Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sega: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 284: Line 284:
I'm going to "sit on my hands" on this matter, my only problem is if TTN is allowed to do the merging, the list will end up as it did when they did this previously. '''<span style="border:1px solid; background: #FF00FF; font-family:Curlz MT;">[[User:Doktor_Wilhelm| <span style="background: #00FF00; color: #000000;">&nbsp;Doktor&nbsp;</span>]][[User:Doktor_Wilhelm| <span style="background: #FF00FF; color: #000000;">Wilhelm&nbsp;</span>]]</span>''' 17:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to "sit on my hands" on this matter, my only problem is if TTN is allowed to do the merging, the list will end up as it did when they did this previously. '''<span style="border:1px solid; background: #FF00FF; font-family:Curlz MT;">[[User:Doktor_Wilhelm| <span style="background: #00FF00; color: #000000;">&nbsp;Doktor&nbsp;</span>]][[User:Doktor_Wilhelm| <span style="background: #FF00FF; color: #000000;">Wilhelm&nbsp;</span>]]</span>''' 17:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
:I decided to just give up with the argument. I can't win, and I know that now. But I will put in relevant information if TTN is the one that does it. I did tell TTN, though, that he would have to convince you, Doktor Wilhelm, about the change before he did it because you're probably going to end up in an edit war with him. [[User:Redphoenix526|Redphoenix526]] ([[User talk:Redphoenix526|talk]]) 18:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
:I decided to just give up with the argument. I can't win, and I know that now. But I will put in relevant information if TTN is the one that does it. I did tell TTN, though, that he would have to convince you, Doktor Wilhelm, about the change before he did it because you're probably going to end up in an edit war with him. [[User:Redphoenix526|Redphoenix526]] ([[User talk:Redphoenix526|talk]]) 18:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to read this entire argument, so I won't. The only thing I have to say is inarguable. A characters notability is NOT determined by how many games they are in. If it were, Big the Cat could be under "major characters" from all the cameos he's seen. We all know, (even if we won't admit it) that Big is NOT a major character, and he is currently on the "List of Minor Sonic the Hedgehog Characters" article. A characters notability is determined by exactly how much history, coverage, fanbase, usage, and impact in the series they have. Characters like Tails, Amy, Shadow, and Eggman, have huge amounts of impact, their own fan/cult followings, and are frequently and consistenly portrayed, and have been for years. However, Silver, Blaze, Marine, and the like need to be featured more often, with more consistent impact on the series to be considered "major" characters. However, a character does not neccessarily have to be major to be notable. Omega is somewhat notable, and as far as I know, he still has his own article, and he is NOT as of now, a "major" character. Just be careful not to judge entirely on how many games a character is in, but for that to be PART of the equation. Signed, RADMAN622 [[Special:Contributions/76.105.204.255|76.105.204.255]] ([[User talk:76.105.204.255|talk]]) 21:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


== Virtua Fighter Article Merger Suggestion ==
== Virtua Fighter Article Merger Suggestion ==

Revision as of 21:59, 13 February 2008

Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega/Header

Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega/Styles/MediBar

User box

Doktor_Wilhelm:I've created a user box, to keep in style with the usual info box style:

File:Hereimage.png
 This Wikipedian is a Member of
The Sega Project.




Gaogier:That userbox does look good with the old sonic and everything, definitely better than prior but its still not amazing.

I am a member of
The Sega Project!

,




OPINIONS ON CHOICE FOR OUR USERBOX, DOKTORS USERBOX HAS CHANGED SINCE AND IT HAS HAD A FEW EDITS FrOM NUMEROUS USERS AND WE HAVE DECIDED TO GO WITH THAT

Give me your opinions which ones we should use or if we should use both?
Or why we should design a new one or post your design?
Gaogier Talk! 20:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Doktor Wilhelm's design looks good. Until we decide, I'm going to use both. Redphoenix526 (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the Segaproject banner

the {{Segaproject}} banner when 'nested' on a talk page, says that it's from the playstation project? Also there's other small problems with other templates, like the "assesment scale" link in the Segaproject banner thingy, I guess this is a problem from them being 'borrowed' from other projects, is there anyone who knows how to fix these prolems, or anywhere that we could ask, such as the video game project?
 Doktor  Wilhelm  01:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That has all been fixed except the assessment banner, it does link to our page but our page is a replica of video games one as we borrowed that part from them. Gaogier Talk! 09:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Assessment

Hi, I'm Redphoenix526. I'd like to help start up an assessment department for the Sega Project, as it is what I do best, having assessed over 60 previously unassessed articles as part of WikiProject Video Games and done a couple reassessments (I also leave a paragraph of explanation text whenever I reassess). I am currently listing articles from B-class to Stub-class (as well as list-class), and if I think an article is A-class worthy, I will ask on this page for another person to look and agree with me if they do see fit. I think it would be appropriate to create categories of all of the article classes and importances and list what's in those categories in an assessment department page linked to the main page. Now, I'm not sure how to do this, so I could use some help if you guys agree with me on doing this. Also, I have a personal request for someone to review an article that I recently listed as part of the project that I've put a lot of time into, along with Radman622, the article about Crush 40. We're getting another WP:VG assessment soon, but I'd like another opinion, the opinion of this project. Anyway, I'd be happy to help start up an assessment department here and start assessing articles on behalf of the project. I'll find what I can and assess it in the meantime. Redphoenix526 (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we do have a assessment page we will be adding to the links menu but it is a complete copy of the WikiProject video games so we do need a lot of help and i would appreciate it, i am trying to give a feel to my WikiProject as kind of fun with the layout so people do not feel overly serious in the project but serious enough to do the work, thats why our design is unique. maybe if you could follow our page layout for the assessment page so we can carry on our ways ?, i think we need a good assessment team but we do follow the rule of no user can assess more than a B-Class without talking about it so you need to chat with us about this too when you are ready, Thank You Gaogier Talk! 23:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, when you get the assessment page up, I'll head up the assessment team. I can develop the page and keep it up to task, using a similar format as the WikiProject Video Games page. Just can you make sure to add a list-class (and maybe a disambig-class) to the categories of articles? WikiProject Video Games doesn't have this, but many other WikiProjects do (such as WikiProject Rock music) and I think it would be a useful class for assessment with these articles. Redphoenix526 (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To-Do New Placement

Moving the location of our to-do list corrupted its location, i'm looking into the matter. Gaogier Talk! 23:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Priority

Ehem, I just noticed Sega Mega Drive to be a High priority article... not that I want to object that, but all home consoles and first party games should be classified as top priority, after all Sega is mostly known for them. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably my fault, I didn't want to assume that everything it Top priority, so High seemed a good enough starting point, I'm just adding |nested=yes to a load of articles, I think I'm going Article Blind or something...  Doktor  Wilhelm  01:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've made the same mistake before, too, with the Dreamcast. Needless to say, Gaogier chewed me out with it. Redphoenix526 (talk) 06:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a template of Sega stubs {{Template:Sega-stub}}, it shows as this at the bottom of the article:

This Sega-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

I think that we should have co-opt it into the Sega Project, if it's not already a part? Also, on the category page (at Category:Sega stubs) there are a lot of sega pages that arn't already a part of the Sega Project, as does Category:Sega games? (there are more Sega related Categorys, but I've lost track of them), Also worth co-opting into this project might be the Portal:Sonic?  Doktor  Wilhelm  02:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two more things of interest to us could be Category:Sega game series templates and Template:Sega (There's a lot more of this stuff on wikipedia, it all needs to be sorted out!?)  Doktor  Wilhelm  22:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sega Category list

Category:Sega

Whoo, now that's a list! I'm sure there's a lot that I have missed, but I'll find them soon enough!  Doktor  Wilhelm  04:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have used Template:Sega before i was on the BETA version of our project. Gaogier Talk! 19:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Discussion

TTN has re-opened a disussion for the merger of Other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games) and Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games)‎ in to the List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games) article (The discussion is at WikiProject Video games).  Doktor  Wilhelm  17:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll help contribute to that argument. Doesn't make any sense to me why it should happen. Redphoenix526 (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is up to us not them! we are wikiproject sega this goes through us!

I think we should merge, what do you others think? Gaogier Chat! 19:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merge, but not the way TTN did it. It's a little too stripped down in his example. 149.159.73.23 (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, that's me above, sorry. Redphoenix526 (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elven6's Contributions To Our Page


Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega/Did you know
Wikipedia:WikiProject Sega/Things you can do
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sega/Quotes
I don't think we need them but i'm will to take different peoples opinions. Gaogier Talk! 20:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think they're necessary, either. They're just not really practical or worthy of the project. Redphoenix526 (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sega article

I find it a little odd that for as big as the company is and as important as it is to our project that the article Sega is not even a Good Article. I've put it up on the to do list to bring it to GA status, if nobody objects to it. Redphoenix526 (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second the motion. I advise getting a reassessment, or a peer review in order to get a direction to go in. By the way, I mean reassessment by the VG project, not this project. Signed RADMAN622 76.105.204.255 (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logs Page

We now have a logs page, HURRAY!
To find it go to the main page and click Logs on our navigation bar.
Gaogier Talk! 19:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Look for people who have made substantial contributions to pages in the sega scope and invite them to the project!, an invitation can be found on the awards tab on the main page 

Gaogier Talk! 19:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any other ideas to get more members? Gaogier Talk! 19:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of main page content

This list has now been removed from our LowerLeftPanel And this talk page view has now been removed from the Left Panel due to large content box Everyone with me?

Gaogier Talk! 20:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cream the rabbit is in the scope of WikiProject mammals

Talk:Cream the Rabbit

looks like she's a mammal :S crazy, also sonic is not, how does that work :S Gaogier Talk! 20:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, they're a weird project, I guess. Oh well. Redphoenix526 (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like she was added by someone playing silly buggers!  Doktor  Wilhelm  21:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clashing Colours

I think the Template that is being placed on all Sega Project pages needs to be changed, "less is more", the clashing colours of Purple and Red arn't making the pages very easy on the eye, also why it there a several pixal large red border around everything? I propose a compleate rework of the template used, to match Sega's corporate colours as shown on the Sega of America] website! If colour names can't be worked out from viewing the site I have posted the CSS code at User:Doktor_Wilhelm/Sandbox, though I will be removing it soon! And maybe something a little more tastefull as displayed at Wikipedia:Musicians or understated like Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games.  Doktor  Wilhelm  21:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The red and purple is a little bit overdone, but it's Gaogier's project, so I say that if he wants to design it like this, it's up to him. I actually find that I'm used to the features like the navigation bar (by the way, I'm still thinking about what to do with that last spare page.) We'll just have to see what happens, and ask Gaogier. Redphoenix526 (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
also the use of things like {{User:ReyBrujo/Styles/Footer}} in the coding, as well as other problems could undermine the project! it's not just Gaogier's project, wikipedia is public, and nothing belongs to anyone on here (well beside the non-fair images, but that's another matter), I think the actuall features of the style are good, but as Gaogier has taken them from other projects and users (and often just links to their templates), we have inherited several problems! Also the colour layout seems rather vain to me!  Doktor  Wilhelm  20:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken; I didn't even see that in the coding before, so I've removed it from everywhere I could. The colors definitely could use a change (blue and white for SEGA colors, anyone?). Gaogier, if you're reading this, there do need to be some changes for two reasons: to keep us out of trouble and to make us not seem like a bunch of wackos with the colors. Redphoenix526 (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also even though Gaogier started the project, should their personal user pages be listed on Category:WikiProject_Sega? I second the blue and white idea, I also think that the borders should be removed, as they create problems with the page layouts on different browsers!  Doktor  Wilhelm  07:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to talk to Gaogier about it. Redphoenix526 (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have taken it into my own hands, and now instead of using four or more templates in each headed (includding templates within templates), I have began the use of just {{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sega/Header}} and {{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sega/Styles/MediBar}}, hopfully the 2nd template can be worked into the first (as it's ugly with all the red wikilinks) so that we only need one template per page! Hopfully well be able to build up the WikiProject:Sega to be a serious and respected force for improvement of all Sega articles on Wikipedia (and also I have removed any un-sega-related pages from Category:WikiProject_Sega).  Doktor  Wilhelm  17:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to fix the red wikilinks. I think many of the pages are already there but not linked right, so I'll do what I can. Redphoenix526 (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving .gif of gameplay?

On Wonder Boy (video game) there is "A short example of Wonder Boy's gameplay"[1] (it's also used on Platform game), is this viable for something to do for other Sega games? say like a few seconds of Sonic The Hedgehog to show how it plays (like how fast Sonic moves), though I'm sure it'd need a short section describing why it's relevent to the article? Sorry, just seen it and thoght "wow, that's a good idea".  Doktor  Wilhelm  02:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea, but you're going to have to include a good fair use rationale for the images. Redphoenix526 (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The F.U.R. would have to be pretty water tight too.  Doktor  Wilhelm  18:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could include something about it explaining the fast gameplay that Sonic the Hedgehog brought to the world. Redphoenix526 (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Council Members

Is there some sort of voting system?  Doktor  Wilhelm  18:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. This was all Gaogier's idea, and I was just told yesterday that I'm a council member. Probably just establishing a system. Redphoenix526 (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need further information Gaogier Chat! 21:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe further information should be put onto the main page?  Doktor  Wilhelm  01:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

Chat On Merging Phantasy Star Online, Phantasy Star Online ver.2, Phantasy Star Online Episode I & II & Phantasy Star Online Episode I & II Plus. Gaogier Chat! 21:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are all the same game. (Plus Blue Burst is already a part of the main article).  Doktor  Wilhelm  01:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So... You have not told me your opinion you just told me what you know..., i know we should merge the dreamcast ones defiantly. Gaogier Chat! 02:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is Merge, as they are all the same game, Blue Burst is a PC only version, so the main article is already multi format! and the seperate articles are all stubs that could be nicly worked into sections of the main article (I placed the merger tags).  Doktor  Wilhelm  02:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually happen to own this game, and yes, they are all the same. As long as there are separate sections about differences between each, then my opinion is Merge. If it highlights the differences and some info (such as PSO1&2's addition of a second story line, the famed Episode 2), then it has a better class of becoming a higher-class article. Redphoenix526 (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In our scope?

Camelot Software Planning, Is it? Gaogier Chat! 21:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say that if it is or was a part of Sega, it is within our scope!  Doktor  Wilhelm  01:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then! Gaogier Chat! 02:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic the Hedgehog characters

I guess I can give this a try. I assume everyone here is aware about the the game lists, but I also want to go deeper into this. Every single character article besides Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, Doctor Eggman, Shadow, Metal Sonic, and Amy needs to be merged to their respecive lists. That includes any alternates like Sonic the Hedgehog (TV series & Archie comic). Each specific piece of media will have one list that will describe its respecitve characters. Those seven articles will sum up the other versions of the character, but the list will cover it in more detail. That will leave us with seven character articles and seven lists as far as I can count (Video games, Archie Comics series, Sonic the Comic, Sonic X, SatAM cartoon, Sonic Underground, and Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog). That'll be the neatest and most organized way to deal with these characters. TTN (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they are worked into the main game articles, then I think it'll work out, but just compleatly removing any mention of one game characters (as has been proposed in the past) will not work. A list of all articles that are effected by this needs to be drawn up, if only so that either information or whole articles, do not go missing in any merger (as has also happened in the past, with these articles and TTN's unannounced merger, and as is happening here, as this effects more than just the seven articles TTN has highlighted). I can't see people/fans being happy with the removal of several of the singular character articles!  Doktor  Wilhelm  19:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The one game characters do not have any impact outside of their one game, so listing them is essentially just repeating the plot over again. That is not encyclopedically relevant. You're free to find a WP:EL acceptable Sonic wiki to provide in external link sections, though. The articles that will be merged can be found in Category:Sonic the Hedgehog characters; only fourteen will be left. Fans and other interested parties are inconsequential in this discussion. They can use a Sonic wiki or play/watch/read the pieces of media in order to get the information. TTN (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've a feeling TTN is nearing WP:SPIDER over this subject! Care to state which 14? and why are they notable? I am truly sorry that I do not follow TTN's views that all articles relating to fiction on wkipedia, should be condenced into one single article, but as I have stated before, wikipedia is open to the public, and the public will add (back) what they find relevent, regardless of the old guards views and urges to have wikipedia as an online version of the dusty old books that have no relevence to anything in the modern world!  Doktor  Wilhelm  19:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I explained which ones in the first message. The main seven characters and the seven lists from the different pieces of media are what are going to stick around. My god, stop with that damn argument. I don't care if I'm being uncivil here, but that argument is the epitome of any word relating to stupid. Nobody with a decent viewpoint thinks that fiction deserves less than any other topic, and this site is not to be used to flesh out every minor part of a topic. What is special about this site is that we can cover things like pieces of media, passing memes, and topics that most would not consider eternally relevant. That does not mean that we need to have to write the same plot summary over twenty times in order to understand a topic. We provide what is necessary to understand a topic, not to act as a substitute. TTN (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But can you please expand on it, I don't quite understand what you are getting at! Please forgive my lack of faith in your views, but I have seen how you go about making Wikipedia into your own ideal!  Doktor  Wilhelm  20:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want explained further? We'll have articles for the seven most important characters and one list per piece of media. That is the gist of it. TTN (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also by "needs to be merged to their respecive lists", are you still looking to merge Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games) & Other villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games) into List of characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games)? as you make no mention of this here!  Doktor  Wilhelm  19:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you reread my first comment because I clearly explain everything there. TTN (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before I make any commentary, let me just say thanks to TTN for coming over here and discussing it with WikiProject Sega, as this concerns us probably more than WikiProject Video Games. Anyway, I'm just not sure if a couple of the characters, particularly Cream the Rabbit, Rouge the Bat, Silver the Hedgehog, and Blaze the Cat should be condensed into that list. First off, I know this has nothing to do with notability, but none of these characters are single game. In particular, Rouge the Bat serves several roles of importance in each of the games she's been in since Sonic Adventure 2. The others are relatively recent characters and don't have much history yet, but given the role of Cream as the new innocent, polite character that Amy originally way, and that Blaze and Silver have only been around since 2006 but have games with their own storylines (in Blaze's case, two), I think they are developing importance in the series and may yet be even more so notable by the next game, if they're not already. Everyone else probably needs to be fused in to that list, and I don't have any objections. And as for the condensed list, I understand how one-game characters usually don't have notability, but I think some of the more recent ones, like Marine the Raccoon, have only recently appeared and may yet show up as a popular character, much like Shadow did in Sonic Adventure 2. Of course, this is all depending on what happens, but I hope you see my point with this. I do agree that some action does need to be taken on these lists to bring them together, but I don't like all the condensing you've put with it. Redphoenix526 (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The one game characters being removed and non-notable characters being merged are two different things. The first has do with arranging information and the second has to do with satisfying out notability requirements. The characters that are not likely to have real world information need to be merged because they show no real world relevance, unlike the other characters which should have creation an reception information. If any of the one game characters make recurring appearances (i.e. if Marine develops a role like Blaze's), they can be added to the list. While it may not be exactly to your liking, if we do this, and have a Sonic wiki as a common external link, it should work out. I suggest that you work on one anyways, so you can have deeper information that is more expanded than what we currently have here. TTN (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


My problem with this starts here, which started with TTN removing articles with out notification and ended when TTN failed to get a concensus to merge the articles, just under a month ago! They then reopened the discussion for a merger on the Video game projects page, without any kind of notification on the articles in question! I think first and formost merger tags need to be placed on the effected articles, so that more articles do not vanish over night!  Doktor  Wilhelm  20:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was forced to do that because you are too focused on covering the information that interests you as a fan of the series, and you think that a consensus is based upon the number of people that agree with one side. That does not allow for discussion actual discussion. I really suggest that you just focus your time on a Sonic the Hedgehog wiki (if you can find one, I'll help move anything that needs to be moved), so you can just have the information that you want. TTN (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As we are sharing views on what people should do, once again may I suggest TTN should go and edit dusty old books in the back room of some forgotten library! I have never forced anyone to do anything, being sneaky is your own choice! As I have said, the fist I know of any of this was when I was informed that articles had gone missing without warning!  Doktor  Wilhelm  20:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are trivializing the purpose of this site. This is not meant to be a fan guide. You have thousands of websites for that. This is meant to cover the characters in an encyclopedic light, which does not require close to one hundred articles. TTN (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"close to one hundred articles"? Wow, care to expand on just what these "one hundred articles" are. as I beleive you are being a bit dramatic! Again I beleive you may be in danger of attempting WP:SPIDER if you don't get your own way! Please just calm down! You do not have to change my views, and that is all that I am stating!  Doktor  Wilhelm  22:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TTN, I understand what you're talking about, but I don't believe in merging something if there may be enough real world information to be notable. Just because it's not there now doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Wikipedia is a working project, and not everything's been found yet, and if there's a more practical solution in finding sources, then that's what needs to happen, not merging. As for the one-game characters, yeah, I can see that one really does need to be merged one way or another. I'm not so much concerned with one-game characters as I am with the fusion of these character, so that's more or less what I want to talk about, if that's all right. I think you're being a little narrow-minded about the topics in question. And what Doktor Wilhelm said, it is just common courtesy to get a consensus, but I'm not here to make personal attacks; I'm here to debate a possible merge. Redphoenix526 (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way that fictional topics should generally work goes like this: The main article is formed --> the characters section cannot hold the characters --> a list is formed --> character sections grow too large from the inclusion of real world information --> they are split into articles. While we ignore that process most often, it should be utilized here. When the characters obtain enough info to stand with the main characters, they can be split back into articles. The article do not need to exist for that to happen. As for consensus, it comes from discussion based around policies and guidelines, which could not be done at the time. TTN (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, I know this is off topic, but TTN, could you explain the consensus situation? This is completely a question I'm asking for improvement of my own skill at editing Wikipedia. You can respond on my talk page so we leave space for discussion here on topic. But back on topic, I guess I'll have to go through and get some real world information myself, if I can find the time. If I can find significant real world information for these characters, would that prevent a merger of them? Redphoenix526 (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus means a understanding between editors. That does not mean that it is always an understanding between editors on a single page. Policies and guidelines represent a larger consensus that cannot be overruled by five users on one talk page. That is what I'm talking about in this case. The policies and guidelines are clear that these do not belong, but the users are not really willing to follow them. That does not allow for discussion.
If signifcant real world info is provided, the pages will have asserted notability and will be worthy of staying. It's unlikely that you'll find anything work keeping an article, though. While the fact that Silver went through various designs is real world information, it is pretty much all you're going to find besides some minor reception information comparing him to the other two hedgehogs (that's better suited for a list entry at this point). TTN (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps the vast majority of users (including myself) either don't understand the guidelines or disagree with you on it. I'm not here to debate it, though, as I wasn't involved in it. Anyway, we'll see about the information. I'd like to have a couple of days to find some sources, if that's ok, since it's sure to be a little difficult, and I don't know much about formatting references beside adding a basic inline citation and citing one source multiple times (check out an article I worked extensively at, Crush 40, about that one.) But I'll take a look, and if after a few days I can't find anything, then we'll discuss it again. Is this okay with you, TTN? Redphoenix526 (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I agree with TNNs proposal, particularly with regards to merging the non-notable characters. My reasons are on the VG project's equivalent discussion, but to reiterate: there's next to nothing written elsewhere about these characters (as far I can see; redpheonix may yet prove me wrong but I doubt it). This leads to the articles being largely composed of slavish regurgitations of plot details; furthermore a lot of the prose style is embarrassingly bad. Cut all that away, which would make it actually readable nevermind comforming to guidelines, and whatever scant information is left should fit easily into a bigger list. It's the logical thing to do. Bridies (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll do what I can. It's not that I disagree with what you're saying, Bridies, but I don't think some of the characters are non-notable. The articles for these characters are just not yet showing notability, and if you take a look at my userpage, you'd see one of my philosophies is not deleting pages if notability can be established. So I'm going to give it a crack, if I can find the time. Redphoenix526 (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to "sit on my hands" on this matter, my only problem is if TTN is allowed to do the merging, the list will end up as it did when they did this previously.  Doktor  Wilhelm  17:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to just give up with the argument. I can't win, and I know that now. But I will put in relevant information if TTN is the one that does it. I did tell TTN, though, that he would have to convince you, Doktor Wilhelm, about the change before he did it because you're probably going to end up in an edit war with him. Redphoenix526 (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to read this entire argument, so I won't. The only thing I have to say is inarguable. A characters notability is NOT determined by how many games they are in. If it were, Big the Cat could be under "major characters" from all the cameos he's seen. We all know, (even if we won't admit it) that Big is NOT a major character, and he is currently on the "List of Minor Sonic the Hedgehog Characters" article. A characters notability is determined by exactly how much history, coverage, fanbase, usage, and impact in the series they have. Characters like Tails, Amy, Shadow, and Eggman, have huge amounts of impact, their own fan/cult followings, and are frequently and consistenly portrayed, and have been for years. However, Silver, Blaze, Marine, and the like need to be featured more often, with more consistent impact on the series to be considered "major" characters. However, a character does not neccessarily have to be major to be notable. Omega is somewhat notable, and as far as I know, he still has his own article, and he is NOT as of now, a "major" character. Just be careful not to judge entirely on how many games a character is in, but for that to be PART of the equation. Signed, RADMAN622 76.105.204.255 (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virtua Fighter Article Merger Suggestion

Now I'm not a Mergist like TTN (though I do respect his points of view), but having worked in the assessment department, I've run across a lot of Virtua Fighter characters with either stubs or start-class articles which barely even qualify as start-class. In fact, none of them are above start-class, and I'm not sure any one of them should have an article to themselves. Would it be logical to fuse all of the articles about Virtua Fighter characters into one list, since they're all pretty much stubs anyway? I'm going to ask for a consensus here first, before anyone proposes a merger. Redphoenix526 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there's no need for all the characters to be so spread out, merging them into List of Virtua Fighter characters would be the best bet!  Doktor  Wilhelm  —Preceding comment was added at 20:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added comment: Of course, all the information about each of the characters would be brought into this, and a much more comprehensive list would be constructed than what is currently present. Just thought I'd make this clear. Redphoenix526 (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and add merger tags to all of those articles, since there hasn't been any objections yet. If some turn up, we'll discuss it. Redphoenix526 (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sega&oldid=191259507"