran (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's stay constructive and focus on where to go from here. First, I think addressing this on an article-by-article basis is a mistake, as that will only encourage inconsistencies in how the topic is approached, leading to both content redundancy and content forking. So first let's determine which articles are related. These are the articles/genres that I think need to be reviewed. For reference, see List of simulation video games.

Categories:

Additions? Subtractions? The immediate problem that I can see is that words like "business", "city", "god", "government", "life", "society" and "space" are nouns that describe themes, not gameplay. On the other hand, "build/construct", "manage", and "trade" are verbs that describe what the player does in-game. IMO, we should structure these articles by determining how construction, management, and trade are related and unrelated. Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You should keep in mind that the list of genres is not mutually-exclusive. Looking at Template:Video game genre as well as the categories you listed one sees that the genres are nested. I don't have a particular problem with the way this nesting is done, as long as the it is done consistently across the different namespaces (i.e. template, article, category). I don't have a problem with creating sub-categories, as long as the sub-categories belong to the proper parent categories. SharkD (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A significant problem with the video game genre articles is that they end up being a two or three sentence dictionary definitions followed by a list of games. It's easy to find someone who says "Galactic Muderers is a space shooter game" and make a new "space shooter" article, or "Home on the range is a cowboy simulator" and make a new "cowboy simulator" article. But there's often no reliable research that can go into detail about the genre. Why? Because it's just a term to define a narrow theme, not a genre. Really, it's the kind of information that should be merged into an existing, synonymous article. "There are many different kinds of shooters, and some take place in space such as Galactic Murderers." "There are also city-building simulators that take place in the old west, such as Home On The Range".

Terms like "city-building game", "business simulation game", and "government simulation game" are used in reliable research to describe types of Construction and management simulations. There is reliable research that these are the names of different types of construction and management simulations. That said, the gameplay is often fundamentally the same, with each type determined by a change in focus. If you wanted to call for a merge, I'd be okay with that. It's a thin line between a new genre and simply a variation in theme on an existing genre. Terms like trade simulation and economic simulation should be regarded as synonyms or slight variations on this theme, and ought to be listed under within the business simulation article/section. Randomran (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to quote myself from the CfD for Trading simulation games as to my rational for renaming the page to "Economic simulation game":

"Actually, you got that backwards [i.e. it was said that economic simulations were a sub-category of business simulations]: business is an aspect of economics, ergo business simulations are a sub-category of economic simulators. Other aspects, besides "legitimate business" include state interference and crime."

SharkD (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's an original argument, but wikipedia isn't a place for original research. The actual research reveals a lot of people tossing around terms like "economic simulation" and "business simulation", and they're often used interchangeably to describe the same games. The two major reasons that "business simulation" makes more sense is because: (1) the references that describe the actual game mechanics in more detail refer to these as "business simulations" (and "management simulations", actually). (2) when this article was called "economic simulation", nearly any game with an economy was included in the list: city-building games, RTSs, wargames... even RPGs. Business simulation is used interchangeably with economic simulation game, and has clearer boundaries for the purposes of wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Once again, you are throwing around statements, like "lack of proper research" and "[better] research here" without providing any references. If you don't cite any sources, it makes your position look very weak. SharkD (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't care how my position looks, the research is there. I'm talking about the Ernest Adams source, which goes into detail about the game genre. It's a wealth of information and I've only thrown out a few nuggets. A lot of the other references out there only use the terminology, but never describe it in detail. Worse still, there's a lot of references that talk about simulations that aren't games and more training exercises and so on. That's in addition to the other reason I listed above. Randomran (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You've just provided a single source. You said there were multiple sources. I don't see how you can place so much undue weight on a single source. There are people with varying opinions, and you can't just use a single source to override many sources. SharkD (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
There aren't really varying opinions. We've established that economic simulations and business simulations are used interchangeably. All other things being equal, it's a coin toss. There's a few arguments that tip the balance towards business simulation. As far as describing what they actually are (rather than simply reciting the term), Adams one goes into the most detail by a landslide. That's in addition to the problem with "economic simulation" sounding like it includes any game that simulates an economy, and encouraging miscategorization. Randomran (talk) 03:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
"Any game that simulates an economy" is exactly what the term is used for. The term is meant for games that simulate a real economy with multiple entities acting and reacting to one another in a dynamical system. It's not just for a simple sim where you control a single business and worry about profit margins and production output in isolation. SharkD (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Virtually any game has a simulated economy. The economic simulation article and category had the same problems as "list of physics based games": virtually anything qualifies, and it's usually some weird gut reaction that decides what makes the list or not. You're going to see RTSs and even RPGs in there. It's hard to stop the flow of original research of "oh, this is an economic simulation". Like I said, reliable resources use economic simulation and business simulation interchangeably. All other things being equal, we have one pretty good source and one high quality source that go into detail about business simulations (rather than economic simulations), and a more clear name to prevent miscategorization. Randomran (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Taglines

Should taglines be aloud in VG articles?Gears Of War 16:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see why they would be needed. They don't really add anything. -- Sabre (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, let me state my opinion this way: if allowing taglines in the article body reduces the compulsion to add it as a subtitle in the article name, I'm all for it. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Well in that case I have added a tagline to Soulcalibur IV.Gears Of War 13:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe we should add tagline to the infobox.Gears Of War 13:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I should have made my position clearer: I don't consider taglines to be worth including in an article unless it is relevant to a discussion of marketing or such ("John Romero's going to make you his bitch" is a keeper). But taglines are often questionably interpreted as subtitles, and they get put into the title of the game or article, which is even worse. So if there is a dispute as to whether a tagline should be in a title/article, I'd accept leaving it in the article as an interim compromise. I do not endorse adding taglines in general. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

SimCity 4

Is anyone interested in working together to bring SimCity 4 to Featured Article status? Gary King (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Go on what are the things should be improved also i wish even articles like Company of Heroes, The Sims 2, World in Conflict and Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword to be FL as well. Any help GK?. Iam doing my best to improve but my writing skills is terrible which iam working on.--SkyWalker (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I've played and beaten all of those games, and I'd like to improve them, too. I'd like to see Civilization 4 to FA after SC4 is done. Gary King (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Would like to help, I'll give the page a look through to get an idea of how it is and what may be lacking. On a side note, how does one beat The Sims 2?? Chan Yin Keen | UserTalk Contribs 01:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The Sims is designed so that you can't "beat" it. It's an open-ended game. Gary King (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Toad (nintendo)'s merging

Toad should not be merged with List_of_Mario_series_characters. Toad has played a notable role in too many Mario games to be fit into one section of an article. Ghost109 (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Source? Kariteh (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean, source? Anyone who's played a good number of Mario games should know that Toad has played a number of roles, most of them helpful in some way. Ghost109 (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
A topic is 'notable' if it has been covered in multiple, reliable, third party sources (WP:N. Bridies (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
One important point in this is if Toad has notability outside of the games themselves (out-of-universe information), then he may be deserving of his own article. However, I doubt this is the case - aside from being a significant character in a variety of Nintendo games, he doesn't likely have much real-world coverage, in the same vein as Mario or Samus Aran. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

←Took a quick glance at the article, and it definitely looks like something that would be much better suited for a gaming wiki. The other characters mentioned in the article are not nearly as notable as the main Toad character - the article is confused with trying to distinguish between the character and the race. I think a little more expansion in the List of Characters would suffice, and the main article should be merged or deleted. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Toad has about as much real-world coverage as Princess Peach, who has her own article. Peach is a playable character in the Mario Kart, Mario Party, and Mario Sports series. So is Toad. Peach was playable in Super Mario Bros. 2, so was Toad. Peach did have one side scroller for the DS, which is one of the only games where she is playable and Toad is not. To the guy who wanted me to find a coverage on Toad or something-http://uk.stars.ign.com/objects/960/960455.html...Ghost109 (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem was while the required notability info exists, nobody went around and dug for it and the article wasn't cleaned up. A Toad article would be good enough to have on WP...but not in the form that one was.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I linked that source the last time this was discussed. There needs to be more than one, with enough info to actually write an article. Bridies (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
You don't think there is enough info to write a Toad article? And what do you suggest, Kung Fu man? Ghost109 (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
First, make a subpage and gather your resources. Put notes and references that aren't design related from nintendo in one group, design notes in another, merchandise notes in a third, and third party reception notes (such as IGN) in a fourth. Basically from there try to flesh out the article on the subpage as if you're speaking on the subject to someone that knows little about video games, looking at stuff like Master Chief (Halo) for examples. Flesh out appearances as well but don't go blow by blow too much: you can group most of the video game appearances in one paragraph, while the Super Mario Bros. Super Show cartoon's works for a paragraph of its own, with the movie an added footnote to it. When you have something put together, show it to folks here by linking them to the subpage, ask what they think and if it's all good put it back out there. That's your best bet.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog Cruft

There's a motherload of articles that really need a lot of work.

Lots of items of questionable notability:

Lots of locations of questionable notability:

And don't even get me started on the characters: Category:Sonic the Hedgehog characters

This is such a tangled mess I hardly want to deal with it. I know it's probably intimidating for other editors too. But I figure I could flag it, if only for someone to tackle it at a later date. If anyone has a manageable solution rather than dealing with each article one-by-one, I'm sure we'd all benefit from it. Randomran (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck there. Even on the grounds they need major improvement, a lot of it would face royal hell done en masse. The character ones would be the hardest problem...possibly merging the "zones" together though with care to keep content loss at near nill would be a good place to start for anyone tackling it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
They're definitely going to need some work. Anything relating to the single items or locations of the series should just redirect to the series article at this point. I don't believe there are any worthwhile topics there. As for the characters, I have proposed before that only seven articles (Sonic the Hedgehog (character), Miles "Tails" Prower, Knuckles the Echidna, Doctor Eggman, Shadow the Hedgehog, Metal Sonic, and Amy Rose) and seven character lists (List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games), Sonic the Hedgehog (comic book) characters, Sonic the Comic characters, List of characters from Sonic X, List of characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (TV Series), List of characters in Sonic Underground, and Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog characters) be kept, give or take one or two. That would be a good goal to start off with. TTN (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A good step forward in this cleanup process would be to talk some sense into the Sonic fans at WikiProject Sega. User:Krator (t c) 23:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with Krator). Apparently, I think TTN and Krator misunderstood me every time we've had a discussion, so please allow me to clarify. I think TTN's idea in this case is a good one, because this really is a lot of cruft (and you're getting that comment from the most active member of WikiProject Sega). However, I would like to extend the amount of articles (for characters) to eleven; adding Cream the Rabbit, Blaze the Cat, Silver the Hedgehog, and Rouge the Bat, which I think are more notable than the rest and if the correct information can be sifted out from all the fancruft that's out there on the internet, these four would make decent articles, as well. The others, I don't even see a snowball's chance in hell about finding the correct information. The zone articles, and I mean all of them should be either deleted or redirected, since those are obvious non-notable parts of the series. The only article I'm questioning on that list is Chaos Emeralds because the merger I set up hasn't done much good and I'm still not sure what to do with it. I've also added Super transformation (other media) to this list, as it's all full of fancruft and we didn't merge that into Chaos Emeralds, since I had a toss-up over merging or deleting and I still haven't decided. If TTN would be willing to flex with me on these last four articles—seeing as how we've had our debates before—then I'll be happy to support TTN's plan and I'll even help him get it done. The only user you have to worry about is User:Fairfieldfencer, a very rash inclusionist and the only other real active part of the project. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 23:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Can someone just do me a favor and inform either WikiProject Sega or the Sonic Task Force (under construction) for me about this setup? Most of the project is full of extreme inclusionists (I consider myself a moderate eventualist and slight inclusionist) and I'd rather not incur the wrath of the people I work with. By the way, the Sonic Task Force is part of WikiProject Sega that is under construction because Sonic articles constitute a good chunk (but not more than 25%) of the project's articles and I, along with others, felt it necessary to have. We're still building it and making it active, but what we're talking about here would be a good step forward for both WikiProject Sega and the Sonic Task Force, to have major cleanup done. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 23:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, once the guideline discussion wraps up, I think they're going to have a hard time stopping us from merging as its a pretty obvious case of non-notable fictional elements... I'd rather they come quietly, but... *shrug* I'm busy cleaning up Myst cruft, so I'll recuse myself from another odious task this time around. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who isn't part of WikiProject Sega, who enjoyed the first three games in the series and who thought most of the rest of them really sucked, I would suggest the following:

  • Delete and/or merge the vast majority of character articles. Leave articles for truly notable characters (Sonic, Knuckles, Rouge, Cream, Robotnik, etc.) only if sources support them.
  • Delete all of the locations articles. All of the ones I've looked at so far (a) are in-universe only, and (b) have no specific meaning or notability outside of the game.
  • Delete all of the technology articles and condense only the most notable material into a general article about the series. It is absolutely fine to talk about the general (and repeated) concept of turning animals/living beings into robots - that defined the series. But we don't need details or even summaries of all the various ways in which this is done - just mentioning the existence of a variety of machines should be sufficient.
  • In notable character articles, more out-of-universe information is needed. The articles seem rather heavy on in-universe info and character evolution, as well as semi-unrelated details about other characters that were considered (Robotnik's article suffers heavily from this).
  • I would suggest that common themes and items (like Chaos Emeralds, Power Rings, etc.) should be mentioned in brief prose in a series article, and as appropriate within individual game articles. Again, it's a question of what's needed to get the average non-gaming reader to understand the game (or series, or individual character) as a whole, and what that reader would really care about if they didn't already know a lot about the game.

I know I'm kinda beating the same drum here, but these are my thoughts after reviewing about half the articles in the above list. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I tend to be an eventualist too. I don't think we have to deal with the whole mess right now and I think it would be enough to even put a dent in some of this. For that reason, I think it's better to focus on whatever we agree with than to pick fights over the few things that we disagree over.
I'd be willing to initiate talks with wikiproject sega. I presume at their usual talk page? My only question is what you'd want me to say. I know a lot of people are resistant to change, and I want people to understand that I'm doing this to improve the wikipedia, not as an uptight power trip. Randomran (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't other trying to split this between here and the Sega project. They only have a few active members (I would personally call it dead), and one of them has already commented here. Leave a note for sure, but the ones that haven't commented here will have little to add to the discussion. They'll only add to the need to play the number consensus game. TTN (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and for the video game characters, this revision of the main list would be a good start. It contains the important recurring characters, while the one game characters on the two remaining lists should redirect to their game of origin. TTN (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
That's not a bad revision, TTN. I would agree with starting with that. It's pretty clean-cut, covers the most important bases, and it is much improved compared to all the cruft. Not to mention, of course, that it leaves the four articles I mentioned intact. I will have to get started finding sources and out-of-universe information, but it's going to take a little time to sift through the cruft, not to mention I'm a little busy right now off Wikipedia.
Oh, and what's with all this discrimination on WikiProject Sega? I've been trying to steer it away from the leech-bed of problems that it was (including getting its founder, Gaogier, indefinitely blocked and forcing him to leave) and make it a more active, less one-sided affair. That's why I invited members like Bridies, who categorized himself as an exclusionist and immediatist (in direct contrast to views of others like Fairfieldfencer, the only other continuously active member). We've got 40 members, but no one else uses the pages, which is a fact that bothers me about this project I've put a lot of time into. Sorry for the off-topic discussion, just my rant for the day. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 01:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with what's been said. There's even more extraneous articles than I was aware of. Bridies (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I also don't think Blaze, Cream etc are notable. All I can find is a single source each on IGN (maybe 2 for blaze). Team Dark, Team Rose, blaze. Bridies (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Before I say this, let me note that I know that popularity does not equal notability. However, of the characters I listed, Rouge has appeared in at least ten games as of now, Cream has been in at least four as a major character and appeared in many more as a playable, Blaze has been a major character in three games, and Silver was major in Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 game) but has also appeared in several later games, such as Sonic Battle and its sequel. That said, I think we can establish notability for these characters. I'll start taking a look for sources tomorrow, I'm too tired to do it tonight and I have things to do. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 04:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, would anybody mind if I started off with the TV series characters? I mean character articles such as Chris Thorndyke, Cosmo, Metarex, Mania, etc. As many agree here, they do not have enough nobility to warrant their own articles. The same goes with Sonic comic characters, there is over 12 character articles on this subject, and as mentioned, do not warrant enough nobility to keep as articles. Magiciandude (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

At least the comic character articles have to go. Most of those are filled with excessive plot summaries and are generally not notable. For these articles, I favor deletion because I doubt that even in a list format it will have any notability or As for the TV series, I'm not exactly sure what the standard is for TV character articles in terms of notability, but in this case I favor a merge. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 04:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure no problem, I had already placing merge tages for the TV character series. I wanted to start with the TV series. Magiciandude (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll start with the locations. I know these tend to be messy, but I think a blanket AFD is the best way to deal with all of these articles. Not one of them is notable and getting rid of them together will make the process much easier. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 04:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the AFD on the locations. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel Island (Sonic the Hedgehog)

First, I'd like to see if there is a Wiki(a) we can transwiki those articles to which are not notable. They look fairly detailed even for cruft, which I'm sure would be welcome on a Sonic Wikia. I would claim I'm a precisionist leaning inclusionist... As for the others, redirects to a list of minor / major characters of a series is an option, or as has already been done, redirects to the games which the most minor of characters are present in I would feel appropriate. --Izno (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Here, this Sonic Wiki is part of Wikia. Magiciandude (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added info on what it would take to transwiki the articles to the AFD page. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 13:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Good job everyone. Thanks for taking this on. Now, what are we gonna do about the non-notable items? (Roboticizer and the like?) Randomran (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you can put together items and power objects and whatever else that is relevant into one list. Redirect anything else that can be redirected (like Chaos Emeralds into the series article section, yes, I've given up on that article), and delete anything else in separate AFD's. I don't think we can blanket these like we could the others. I'm going to go ahead and put up the AFD for Super transformation (other media) since it's the wastes of other articles anyway. It will be at the link below. (link should turn from red to blue after I put up the AFD here in a few minutes.)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super transformation (other media)

That's just my opinion, of course, but I think it's the best action. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 21:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(long sigh) Well, getting accused of being a sockpuppeteer by an IP address in the Angel Island AFD is a little disheartening. Anyway, I'm going to propose a redirect: Chaos Emeralds to Sonic the Hedgehog (series)#Emeralds per a suggestion by TTN a few weeks ago. I seriously doubt the article would survive an AFD anyway and there's really nowhere else to put it (I think Minor power objects in Sonic the Hedgehog is probably a little inappropriate for such a redirect). It's kind of weird to be proposing all these deletions and redirects and merges; I certainly hope this doesn't mean my eventualist-incrementalist philosophy is changing. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 03:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't. Most of us go through phases. I've been on a cleanup binge lately because I'm waiting for a few resources/editors to get back to me on improving some other articles. Don't let the accusations get you down. It looks like that person was just a single purpose account. We have your back if things get out of hand. Randomran (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I won't let it get me down. Just the first time that's happened to me, that's all. As long as I know I'm not a sockpuppeteer, nothing's wrong. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 04:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like E-123 Omega to be kept.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And I would like to say that I am entirely against this merge!! But since I'm the only one that is: I guess I have no choice but to stand aside and let you guys get on with it.Fairfieldfencer FFF 11:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like someone's appinion on whether or not E-123 Omega falls under the keep category.Fairfieldfencer FFF 20:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please give me their appinion on the article being kept?!Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The WikiProjects/task force may also want to look closer to home, if Sonic the Hedgehog (video game) only has a small number of sources (in particular for the 16-bit Genesis/Mega Drive release) to verify notability of what should be one of the most famous video games ever released in my opinion, then something is badly wrong (an article that should of course never be deleted in my opinion). A lot of the game articles have no sources to meet notability, strange considering Sonic's long and well known legacy in video gaming - Sonic the Hedgehog CD only has two and has a lot of citation needed tags on it. Knuckles Chaotix has two sources, one is no longer available and the other is for a forum, which goes against WP:RS. I would suggest this should be next after the "cruft" is dealt with, either by fixing or transwiki/AfD these articles. --tgheretford (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain the game articles do have the notability to be kept, but we really need to start cleaning these articles up. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 15:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
We don't just delete badly written articles (unless it REALLY is just a long personal opinion essay or something really off). We delete things for a lack of notability not just because they have no references, but because a quick search reveals that there are no references that meet the general notability guideline. The actual games may be badly written, but I'm sure there are references out there and a delete is not the best way to deal with them. Randomran (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Now, let's get on to the next order of business. What about the items? Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 00:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)r
Most video game items just aren't notable. Maybe references can show otherwise, but I don't think so. By our guidelines, a list of every item in the game isn't appropriate for articles. I would argue that these should all be deleted or redirected to a main article on the series. But if someone wants to assert that a few of these items (perhaps the rings?) are notable, then we can start the discussion there. Just my understanding of the notability requirement and the quality of these items. Randomran (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think that if any item is notable in the series, it's the Chaos Emeralds, and that article is such a shambles that it's not even funny. I guess we need to redirect/delete/whatever it takes to rectify this. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 14:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
And its ironic that that article was nominated for deletion in January, but kept on the condition that it is cleaned up. Clearly that hasn't happened. --tgheretford (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
That was before the Sega Project or the Sonic Task Force was set up. And it's been tagged for clean up on the Sega Project To-Do list for ages. And the article has recently been merged with other articles and is still incomplete. It's not RP's fault that users are too lazy to help out an article.Fairfieldfencer FFF 15:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
(long sigh) It's a shame the Sega Project has forty members but only two are active. That's probably part of why we have this problem in the first place, the project doesn't have enough actives to do its job and control the fancruft while cleaning up notable articles. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 16:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I share your frustration. The same thing happens with television and radio articles that I mostly get involved with, and appears to be a Wikipedia wide problem. I suppose its like regular housework, people are happy to edit but housekeeping isn't as enticing or motivating. --tgheretford (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, at least we're doing some decent work right now with this. Hopefully that will help us catch up a bit. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 02:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

May I ask why merge tags haven't been put on the articles? (Not including the Sonic X ones.)Fairfieldfencer FFF 16:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind I just put them up myself.Fairfieldfencer FFF 11:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

New AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor technology in Sonic the Hedgehog

What do we do with the video game characters?

We can discuss the comic characters elsewhere, and Magiciandude is dealing with the TV series characters (at least Sonic X, I think) by merging them. But now I'd like to bring up an important issue: What do we do with the video game characters?

TTN and Bridies have suggested seven character articles (Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, Amy, Shadow, Doctor Eggman, and Metal Sonic). I have suggested eleven (adding Silver, Rouge, Cream, and Blaze). Fairfieldfencer has suggested also keeping E-123 Omega in addition to my proposal, and I think this could be possible. For everything else, we already have List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games), Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog, and Other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games) (which themselves need to be sorted out and cleaned up.) So anything that we decide not to keep as an article can be merged into that list. TTN has suggested this revision for the list; but notice that he leaves intact the four articles I suggested to be kept. For a guide to all of the Sonic characters articles and lists, we can use this template: {{Sonic characters}}

Okay, so any opinions? Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 02:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks good to me, with Omega as well. Only one that worries me a little is Cream, but that's more my unfamiliarity with the character really. You might dig around for design notes and prototype states etc for non-central characters to bolster their notability: Sega guys seem to like talking a lot more than a lot of corporate figures, so there's bound to be citable information. Reception is an important factor, but you might have trouble like I said with the less central and spotlighted characters. Just remember you can utilize merchandising to this end as well somewhat. I hope that helps you, I'd lend you a hand with the work on the articles but I'm busy with about 6 myself and held up on top of that with matters in life :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, and to be honest I'm not an expert with writing fiction articles. Usually I work with the nonfiction side of the Sega world (such as consoles and companies), though I don't mind slipping in the occasional edit with Sonic the Hedgehog articles. I do, however, have an understanding of WP:FICT, and I'd say the twelve we have listed above would be fine. To be honest, the one that's worried me some is Silver, but I think there's enough there to make a case (plus he has some creation info, one of the few "iffy" characters with out-of-universe context). Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 05:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In the very least, that revision should be used for now, and those two other lists should redirect there. The single characters can always wait until the comic and television characters are all set. TTN (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we can use it as a concept, but not an exact model. For starters, where are the pictures? I know we have a few on the article as it is now. It also seems that a bunch of minor characters were stripped from the article, though that may just be my eyes and I might be sorely mistaken. That's probably because there's so many lists here that everything's jumbled up. For example, is Marine the Raccoon (from the other character's list) any less notable than Bark and Bean? Stuff like this needs to be sorted out, but that revision is a good start. Let's discuss this further, this is probably going to be a very messy merge to perform. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 01:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
There will need to be a large group image instead of any single images in order to comply with policy. Only characters that appear in multiple games belong on the list. While those two aren't really that important, they've been a part of a few games. If Marine is added to more games, there can be an entry added for it. TTN (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, just thought I'd ask since Bark and Bean have been kind of like "bonus characters" without any real purpose while Marine has actually had a purpose in the storyline of the game she is in. As for the images, well, maybe we can find a group image with a few of them and we'll see what we can do with the rest. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 14:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we've had enough characters categorized as "minor" as is. Cream I understand somewhat, what with her lack of recent appearances and all (Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games notwithstanding,) but Blaze?!? And if Rouge the Bat is more important than Cream, then why wasn't she in Sonic and the Secret Rings or the aforementioned Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games? --Luigifan (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
And, by the way, as much as Garcia would hate it (don't ask,) I think that Marine is definitely a minor character. Storyline significance notwithstanding (about all she did was annoy Sonic, Tails, and Blaze to no end, with her only significant contribution to the heroes' cause being her hydrokinetic attack on the Egg Wizard at the end of the game,) Marine has only been in one game. Until she makes more appearances (which the end of Sonic Rush Adventure implies as a strong possibility,) I think she's stuck in "minor character" status. --Luigifan (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Singular character articles should really include Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, Amy, Shadow, Doctor Eggman, Metal Sonic, Rouge the Bat, Cream the Rabbit, and E-123 Omega. The article Cream the Rabbit has over 15 references and does include real world information such as her voice actress (All of which are also referenced in the article). Cream has appeared in a multitude of games and establishes as much notability as a character like Metal Sonic, in fact the article on Cream the Rabbit has more references than both Metal Sonic and Shadow the Hedgehog. The E-123 Omega article also has a multitude of references as well and should be looked at carefully. As for articles on teams and some lists such as Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games), this article should be kept in its current sate as the List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games) would remove from the detail in this article. This article is far more notable than any articles on a single character as it contains 20 characters nearly all of whom establish notability. Providing more direct links from List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games) to this article would greatly improve both. And on the suggested merge of Chaotix, this article is focused on a team that spans over 13 unique characters. Merging this article into List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games) would be like merging an article like Avengers (comics) or the X-Men into List of Marvel Comics characters. These characters have made an appearance in multiple games, comics, and television show, it establishes notability as its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talkcontribs) 15:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Luigifan, I never said Marine wasn't a minor character. But TTN is talking about not even including her in the list. Which would make sense, I guess (since she's a one-game character for now, a section in the Sonic Rush Adventure article makes more sense until she appears in more games, if she appears.) We should sort this with others, like moving the section about Ray the Flying Squirrel to SegaSonic the Hedgehog. I was just a little confused about Bark and Bean, since they're not even really Sonic characters, save for appearances in Sonic the Fighters. As for the articles, Silver the Hedgehog also has some real-world info (and I'll have to look into making the creation stuff more clear), so I think that one can be kept. Of the 12 FFF and I suggested, Blaze is probably the weakest, but I'll look into it when I have the time. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 18:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder, be careful not to get too hung up in major/minor character vs. notable character. A major character in a video game (or even a whole series) may still not warrant more than a brief mention in the series article because he/she doesn't have real-world notability. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

One character that hasn't been mentioned is Sally. She is not only involved as a main character in a popular comic series, but she is also the co-main character in Sonic the Hedgehog, she plays a major role in Sonic Christmas Blast (Even though she has no speaking lines), she appears in Sonic Spinball, she was intended to be in Sonic X-Treme, and even made a cameo in the Stay Sonic guidebook. She even has a full concept and creation section, detailing her original look as "Princess Acorn" and including her development into what became known as "Pink Sally". Not to mention the fact that there are currently 3 outside sources, and as I work on the article the list of references will grow, along with adding full comic citations, and a Reception section that I'm trying to get going. Currently, I am also working on Mina and Sonic's Archie articles, but Mina is a comic-only character and Sonic already has his own character article. Please, let me finish my work on the Sally page. I've been working on it since December!! I can add a main article link to Sally's page on the comic character list. On the topic of merging the game characters, I agree with merging everyone that's not Sonic, Tails, Amy, Eggman, Knuckles, Shadow, Rouge, Cream, Blaze, Silver, or the Chaotix. These are main characters in the series and should be kept. I'm iffy on E-123 Omega, as he only made a major role in Sonic Heroes, and then he basically got forgotten about, except for a small role in Sonic '06. As for TV characters, I propose merging each show's characters in a respective list. For example: Move Queen Aleena to List of characters in Sonic Underground. Again, Sally's section in the "SatAM" character list could provide a link to her main article. As for comic characters, ugg. The comic characters are probably the articles I've been the most attached to on Wikipedia. It's gonna be really hard for me to take it in. However, it must be done. I suggest merging all of the characters on the comic (except Sally) into List of characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (comic series), which I have just created. Sadly, it must be done. However, I will put all of the comic character articles (except minor ones) under my username in order to work on them behind the scenes, much like Fairfieldfencer who is working on Julie-Su's article "behind-the-scenes", only mine involves ALL major characters. I'll begin transferring the articles, and building the List page. Once that's done, I'll ask for the final call to redirect the pages. The only problem is Minor characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (comic series). This page is HUGE as it is, and merging it with the Main characters in one big list, presents a problem, as there are nearly 100 main and secondary characters in the comic. Should we keep 2 seperate lists, one being minor and one being major? This may be a better solution than making an already long list even longer. It's sort of like merging every single character in the Simpsons into one super-list. It'll be hard to manage and will be a mess. Please consider these ideas. Thank you.  Dylanlip  (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
If you need any help feel free to ask me and I'll try my best.Fairfieldfencer FFF 16:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed up my comment. I've added a few things to it and merged them.  Dylanlip  (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Once again, I have to keep saying KEEP SALLY'S PAGE ALONE!!! You keep thinking you can merge her simply into the comic character list. You can't. I'm trying to get the point across that she is notable in 2 different medias and is semi-notable in like, 4 other things. Plus, her article has references. It's not like all she has is comic references. The last thing that is really pissing me off is that no one will listen to this statement, "I'm not finished." Plain and simple. Don't put up merge tags until I'm done and you've checked it to see if it can qualify as a full article, THEN may you put up merge tags if it does not qualify.  Dylanlip  (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, relax Dylanlip. Just because there's a merge tag there doesn't mean she's instantly getting merged. It's a suggestion, not a mandate. If it is the case that you're fixing this article, then we'll wait, no questions asked. Everyone here will wait, the Sega Project will wait, and we'll see what you can do. That's part of Wikipedia, repair and not just straight-up write and merge. Just contact us when you're done and leave the merge tag up for discussion purposes only, that it has been suggested. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 02:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, plus with the merge tag up: it might bring more protestors to the merge of Sally.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I was starting to get worried. Just to tell everyone, I have created the comic character list already, and I have begun adding the full comic citations for Sally's article. I've found that there are just so many characters in the comic. I can't even count how many characters there are! I'm wondering if we should split Main characters from Minor characters, as the amount of characters in total is astounding. Just pondering the thought.  Dylanlip  (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We could do it alphabetically, too, like the Pokemon lists. Do an A-M and N-Z list or something like that. Just a suggestion. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 16:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So, if we have all reached a consensus, can we remove the merger tags on some of the pages?Rogue Commander (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The "relationship/interactions with other characters" crap really needs to removed/trimmed badly. Just take a look at Shadow the Hedgehog. That's too much cruft right there. Oh and btw, think you can add Echidnas (Sonic the Hedgehog) and Mobians to the AfD or do you not mind if I do it? While skimming around for Sonic TV characters, I came across these. Magiciandude (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

fgsfds

Would "Burn them with fire" be too harsh an answer to the question? I read through Metal Sonic, for example, and it's dreadful. These articles are full of speculation and just plain made up bullshit. To share an example:

This creates a mental paradox: How could Metal Sonic truly believe himself to be the original Sonic whilst also believing that he was created for the purpose of destroying Sonic? Such a logical contradiction could probably be considered insane. Another possibility is that he believes himself to have been created first, as a precaution to the real Sonic's existence. More likely, however, is that these quotes suggest that his goal is to defeat Sonic and thus become the "true" (only living) Sonic by doing so. Also during this final battle, Metal Sonic reveals a tormented side to his personality, explaining that when he could not even succeed in what he was designed to do (defeat Sonic) he was left with no purpose.

ARGLBPHARGLE. This would be low-quality nonsense on a fanpage, and it's well below Wikipedia's standards. They're currently worse than the Pokemon articles were, and those were dire. There isn't any reason that all of these articles could not be cut down to three paragraphs tops, in their current form, and that includes Sonic the Hedgehog (character). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, A Man In Black, but seriously, you're overreacting. Part of Wikipedia is cleanup, not just merger. By the way, here's something you might be interested in in terms of that Metal Sonic "paradox". This quote is from Sonic Heroes:
That's where that comes from. By the way, we don't delete articles and stuff based on how poorly they're written right now. We do it based on if it can be done. While we're dealing with this fancruft, we'll start cleanup efforts. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 20:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, okay. I want to clean up these articles. With a chainsaw. Aomeone took a SINGLE SENTENCE OF DIALOGUE and wrote a WHOLE PARAGRAPH OF SPECULATION based on it. That's the kind of nonsense these awful articles attract.
There's precious little to save in their current form, and no body of sources to use to turn them into something worth having. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops)
  • Can I just ask what the significance of "fgsfds" is? --.:Alex:. 21:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing it's about as significant as "asklbgail" or "eibgaubgq3589" - just some random fat-fingering to express frustration. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Basically A Man in Black needs to lay off the caffeine it would seem. Anyway to argue for a merge is a stretch, the article is bad but salvageable, though by that that'd mean stripping down the old articles, rewriting them, and replacing them. But as long as WP:N and WP:V can be proven, "burn and merge" is a step in the wrong direction.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I still question whether anyone other than Sonic and Dr. Robotnik/Eggman can really successfully fulfill notability requirements at all. Perhaps a few of the secondary characters. Sonic stands the best chance because in addition to being the main character of all the games, he's also been Sega's mascot for years. Dr. Robotnik is probably also notable enough since he's the primary villain of the series, though even then, it might be a stretch if all the sources talk about is his role within the series.
I do think that if we have a consensus to allow lists of characters, that those articles should be reduced to one (maybe two) paragraphs of only the most essential information about each character. But I do NOT agree that there's any reason for Mecha Sonic to have his own article (nor for most of the other characters being discussed).
If you guys want a good Nintendo parallel, take a look at List of characters in the Star Fox series. The only character in this list to have his own article is Fox McCloud, and even the highly notable Andross and Krystal characters are just paragraphs in the list. While the Star Fox series isn't as synonymous with Nintendo as the Mario series, it's still one of their best-known series, and I think the work that was done on that characters article would serve as a good example for the Sonic characters as well. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I actually agree with the above there (adding Tails into that as a trio given he's not always been strictly a support character). My point was to at least look intensely before razing.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The main characters with with a chance of actual potential definitely need to be gutted and given the basic blank real world sections. The rest just need to be reduced to a paragraph or two. As I said before, this revision of the main game list is a good starting point at least. Revert to that and redirect Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games) and Other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games), and besides merging some more secondary characters, the video game ones will be all set. TTN (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is true that the character articles are just an utter mess, and we need to deal with them. I have already stated my opinion about TTN's proposal: while I don't agree with all of it, it's a good start, definitely, and we can go from there. The biggest problem with a lot of the character articles are violations of WP:PLOT. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 22:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with TTN. Cleanse these with fire. They're honeypots for the most awful useless fannish garbage.

Also, fgsfds = left fist applied to keyboard. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sonic should not be merged, because he's basically the mascot of Sega. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I've made my opinion known, but I'm just going to back out of arguing for it, because I'm not a major person when it comes to fiction. I work more with nonfiction stuff. But I will say this: if Mario deserves his own article, so does Sonic the Hedgehog (character). Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 01:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Red Phoenix. This is the discussion as it currently stands:

Requires clean up, must keep no matter what:

  • Sonic the Hedgehog

Requires clean up, strong keep:

Requires clean up,keep:

Requires clean up, weak keep:

Requires clean up, future uncertain:

I think this sums it up. Rogue Commander (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Requires serious cleanup, merge if no reliable sources that aren't the games/comics/TV shows/PRIMARY SOURCES can be found:
All of them
That's summing it up. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes I believe everyone reading this whole subsection got this point already through your sheer eloquence. To be perfectly blunt though and while still assuming good faith...you're behaving like a perfect ass in a calm discussion on fixing the articles.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a tendency to overcomplicate, and a distinct lack of outside perspective. What matters is not how many games a character has been in, or how important their role in those games are, or what color they are. What matters is the ability to write a well-sourced, comprehensive article. Right now, these (sometimes shockingly old) articles have not yet shown any potential to become well-sourced, and have long overstayed their welcome. The articles are bad and we should feel bad. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

AMIB, I agree with merging most of the characters, except for Sonic. He's one of the most iconic characters in video games - he's the mascot for Sega; his impact during the 16-bit era, both as character and and through his rivalry with Mario, was undeniable; and he's even on the inaugural Walk of Game. His article is salvageable (reducing the amount of story details and adding a proper reception section would certainly help) - "three paragraphs", as you claim, wouldn't do the character justice considering the impact and legacy the character has left. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, as I look at the Sonic article, I notice it already has a a pretty decent reception section and well-sourced section about the character's creation, both the kind of real-world information that should be in a good fiction article. Hell, it even points out that the character was the inspiration for the naming of a protein! You can't get me to believe you can summarize all the information in the entire article down to a handful of paragraphs on a list. Might as well suggest to summarize the Mario article down to two or three paragraphs and merge it into List of Mario series characters as well. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 09:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The Sonic article can be saved. Nonsense like the #Character section, though, inspires ARGLEPHBARGLE and the desire to purge with fire. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Agree with the Character section, though; that and the music section of the article should be whittled down, if not outright eliminated. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 09:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For starters: can you quit it with the burn with fire thing. You sound like some sort of fictional power mad dictator. And these articles are salvageable, as the head of the Sonic Task Force I will see to it that these articles are fixed in the proper way.Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

May I make a recommendation that, should you decide to just annihilate all of the character articles, that you first look to transwiki the content to http://sonic.wikia.org in case they could use the content? Also, I agree with Fairfieldfencer, WikiProject Sega and the Sonic Task Force are currently working to remove all the fancruft and clean this up. By the way, FFF, in case you haven't seen it yet, I think A Man In Black is even more deletionist than TTN, something I never thought I'd see. Oh well, his opinion. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 13:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with you.Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Calling AMIB a "power mad dictator" isn't really a nice thing to do, though I don't think he'd mind.  ;) User:Krator (t c) 13:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm just trying to point out that he's being a little over dramatic.Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
MWAHAHAHAHAHA-er. Power man dictator, I like that.
Sometimes, it's easy to get lost in "notability" and "appropriateness" and the sort of Wikispeak and stilted politeness, and lose track of why we're here: to make an encyclopedia that doesn't suck. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

To briefly drop in here, I think AMIB is right on every account. There's not much else to be said; a dramatic decrease in size for all of these articles, followed by a merge, would be the best option. From experience with this kind of issue (which we all share here), I think it is safe to conclude that when discussions end with results like "keep but cleanup" or "the topic is good, the article is not", the chance that nothing happens is colossal. Getting rid of the parts that should never return in whatever fashion should be the first step (speculation, plot repetition), and I think it's better to do that with the parts that need a lot of rewriting too. Editing an existing (bad) paragraph is much harder than creating a new (good) one. User:Krator (t c) 13:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I think a problem that's kinda the culprit here is after the articles like Sonic were made and dubbed good, Wikipedia shifted gears drastically and said articles were now written 'wrong'. This resulted in two problems: editors that had been writing articles that way all this time now told they don't know what they're doing, and a slew that didn't follow the guideline anymore that would've been better just "rebooted" and written over completely. So one can't jump up and down shouting hellfire too much in a case like this.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The 'groups/organisations' articles should just be AFD'd IMO, as they're duplicative of the other character articles. Many of them are fictional races, not even specific named characters. I'm going to prod tag the Mobians article briefly mentioned above, that article is so obscure it's ridiculous. Bridies (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, those are just some horrible article. And I think Kung Fu Man has a point, and the articles just haven't been able to make the shift. No one wants to do the cleanup. For example, I recently requested a GAR on Sonic the Hedgehog (character) and it was delisted. I looked through the history at what it was when it passed (February 2006 or so) and it completely violated WP:PLOT. So I definitely would say that has happened. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 17:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple of more eccentric articles: Evolution of the Sonic Universe and Roboticization (not just about sonic). Not sure if these are legit or not. Bridies (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I would just say prod or AFD the roboticization article because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As for the Evolution article, I'm not sure. Maybe it could be merged into the series article, but then again it concerns all of the aspects of the series, including the comics and TV shows. Not sure what to do with that one. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 12:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of which, I put a PROD tag for Roboticizer, but it had one already...three years ago. Don't know what to do with the article though. Can anyone help? Magiciandude (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Roboticization is, I think, original research. I'll check for sources, if there's none I'll prod it. Evolution of the Sonic Universe I think is pretty much duplicative of other articles. Bridies (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Magiciandude, your prod was removed. I have made an AFD for it, though. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roboticizer (2nd nomination). Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 03:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Not with the merging again!?! realyy people just keep it as it is, Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, Amy and Blaze should stick for the heroes...Shadow,Rouge, Omega and Chaos for netual...Eggman, metal Sonic and Nega for villains...and all of the lists shoould be left alone, why is it so important to merge they are all gonna have more infomation for them as the years go by so whats the point!? Behellmorph (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2008

Because these articles suck and cannot be made to not suck, basically. There aren't any references to use to make these into encyclopedia articles about the real world, so at best they'll be excessive plot summary and at worst they'll be full of speculation and fanon and fanfiction and just plain made up bullshit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with AMIB (much as this surprises me). Sonic should stay, Tails, Knuckles, Shadow, and Robotnik should stay. The others should be merged unless someone finds some good sourcing. giggy (:O) 02:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so my position is clear, I think that we should merge unless someone finds reliable sources to create a standalone article. This is for all characters up to and including Sonic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Including Sonic?!? I think even TTN would be against that one.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm attacking the idea that "Sonic is a main character! We can't merge him!" Sure we can. Now, Sonic is a subject of commentary in reliable sources, but we need to be dogged about demanding those sources, not accepting "Well, he's important!" But it may turn out that that commentary is best organized in an article on the series as a whole, or on the cast as a whole, or in some other way.
We need to find sources and then follow those sources where they lead, and until then we need to clean the crap out of these articles with an eye to getting them to merge length. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Would you suggest the same for the Sonic games in the same way you suggest for even Sonic? As I mentioned earlier on in this section, the game articles are badly lacking third party sources to establish notability, or in many cases, are non-existent. Though I am sure no-one here would even suggest the idea of Sonic the Hedgehog (video game) being AfD'd (surely?)? ----tgheretford (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Everyone pretty much agrees what the game articles should look like and how they could be improved and more or less where we can find sources to improve those articles.
I don't think we're going to fix all of the broken Sonic character articles as a result of this discussion. But, we can break the "Pokemon test" complacency of "This has always been this way, so it's okay." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MIB, but I doubt there will be difficulty in establishing notability for Sonic. Here's a start: History of Sonic. I'd look for more but I'm off out, it'll have to wait. Bridies (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC) another one: SEGA Reinvents Sonic The Hedgehog Experience. Bridies (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Would it be worth tagging the articles to, as they say, shake things up and start getting editors to add sources to articles? Maybe a tough love approach to the articles (even using {{notability}}) might be worth it? --tgheretford (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If anyone cares, I'll be slowly running through and cutting down the comic characters. If someone feels like it, they can be moved over to List of characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (comic). I've started with Tails (comic character) so far. TTN (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

All right, thanks for taking care of that, TTN. No matter what we do to the VG characters (and I've already voiced my opinion), the comic characters are absolutely massive amounts of fancruft. Can we at least try to see if we can transwiki as much as possible to http://sonic.wikia.org ? I'm sure they could use all this cruft that we have here. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 14:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm rather opposed to transwikiing. It feels too much like shoving the stuff under the rug, and it'd be better to just toast the articles if that's the case. It too readily sends the wrong message anyway: "we don't want your info here" rather than "the info is not handled in an encyclopedic form".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I would have to support Red Phoenix's stance. Where possible, it would be best to transwiki articles to at least keep things of interest to the Sonic community somewhere (keeping within the licensing requirements on the Sonic Wiki). Otherwise, I think it may be best to take this out to the wider community, be bold and start taking articles to AfD (even en masse if needs be). --tgheretford (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
What do you think I've been doing? I've put up four AFDs, including one large blanket AFD, about unnotable articles like this while dealing with the cruft. And Kung Fu Man, remember that Wikia is the perfect place for all this fancruft. These sites could use the info more than we can. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 17:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The AfD process really doesn't work way to well with this kind of thing. Some characters would go through and be all set, but many would just get caught up in over the top inclusionist snares all over the place or the FICT argument crossfires that erupt in them sometimes. Just as a general comment, never mind about the trimming. I have a semi-stalker that'll keep me from actually trimming them down to the basics. Whether they're merged in the end or not, it's a waste of time with that going on. If anyone actually starts this sometime soon, and they don't want to trim the articles themselves, copy over chunks of articles at a time or something. I'll get them at that point. TTN (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I've got to agree with TTN here about the AFDs. While WP:FICT isn't a policy yet (and seems to lack consensus), WP:PLOT is a guideline that must be followed that does have consensus (as part of WP:NOT). Inclusionists can make such arguments about WP:FICT, so I recomment we make WP:PLOT and WP:N (or WP:V) our primary arguments in these AFDs. We'll probably have to do separate AFDs for everything that ends up having to go. As for the merge, I'm a little too busy to help, sorry. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 17:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to ask a question: who is going to do all the merging and still supply the important content? Users are too lazy to fix up articles and probably too lazy to merge them. Chances are even after this has been settled the articles will stay as they are!!!!!Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That's why I suggested the tough love approach earlier. I have done this approach twice, once for articles on station identifications for UK television channels and again for television and radio masts and towers articles in the UK. I gave notice that there were major problems with the articles concerned and it was ignored. So I took the tough love approach and nominated them for AfD. The articles were not deleted but it was the thing that started to get editors to look up and take notice and fix the articles to the point where they could be kept and stay within policies and guidelines. Sadly, the tough line may be the only line to take to get people to notice and fix these articles. --tgheretford (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
There's no way I'm letting you go through with that. There's been a surge of some certain users voting for deletion lately. The articles wouldn't be kept and salvaged they'd be deleted.Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Fairfieldfencer in this case. AFD is not the place to take some of these articles. I've been doing it with items and other features, but I disagree about AFDing the characters. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 19:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There's several sources in the sonic article currently and as such notability is demonstrated. The article itself isn't that bad, there just needs to be some curbing of the thinly disguised plot regurgitations and some bad prose. I also think, after looking for sources, that sonic is really the only notable character and we should be looking at merging the others (including tails, robotnik) unless someone can come up with the necessary sources. Side note: the Mobians article is now gone. Bridies (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the sources will be a pain in the butt to come up with. And by the way, good riddance to that Mobians article, that was horrid. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 21:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, some other admin saw fit to restore the Mobians article, AFD I guess.Bridies (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's your AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobians. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 15:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ahead and merge the TV characters since no one has bothered responding in the talk pages for weeks now. Just giving you all a heads up. Magiciandude (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

When you do, can you show us the list article? Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 04:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually Magiciandude, I'd like to have a crack at fixing up the articles before you merge them.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The cleansing of fire

Just a heads-up. Poorly referenced lists of "relationships" and vaguely-described personalities and other such fannish, unreferenced crap* are going to be disappearing from these articles shortly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

* - I say "crap" because "cruft" carries too much baggage, whereas "crap" is exactly what I mean.

You will do no such thing without a discussion.Fairfieldfencer FFF 14:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Well. Okay. What would you like to discuss? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Sonic Chronicles seems like it'll be a good game. What am I saying? The discussion is about you cleansing the articles with fire. And I don't think E-123 Omega's relationships section should be cleansed, as it is referenced.Fairfieldfencer FFF 14:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Eh, I'll believe it when I see it with Chronicles.
As for cleaning with fire, this is what I'm talking about. Nonsense someone made up on the spot goes away now. I'm going to be taking a long hard look at anything even remotely evaluative or speculative, but if the sources hold up then the sources hold up. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and I've got refs for the Shadow the Hedgehog section, but I can't access them at the moment.Fairfieldfencer FFF 14:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, you can use discussions as refs. The head of the Sega Project Assessment department even advised me to use them.Fairfieldfencer FFF 15:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
What kind of discussions? References for what?
Using quotes to describe the plot of a work of fiction in roughly the same form as the fictional work is okay if less than super. This is for your "plot summary" sections and such. The problem is when you try to reform the plot into something else, synthesizing a description of relationships or personality or whatever, based on cherry-picked quotes...yeah, that's not okay. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Omega's sensor is taken from quotes.Fairfieldfencer FFF 15:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yowza. E-123 Omega had a "personality" section referenced to...individual lines from various games that someone apparently thought were indicative of his personality. That sort of original synthesis isn't going to pass muster. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I being the one that thought that. I would like Red Phoenix, (the person who advised me to use them in the first place), to offer his opinion before any other edits are made. Oh, and I think that article's just been downed to C-Class.Fairfieldfencer FFF 15:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Opinion.
And, well, in the meantime the badly-referenced original synthesis needs to go away. The hour of reckoning is upon us. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
And A Man In Black, I do feel that your edits are in good faith.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see what the problem is. So what if it's cruft, just so long as it's sourced that's what matters.Fairfieldfencer FFF 20:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Insufficient sourcing is no improvement over no sourcing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you at least wait until the discussion is over to do these edits?Fairfieldfencer FFF 22:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
What discussion? We've been chatting about this for nearly a month on this page alone. It's time for WP:V, WP:N, WP:SELFPUB, and WP:NOR to be applied. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The discussion that will lead to consensus, which we don't have yet, so I must ask you to revert your recent edits until there is consensus.Fairfieldfencer FFF 07:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Consensus on what? There's a fairly well-established consensus that we need to clean out the poorly sourced original synthesis and other garbage out of these articles. You object because there's no consensus. Okay. What's contentious and why? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I meant there is no consensus on how we clean this up. You go around and gut the articles of vital info, for example: the Blaze the Cat portrayal section, you say that's OR, but that came from Bridies. A user who doesn't tolerate OR and would never put it in.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
If the info is vital, cite it to reliable sources. Personal reputation doesn't excuse original research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
They were reliable sources, and they were reworded if that's what you meant by the source didn't add up.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Game quotes or nothing are not reliable sources for evaluative claims. I'm sorry. If you aren't understanding that or why this is a problem, I am at a loss to better explain. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Please revert all your recent edits. You are taking away all the important info. If you keep this up the only thing we could do with these articles is merge them, they've become so unnotable by your recent edits that's the only option left for them.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
(re-indent) If what I've removed is so important and demonstrates notability so well, why is it all insufficiently sourced? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
It was sourced, you're the only one that thinks it's insufficient. If I had a third person's opinion on what you've done to the articles they'd agree with me.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
An example of a claim not sourced to game quotes that I removed? You've been reverting indiscriminately, so I can't really go by your edits. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The Blaze the Cat portrayal section, that came from a sufficient source.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Tell me are you even a Sonic fan? Because I know that I wouldn't want someone who doesn't even know what he's talking about, editing these articles.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This edit, made a half hour ago? I removed a reference from a claim that didn't back the claim made, without removing the claim (which was established by a different ref anyway). Then I also removed a cherry-picked quote that supposedly revealed some of her personality.
Does anyone else have a problem with edits like this?
As for my feelings on the series, I am a verifiability fan. These articles are awfully short on that. How I feel about anything else is secondary to that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
So let me get this straight. You expect editors like me, to let you edit these articles like this, when your not even familiar with the subject? If you don't know anything about Sonic; how are going to tell what's true from what's fancruft?Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Now, I will ask you again; please revert all your recent edits to the Sonic the Hedgehog articles.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
By looking at the sources. And I didn't say I wasn't a fan, didn't say I was. As for reverting, nah, too much work left to do. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Please stop reverting my edits.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't make edits that replace inappropriate categories, excess fair-use images, original research, unreferenced claims speculation, badly-formed headers, typos, bad grammar, fanon, and just plain made-up-on-the-spot crap. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
How much do you know about Sonic? How can you tell what's true and what isn't? If anyone's going to cut down the cruft can it please be someone who's played the series before. Can somebody please back me up here?Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles aren't written based on personal knowledge. They're written by examining the sources and summarizing them in encyclopedic summary style. I've examined the sources and found them wanting, and edited the articles in turn. (Also I've fixed some bad headers, broken links, and wackass categories, but that's neither here nor there.)
You seem to have assumed I lack any personal knowledge. That's a curious assumption. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Well do you actually have first hand expierience?Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Others would say different. Listen, could we put this discussion on hold for a little while? After all we're the only editors here at the moment and we certainly could use other opinions on the matter.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Have you read the comments below? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I meant on the matter of getting another editor to handle the fancruft.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Uh. "Go away, you're not allowed to edit this" isn't going to have a lot of traction on Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't follow you. Oh and it's Wikipedia policy to use the most recent image not the nicest.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
You want me to stop editing because you're unhappy with my enthusiasm or knowledge of the series. That's not going to fly.
As for "most recent," no, there isn't any policy like that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
No. I just want someone more familiar with the subject, no offence to you, it's great that you're doing this but I feel we need someone with more knowledge of the subject. I mean you wouldn't want a man who only speaks English to write an article in French now would you. And in all honesty what I'm really unhappy about is the fact that you've made these edits before the discussion is over.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've kind of lost track of all this, but I believe Sonic Rush Character Spotlight: Blaze is the source FFF is refering to.Bridies (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the one that you recommended for Blaze's article, and I find it very hard to believe that you'd post original research.Fairfieldfencer FFF 14:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably also worth pointing out that Master Chief (Halo) and Link (The Legend of Zelda) have 'personality'/'attributes'/'chararacteristics' sections. Bridies (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

FFF, when I told you you can cite the video games (which you can, per WP:SELFPUB and WP:VG/S), it is still important to avoid synthesis that violates WP:OR. Now, I'm not going to assess again until we can sort out what we're doing with this. But OR seems to be a huge problem with these articles, and I do recommend transwiki-ing anything that can be salvaged to sonic.wikia.org. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 16:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

To add on to this, and this is mainly directed to FairfieldFencer: Is there anything in the article guidelines that isn't clear with respect to these articles? I see a strong pull toward getting this stuff cleaned up, and so far what I've seen in these articles violates a fair chunk of WP:OR, WP:N, WP:FICT and WP:RS, as well as the guidelines with respect to unsuitable content. And most of your arguments for keeping the contested content have appeared to be grounded in WP:ILIKEIT or WP:NOHARM, but not in much else. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looking myself, the main problem with the majority of the Sonic articles (including the games) is the lack of real life third party references to not only meet verifability policy but also notability. Many of the sources are from the comics themselves, the games or from Sega, and these cannot prove notability for these articles to remain in Wikipedia. You need independent third party references to prove notability within Wikipedia, and the majority of Sonic articles don't have this. I've nominated articles for deletion on less than this, so I would agree with A Man in Black's stance, and possibly even suggest that it could go further, because at the moment, I could by rights for a start tagging articles with {{notability}}, {{unreferenced}} and {{primarysources}} as some other editors have already started to do this month. --tgheretford (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote part of the Miles "Tails" Prower article to reflect the merging of in-universe stuff into a "Characteristics" section in Sonic the Hedgehog (character). However, A Man In Black doesn't agree with the fictional age, height and weight being important in-u info. Aside from being "physical" characteristics (as the section is titled) I feel the need to point out that this info helps the understanding of the character's overall character (such as personality and skills), thus making it more than trivial. Conforming to certain stereotypes, characters who are young normally act childish, while older ones are wise. Smaller characters are normally weak, larger ones are strong. This could influence whether a character is a coward or a fearless hero. Characters who break these molds also make it important to know this about them (for example those with a Napolean complex). Sonic, as the series standard-bearer, establishes the median age and size. Sonic's age says he is a young adult – a kind of personality that wants to be their own person and make their own rules but can be a little immature. His size establishes the basic fighting size for other characters to be measured by. Knuckles being stronger and slightly older than Sonic is bigger than him, not so coincidentally, he is also described as a warrior character who is dedicated to his responsibility but is still slightly immature. Cream and Charmy are the youngest and smallest characters, they also act the most like kids and are probably the weakest of all. In Sonic Heroes, 3 of the 4 Power characters are some of the biggest characters in the series. And who would except Rouge's promiscuity if she was as young as Amy's age? Obviously the expanded info in this arguement amounts to OR by Wikipedia standards but the age/weight/height should be included in the Characterisics section to help readers see the characters for who they are designed to be (not to mention that small 3-4 ft tall characters beating 100 ft monstrocities seems to be a theme in the series). Cigraphix (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but any vital statistics for a fictional game character is really out of line with what Wikipedia is. Such data is indiscriminate information. There is no real-world correlation to any changes to these statistics. No general reader cares that Mr. Shootie is 8 ft tall, 56 lbs and runs 100m in 14 seconds. They should only be informed that Mr. Shootie is a villain of the Shoot-em-up Bang-bang game who is in the game only because the designer, Matsura Miki, decided that the game had too many melee bosses and wanted a change with a dual-gun wielding boss. Those 36-24-38 vital statistics mean nothing to the concept behind the game or comics either. Neither is Wikipedia supposed to be re-constructing character profiles for these fictional characters. We report what others have said. The real world information presented should be how and why these characters are designed as such, who designed them, and how people and society receive these characters. Real world information does not mean a profile of the character. Jappalang (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
And now I hope to prove a point that is central to this entire argument. I stopped reading your paragraph about a third of the way down because, as someone who isn't a major fan of the Sonic series, I frankly don't CARE about the specific characteristics of each character in the game. What's important to me is that Tails is a young, two-tailed fox with a knack for mechanical things, Knuckles is an echidna who can glide and is Sonic's arch-rival, and Rouge is a bat thief. The number of years, feet or pounds that Tails possesses mean absolutely nothing to me, and they will mean even less to a person who isn't into video games at all. This is why the articles need to be trimmed down: The cruft overloads them with information that the average reader will not find interesting and does not need to know to understand the game as a whole. This information would be far more appropriate on the Sonic-specific wiki, which is designed for and intended for fans of the series, and as far as I'm concerned, you can put whatever in-universe information and original research there that you want. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for being so dismissive Kief. So I'm just one of those guys who just wants to include every bit of cruft, yet you didn't even check those changes to Tails where I cut out massive cruft right? Well I'd just like to point out that calling Tails "young" without his well-sourced age to back it up is probably OR. Cigraphix (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I do have to interject something:
  • Height might be important enough to note, as it does factor into appearance factors. Case in point, unless you see character A and character B visibly side by side, you lack a perspective on how tall a character is. Of course you could argue comparing game sprites, but that's not always a certainty and the articles are meant to be written for people who don't have to play a game to understand the subject you're conveying. It may not be completely useful in the context here though, where for the most part every character is the same height to everyone else save obviously Robotnik.
  • Weight in comparison...is utterly useless as a statistic. Fat characters will be heavy, slim characters will weigh less, etc. There's no need to cover that.
  • Lastly, three sizes isn't as useful as height, but can help convey character appearance...for human females. From someone going into game design, those statistics do have some merit in terms of character comparison and look, and to artists as well. It's not the world's most useful trio of knowledge, but it is useful to know...if it can be cited and is stable. In the context of Sonic characters though, it's completely useless.
Just my two cents on the subject.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
To Cigraphix: I'm not trying to dismiss your particular edits. I'm making a more blanket statement to the entire discussion, and your paragraph served as a good jumping block for me to do so. I apologize if it seemed that I was dismissing your work out of hand - it was not directed specifically at you. My point was that minute details about a character are rarely interesting or useful outside of the game's fanbase, and Kung Fu Man's response is a good expansion on my original point. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I have a proposal. How about we let the characters who have appeared in more than half of the main series games (there's twelve at the moment counting Unleashed, so that'd make seven and up) have their own articles and we merge the rest. So far, the characters that meet this criteria are Sonic, Eggman, Tails, and Knuckles, though I might be off. I'm not a fan of the series anymore anyways. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. A character may have appeared in every game in a series and still not be particularly notable. And in contrast, a single character that has only appeared in a single game could in fact be quite notable - as a hypothetical example, if it turned out that Rouge was a lesbian and this stirred up a big controversy amongst the gaming community, it would gain significant press coverage and would have notability (though that might not warrant a dedicated article to the character, but rather a more detailed section in a game or series article). Do you see the distinction? Major or minor character, number of appearances, etc., doesn't mean anything if the character doesn't have real-world notability. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This is exactly the sort of thing we don't want to do. If there is sufficient sourced info to write a proper article on a character, we should. If there isn't, we should cut it down to the sourced material and merge. Coming up with arbitrary metrics is missing the point: these articles are written exceedingly poorly because there are no sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm probably going against some Wikipedia policy for saying this but; A Man In Black, is the only reason you're stripping these articles until they're stubs is so they'll be merged?Fairfieldfencer FFF 11:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm stripping them of inappropriate categories, excess fair-use images, original research, unreferenced claims, speculation, badly-formed headers, typos, bad grammar, fanon, and just plain made-up-on-the-spot crap. They're bad articles and we should feel bad. I do, so I'm cleaning them up. If they're merged, they're merged, if they're not, they're not. I don't really care. Right now I'm focused on cleansing the bad stuff with fire. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
A Man In Black, you're not helping the articles, this could even be considered vandalism. For example: E-123 Omega before your edit, and after. E-123 OmegaFairfieldfencer FFF 12:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
This diff includes my edits to the page. I challenge anyone to identify any vandalism in those edits.
It's time to do the unpopular but necessary work of cleaning up these articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I would go as far as to suggest that even with A Man In Black's edit, there is still problems with verification from third party independent sources and therefore no establishment of notability. I fear that the problem with these articles may, as stated by other editors above, extend beyond just mere "cruft". --tgheretford (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well. Fairfieldfencer and someone named Coconutfred73 is reverting my cleanup en masse as vandalism. Super. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering Fairfieldfencer's age, he has no idea of such subtle concepts such Verifiability, Notability, what Wikipedia isn't and writing from the real world's perspective. Instead, he brags about how he's the "leader of the Sonic clean-up task force" and when asked about how an article can be improved, he only brings straw-man arguments. Personally, this is why no one under 18 should be allow to edit Wikipedia.
BTW, I nominated Knuckles the Echidna (comic character) for deletion. Jonny2x4 (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
FFF says he's the leader of the cleanup effort because WikiProject Sega, a project both of us work very closely with, is attempting to start a task force on Sonic the Hedgehog articles. As we're the only two who really use the pages (but there are others who are part of both the WikiProject and the task force, many of which are active members), I told him I'd leave him in charge. But it shouldn't be a bragging point, it's a de facto consideration. I guess I'll have to make sure he knows this. And I find that under 18 comment is very harsh, Jonny2x4. I just turned 18 last month, but I've been editing for nearly six months as a continuous active (account is about ten months old) and had I not started when I was 17, I probably wouldn't have started editing like I have and written two good articles and a featured list. At first, I was a hard inclusionist, yes, but over time I evolved into a moderate with incrementalist philosophies. It takes time to understand the concepts that Jonny mentions, and of course a level of maturity, but that doesn't mean "18 is automatically it." As for the Sonic articles, I'm not going to argue about the characters anymore because I don't like working with fiction and try to avoid it at all means necessary when editing Wikipedia. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 23:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
(Wikimedia server not working conflict) Unfortantely, this could be the first of many AfD's for Sonic articles. The problems of the lack or non-existence of reliable third party and real life sources to establish notability extends across all the Sonic articles, video games, characters et al. It is only a matter of time before the wider community takes note of this discussion, see the other articles and start to propose delete or nominate other articles for deletion. --tgheretford (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Now, now, each individual video game is no less notable than any other video game out there. For those, GameSpot, IGN, etc. all count as reliable sources and pretty much all of them are likely to have sections about these games. So I recommend we leave the video games out of this. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 23:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Red Phoenix - FFF is acting as any typical 14-year-old would who believes that editing Wikipedia makes him the "King of the Internet". He provides no valid counter-arguments, marks all of AMiB's edits as "vandalism" and misunderstands the position assigned to him. Don't take my "under 18" remark personally. I nominated Dr. Robotnik (other media) for deletion and its children articles. Jonny2x4 (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I am bothered by the massive use of edit warring and probable 3RR violations going on between the parties in this discussion. I've given warnings and still it persists, I might have to start reporting offenders. Cigraphix (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Red Phoenix - yep, there are sources from the major gaming sites for these games, but they need to be added to the article as in-line citations to establish fact and back up the article from third party sources and therefore keep within Wikipedia policy for the benefit of all readers, even if they seem so obvious to gamers and Sonic fans. --tgheretford (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, tell you what here's an earlier revision of an article I worked on. Let's see if you find it difficult to understand. E-123 OmegaFairfieldfencer FFF 09:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
And I may be a kid, but at least I can see an unconstructive edit. The articles are terrible now. And A Man In Black shouldn't have been the one to cut the fancruft. Someone more expierienced with the subject should have done it, A Man In Black doesn't even know how to spell one of the main characters names. [25] And if he doesn't even know that; how can he tell what's cruft from what's truth?Fairfieldfencer FFF 15:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
So he misspelled Rouge's name once? Big freaking deal! He's removing content that we wouldn't even bother discussing about a real person like a character's favorite food or shoe size. Jonny2x4 (talk) 01:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

AfDs

SomethingAwful.com wasn't kidding when they say how ridiculous the Sonic-related articles are on this site. Its ridiculous to have an article on multiple articles of the same character based on their different media depictions. So I just nominated the following articles for deletion

Bleh! I also nominated some of the child articles there too.Jonny2x4 (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Burned to ashes

I request that A Man In Black's edits be undone immediately. The articles aren't articles anymore, they're barely even stubs. Most of the supplied refs are gone. They haven't just been "cleansed with fire", they've been burned to ashes.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at some of the difs being thrown about up there, I'm going to have to go with AMiB on this one. Everything he removed was speculation, OR, and ridiculous levels of obscure details. If all that's left is stubs, well, that just means that there wasn't any real information in the article to begin with. Go find some sources that back up what had been in the articles, and that info can come back. If the only source is a series of quotes from the comic books that supposedly illustrate the "personality" of the character, that's just OR. --PresN (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

We need to bring back the articles. AMIB is completely destroying important articles. The only ones that i believe should be removed is:

  • Chaos
  • Babylon Rogues
  • Chao
  • Echidna

All other Sonic articles deserve to stay as we know more than enough info to create reliable pages for these characters. Next, we'll be seeing Sonic being put up for deletion...This needs to be stopped imediatley!  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  16:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Will there be reliable third party sources† to back up the information in these important articles and therefore allow the articles to meet Wikipedia policy on verifiability, no original research and the guidelines on general notability/notability (fiction) that myself and other editors have concerns about (though I have to admit, I don't even think even the most cold hearted deletionist would dare nominate Sonic for deletion)?
† P.S. References from Sega, the games themselves, comics, animated series, instruction manuals or likewise are classed as first party references and are not suitable to meet the policies mentioned above. --tgheretford (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Traditionally, when someone or something is put to a trial by fire, if they're burned to ashes they were found wanting.

Basically, people (including me) have gone through these articles looking for speculation, excessive plot detail, original research, and excess non-free images. The fact that they've found a lot of it is not their fault; it's the articles' fault, and evidence that the articles were faulty to begin with.

If you want fleshed-out articles, you need to go back and write well-sourced articles with an eye to describing the characters as artefacts of the real world, not people in a fictional universe. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If anyone cares, I've gone ahead and put List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games) back to an older version that is actually suitable enough to be called a character list. The two other separate lists can be redirected there if anyone wants to do so at this point. I imagine Fairfieldfencer will attempt to revert it, though. TTN (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

While the old list was awful and that version is a lot more useful in general, I'm not sure of making a Pokemon-style list is a terribly good idea. A bad list isn't much better than a bunch of bad short articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I hoping that the list will eventually be able to evolve into something like the two current FA video game lists (especially after a good chunk of the articles are merged). If that can't happen, it can be potentially merged into the series article or just left alone if we're still accepting the spin-off lists that don't need to establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not the only option for a merge. Characters could be merged based on a handful of reasonable in-universe organizations, or by game into game articles. There doesn't necessarily need to be a central place for information on Rouge the Bat; perhaps a description in the first game's article, then each game's article making reference to the first and mentioning any additions or changes.
Centralization can be needlessly synthetic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I won't be reverting anything. You've messed up these articles completely, I'm done with it!!!!!!!!!Fairfieldfencer FFF 20:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

At least put Big in the list of main characters. He's very important to the series. I believ that these articles need to stay:

I will be than happy to work on these with help. I will find proper sources to cite, and give only offical info. Does anyone agree with me?  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  19:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

A digression on responsibility

This should be noted: [26]. Fairfieldfencer seemingly canvassed SLC to come here. Note that in that message he said: Delete this message as soon as you read it, which seems to me that he is trying to hide the message. This type of behavior is not only sneaky, but seems a bit unappropriate. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I never put anything like that in!! I think my sisters stopped trying to just humiliate me and is trying to get me blocked, I'm going to have to change my password.Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, unless your sister is also soliciting your friends based on your history with them, not likely. It's not even against any rules or social codes to bring a discussion to someone's attention around here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Apparently she thought differennt.Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Erm... your sister should not be using your account, accidentally or not: WP:NOSHARE. --tgheretford (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
This is more than a little pathetic. Nobody's buying it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean? My sister is the one that put that up. Just like she's the one that put up, "This user account should be deleted because the owner is dead and a geek", on my userpage.Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't matter if you did it, your sister, your dog, that nice boy Jimmy from down the street...you're responsible for what's done with your account. Since there's no way anyone can prove just who, well...I hope you understand that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
So your sister is soliciting people to participate in a discussion on the merging/deletion of Sonic the Hedgehog video game articles and told the user to delete the message all at once? It'd be a bit believable if it wasn't so infinitely unbelievable. Just cop to it, dude. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I've been talking to hear about this merge. Which is seriously getting out of hand.Fairfieldfencer FFF 20:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Users whose accounts are compromised will be blocked indefinitely. Just thought I should point that out folks. --.:Alex:. 20:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Just change your password, make sure it doesn't happen again, problem solved. Bridies (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And don't forget to log out when you leave your computer, if you have other people in the house who are likely to get on your computer without your knowledge or permission. I concur, the next time that account shows signs of being compromised, it should be blocked without further warning. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The whole "my younger sibling used my account" routine sounds like something I would've said when I was 14 (not that I ever did mind you). Its immature and not inexcusable (regardless of its truthfulness). Jonny2x4 (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere and is now archived. Coordination of any honest effort to clean up Sonic-related articles should be done in a new section. User:Krator (t c) 12:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

CoD_4#Criticism

Validity of the 'criticism' not being the issue, I believe that it has been stated both here and in general (including Godking Jimbo, I believe) that we should avoid separate criticism sections, no? What content is there (besides being given undue weight) can be placed with the other paragraph of "negative" reviews in the reception section. There's no need for a seperate section, but I've been reverted, so I'm taking it here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Although WP:CRIT is an essay, it contains a large amount of information, particularly on biographies. On the whole, criticism sections are discouraged. Content should be merged with the relevant in order to provide a balanced and neutral viewpoint. In the case of reception, both favourable and unfavourable criticisms should be shown together to allow the reader to compare and contrast viewpoints. Anything else risks affecting the neutrality of the article and could be demonstrating a point of view. Hope this helps, Gazimoff WriteRead 00:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Negative criticism of the game (ignoring significant, notable technical issues) should be worked in with the normal discussion of the game's reception. It might be a separate paragraph but should not be a separate section. Technical issues and legal complications are the only cases where a separate section is called for, and that's assuming these are significant (eg, BioShock's section) and sourced. --MASEM 00:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The reception section's main prose already contains criticism. I would just cut and paste the criticism section onto the end of that, but it appears to be sourced to a blog, which means its information may not be suitable for inclusion anyway. -- Sabre (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It might be worth keeping it in the article in some form as opposed to removing it (presumably merged with the reception), as that blog happens to be by the Community Manager for Infinity Ward. If someone would be kind enough to quote a policy on blogs and reputable people that'd be great, as I think quoting that blog is pretty much like getting information straight out of IW. Chan Yin Keen | UserTalk Contribs 12:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:SPS. If the guy is in fact the developer from IW, then I'm not doubting it fits, but my point is the organization of a 'criticism' section needs to go. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Fourzerotwo is indeed the Community Manager of Infinity Ward, Robert Bowling (see here). Agree about the criticism section though, that paragraph seems more appropriate for the Multiplayer section. SeanMooney (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh no, my FA is going down the drain... Gary King (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Separately criticism sections are frowned upon. In this case, the paragraph should just be deleted. It's trivial, the netcode change in a platform specific patch is not something notable to include in the article. The only source is from the IW community manager whose blog is teeming with reams and reams of trivia that we wouldn't include, we shouldn't be including this. - hahnchen 17:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Note that the original source quoted in this diff, was a forum post by User:MrWorthless. - hahnchen 17:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Removing it was the right thing to do. Gary King (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you serious? It is a valid section on how the online experience is usually negative for non-American players because Infinity Ward implemented netcode to favour Americans. Sure it is a "robust QoS test" according to them. They don't see a problem with it. Why? Because they are American and its not like they ever lag. They have no idea what it is like for us Australians playing online in Call of Duty 4 at the moment. It is a valid section and should stay primarily because it affects people wanting to buy the game and it affects people that already own the game. The people need to know about what the online multi-player is like. If it is negative OR positive then it is Wikipedia's job to tell people how the online multi-player is for everyone that has or is going to get the game. The section needs to stay either in its own sub-section or mixed into Multiplayer (as it is now). I am strongly AGAINST removing it because it is a valid section and informs people about how bad the multiplayer is in countries other than the United States. ~ User:MrWorthless —Preceding comment was added at 02:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Its now part of the multiplayer section. Its been kept yet we've regained our neutral article presentation. Job done methinks. -- Sabre (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
No, not job done. It's a trivial issue that has an entire paragraph devoted to it in the multiplayer section. There's more on the QoS issue, which has only been noted in the community manager's blog, than the entirety of the DLC or any other patch. It's not Wikipedia's job to notify readers of every single issue with the game, the blog lists hundreds of issues and talking points. Yet somehow, the only one we're singling out is the QoS issue, this is undue weight. - hahnchen 18:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure not EVERY issue but this issue is very important. It affects everyone that isn't American (probably more than 60% of CoD4 players). Please refrain from deleting important parts of the article just because YOU think it isn't accurate. ~ User:MrWorthless
Furthermore, we need to retain a neutral article stance. You are trying to set out Call of Duty 4 as having no problems at all, which is not true. We need both sides of the story. This is one paragraph of a very important problem with online multi-player which most Call of Duty 4 players agree is a big problem at the moment. ~ User:MrWorthless —Preceding comment was added at 05:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
We aren't trying to say CoD 4 has no problems, that's why there's already criticism in the reception section. -- Sabre (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
This is criticism that has emerged only recently. It is NOT an unreliable source because the owner of the blog is an INFINITY WARD STAFF MEMBER. You know, the people that make the game in the first place?! MrWorthless (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
You don't give a shit about the sourcing, you showed that when you originally sourced it to your own forum post. Your agenda has been to place this piece of criticism in at all costs, even though it only has a single source, and is not notable enough to be mentioned by third parties. You've not included anything else in the patch, you've not tried to include anything else in the community blog. Just this single piece of criticism that affects you personally. You've not convinced anyone that this issue is more important than all the other unencyclopedic trivia in the blog. I would appreciate if others could watch this article. - hahnchen 11:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, the article was already featured. We should not be discussing whether we should remove a new piece of contentious material, but whether it should be added. - hahnchen 11:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that if I write a new section dedicated to the patch and EVERYTHING included you would be willing to leave it in? MrWorthless (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
With proper sources of course? MrWorthless (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't think it's necessary. Outside of people who actually play the game, who would be interested in knowing about the patch? When taken into account that we write the article for everyone, gamer and non-gamer alike, it's really not needed. Chan Yin Keen | UTC 08:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
It regards the online gameplay of the game and I am guessing that the majority of people reading the article are gamers. It can't hurt to have information on it, can it? I will try to keep it as short as possible. MrWorthless (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
To quote the WPVG article guidelines,

If the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. Always remember the bigger picture: video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers.

I leave you to judge what that means. Chan Yin Keen | UTC 11:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I like that statement and agree with it, and think that this article should abide by it. When I worked on the article during FAC, I removed several statements that would only be of use to people who play the game, including the Plot and Development sections. Gary King (talk) 04:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"Are you saying that if I write a new section dedicated to the patch and EVERYTHING included you would be willing to leave it in?" - show some third party sources and we can talk. giggy (:O) 04:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

http://consoleupdates.com/2007/11/16/call-of-duty-4-xbox-360-patch-details/ + http://www.firingsquad.com/news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=19796 + http://www.ferrisgti.com/2008/03/call-of-duty-4-fight-lag.html -- MrWorthless (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Now, rather than throw that in the article and create more drama, can you draft something in your userspace (eg. at User:MrWorthless/CoD4), and we can discuss from there. giggy (:O) 11:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there something from a reliable source that we could use, instead of blogs? Gary King (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
At best, I'd use the one from the firingsquad.com. Otherwise the other two just don't fly with me as far as WP:RS is concerned. But again, I question whether there is a real need to document the patch as World of Warcraft doesn't even document the patchlog in detail. Or at all. Chan Yin Keen | UTC 18:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)