Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters/Archive 1) (bot |
→Proposed merge with Big the Cat: RFC CLOSED |
||
Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
== Proposed merge with [[Big the Cat]] == |
== Proposed merge with [[Big the Cat]] == |
||
{{archive top|result=Consensus to merge. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 23:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)}} |
|||
The sourcing or appearances relevant for this character article have not substantially changed in two years. The Reception section remains a collection of every minor mention of the character, which together do not constitute [[WP:SIGCOV|significant coverage]]. The precedent, based on [[WP:KR|the Ken Rosenberg RFC]], is that video game character listicle entries alone are insufficient to substantiate a full article. Everything that needs to be said about Big can be said adequately in the character list article without [[WP:COATRACK|coatracking]] for primary source detail (which is outside the scope of Wikipedia, as a generalist encyclopedia). <span style="background:#F0F0FF; padding:3px 9px 4px">[[User talk:Czar|<span style='font:bold small-caps 1.2em Avenir;color:#B048B5'>czar</span>]]</span> 03:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC) |
The sourcing or appearances relevant for this character article have not substantially changed in two years. The Reception section remains a collection of every minor mention of the character, which together do not constitute [[WP:SIGCOV|significant coverage]]. The precedent, based on [[WP:KR|the Ken Rosenberg RFC]], is that video game character listicle entries alone are insufficient to substantiate a full article. Everything that needs to be said about Big can be said adequately in the character list article without [[WP:COATRACK|coatracking]] for primary source detail (which is outside the scope of Wikipedia, as a generalist encyclopedia). <span style="background:#F0F0FF; padding:3px 9px 4px">[[User talk:Czar|<span style='font:bold small-caps 1.2em Avenir;color:#B048B5'>czar</span>]]</span> 03:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
:I see absolutely no reason for the merge not to happen, and the character is no longer notable enough for it's own article, so I '''support''' merging the Big the Cat article into this one. [[User:Raptormimus456|Raptormimus456]] ([[User talk:Raptormimus456|talk]]) 21:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC) |
:I see absolutely no reason for the merge not to happen, and the character is no longer notable enough for it's own article, so I '''support''' merging the Big the Cat article into this one. [[User:Raptormimus456|Raptormimus456]] ([[User talk:Raptormimus456|talk]]) 21:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
*'''Merge''', as everything that is not just indiscriminately-placed information about the character (such as plot details that belong in a relevant fan wiki) can be covered in the list. '''''[[User:Esquivalience|<span style="color: #33BBFF; font-family:Lato, monospace'">Esquivalience</span>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Esquivalience|<span style="color:#00B88A;">t</span>]]</sup>''' 14:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC) |
*'''Merge''', as everything that is not just indiscriminately-placed information about the character (such as plot details that belong in a relevant fan wiki) can be covered in the list. '''''[[User:Esquivalience|<span style="color: #33BBFF; font-family:Lato, monospace'">Esquivalience</span>]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Esquivalience|<span style="color:#00B88A;">t</span>]]</sup>''' 14:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
*'''Merge''' - I didn't want to be the only bad guy again, so I was waiting to see how things were going, so now I'm deciding to weigh in, and also in favor of merging. There's just very little in the way of creation or reception on him. I removed a few bits for various reasons - usually that the sources weren't considered reliable - and what's left is a few journalists adding a single sentence here or there calling the character "fat" or "stupid" in the game reviews, and a few other passing mentions of "I hate that guy" or "I'm glad he's not in X game". That's not the significant coverage we require for articles. I mean, I didn't see a single article dedicated to the subject. I'm not sure I even saw a ''paragraph'' dedicated to it. Far too much of the article is just plot, and he's not even really know much for that (and it shows, its mostly sourced to the games he comes from - 1st party accounts - rather than third party accounts.) [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 16:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC) |
*'''Merge''' - I didn't want to be the only bad guy again, so I was waiting to see how things were going, so now I'm deciding to weigh in, and also in favor of merging. There's just very little in the way of creation or reception on him. I removed a few bits for various reasons - usually that the sources weren't considered reliable - and what's left is a few journalists adding a single sentence here or there calling the character "fat" or "stupid" in the game reviews, and a few other passing mentions of "I hate that guy" or "I'm glad he's not in X game". That's not the significant coverage we require for articles. I mean, I didn't see a single article dedicated to the subject. I'm not sure I even saw a ''paragraph'' dedicated to it. Far too much of the article is just plot, and he's not even really know much for that (and it shows, its mostly sourced to the games he comes from - 1st party accounts - rather than third party accounts.) [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 16:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
{{archive bottom}} |
|||
== External links modified == |
== External links modified == |
Revision as of 23:49, 3 April 2016
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Sticks the Badger
Should Sticks be integrated into this page? While she's primarily associated with the Sonic Boom brand (appearing in all four Boom games, 3 of which were playable appearances), Sega's been integrating her into the main series as of late; she's got an official profile on the Japanese "Sonic Channel" website (which focuses almost entirely on the main series), and she's now playable in both Runners and the new Mario & Sonic game. It might not be a bad idea to write up a brief blurb with her basic personality traits, game appearances, and some details on her creation and the comparatively unusual means by which she became part of the franchise. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see why she can't, honestly; the article covers other pieces of Sonic Boom media, so Sticks should be fine to include here. Raptormimus456 (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yup, she's fine to go in now. The main inclusion criteria for the article is for a character to appear in more than one game, which she has, so she's good. If she's ever been removed, it was from back before the Boom games were out, or due to it being a poorly written or unsourced entry. Sergecross73 msg me 15:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Cool. I'll leave it to someone else to type something up, since being an anon, I'm not exactly in a position to edit the page. While on the subject of re-adding characters, what's the stance on the Deadly Six? Their primary appearance is Lost World, of course, but we've also had members, if not the whole group, making appearances in other titles. All six made non-playable story appearances in Runners and as a trophy in Smash Bros Wii U, Zavok and Zazz are playable in Rio, and Zazz has been a boss in Dash and Runners. Notable enough for addition, or should we keep them off? -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have no problem with their inclusion either. Really, even both Sonic Lost World iterations are separate games really... Sergecross73 msg me 19:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, since that other editor didn't leave an edit summary, but your additions are supposed to be sourced. That could be why you're facing opposition. Sergecross73 msg me 02:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- It seems to have died down at this point, at least; it was only one person reverting the edit, and they seem to have decided not to pursue the matter any longer. I'd source it, but of course I'm not quite sure what we should source here; the Sonic Channel entry, maybe? Raptormimus456 (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well, you're kinda doing it backwards, you should start with what sources say, and write around that. I'm sure there's some Boom previews/reviews that mention her... Sergecross73 msg me 23:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- I took a shot at expanding it a bit, using a Sega blog primary source and a few of the critical reviews for Shattered Crystal. Mz7 (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Very nice, thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- I took a shot at expanding it a bit, using a Sega blog primary source and a few of the critical reviews for Shattered Crystal. Mz7 (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well, you're kinda doing it backwards, you should start with what sources say, and write around that. I'm sure there's some Boom previews/reviews that mention her... Sergecross73 msg me 23:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- It seems to have died down at this point, at least; it was only one person reverting the edit, and they seem to have decided not to pursue the matter any longer. I'd source it, but of course I'm not quite sure what we should source here; the Sonic Channel entry, maybe? Raptormimus456 (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, since that other editor didn't leave an edit summary, but your additions are supposed to be sourced. That could be why you're facing opposition. Sergecross73 msg me 02:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have no problem with their inclusion either. Really, even both Sonic Lost World iterations are separate games really... Sergecross73 msg me 19:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Cool. I'll leave it to someone else to type something up, since being an anon, I'm not exactly in a position to edit the page. While on the subject of re-adding characters, what's the stance on the Deadly Six? Their primary appearance is Lost World, of course, but we've also had members, if not the whole group, making appearances in other titles. All six made non-playable story appearances in Runners and as a trophy in Smash Bros Wii U, Zavok and Zazz are playable in Rio, and Zazz has been a boss in Dash and Runners. Notable enough for addition, or should we keep them off? -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Proposed merge with Big the Cat
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The sourcing or appearances relevant for this character article have not substantially changed in two years. The Reception section remains a collection of every minor mention of the character, which together do not constitute significant coverage. The precedent, based on the Ken Rosenberg RFC, is that video game character listicle entries alone are insufficient to substantiate a full article. Everything that needs to be said about Big can be said adequately in the character list article without coatracking for primary source detail (which is outside the scope of Wikipedia, as a generalist encyclopedia). czar 03:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I see absolutely no reason for the merge not to happen, and the character is no longer notable enough for it's own article, so I support merging the Big the Cat article into this one. Raptormimus456 (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Although Big the Cat hadn't been in as many Sonic games as before, Big was a very controversial character, especially through the "Reaction and Impact" section of the article. I oppose merging the Big the Cat article into this one.Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Strong keep,
speedy keep. This is literally the exact same argument as two years before. The outcome of that was no consensus, and since you admit that the article has not changed, I don't see how this discussion will result in anything constructive. Considering the article is GA, it means it has passed (at least in reality) quite stringent assessment by an experienced Wikipedia editor and has not only demonstrated notability but also a whole host of other standards. I would at least get GA reviewer @CR4ZE: and article creator @Tezero: to comment here first. Additionally, the "Ken Rosenberg RFC" has been cherrypicked - I can name just as many deletion discussions where the consensus was to keep - like the infamous Sarah Bryant and Reiko Nagase AfDs, for example, off the top of my head. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 12:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think you already know that we redirect and delete GA articles all the time because there are examples on the page you just linked. The GA criteria is a minimum content bar that has nothing to do with topic notability or source quality. Our low bar for significance has changed significantly over the years (think Pokémon characters). We're building a generalist encyclopedia. Topics that lack dedicated coverage in vetted sources are best covered in a niche wiki of a different scope. The Ken Rosenberg RFC was designed as an instrumental question of whether several "significant" listicles together constitute enough coverage for a separate/dedicated article. Its conclusion and wide participation show how non-cherrypicked discussions end when they aren't brigaded by partisans. So I agree, this discussion requires (1) that editors look at the actual depth of coverage, and (2) new voices—less of us. czar 17:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- In theory GA is a "minimum content bar", but in practice this is not the case - about 1 in 216 Wikipedia articles actually meet the threshold, so unless you'd argue that 215/216 pages here are complete crap, it's pretty self evident that GA is only for articles well above the standard. It's also quite evident that, in reality, articles with obvious refimprove problems would be quickfailed during assessment. I also disagree that this is a "generalist" encyclopedia - it's an inclusive encyclopedia where all subjects are welcome, including the very niche, as long as they meet standards. Policies such as WP:N or GNG are meant to ensure that editors don't take advantage of this rule and add their own unsourced non-notable content, not to be used as a tool to bludgeon content one considers to be outside the mainstream. As for Ken Rosenberg, You've admitted yourself that precedence doesn't always work, this isn't a particularly strong precedent (it's just one discussion), and the "brigading" accusations are false - when something is nominated for deletion, obviously it'll attract editors interested in that subject.
- It all really comes down to two different interpretations of policy: you think Big doesn't meet SIGCOV, I think he does. I agree that the discussion may benefit from new voices. Fair enough; I've struck the "speedy" part of my !vote. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 04:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think you already know that we redirect and delete GA articles all the time because there are examples on the page you just linked. The GA criteria is a minimum content bar that has nothing to do with topic notability or source quality. Our low bar for significance has changed significantly over the years (think Pokémon characters). We're building a generalist encyclopedia. Topics that lack dedicated coverage in vetted sources are best covered in a niche wiki of a different scope. The Ken Rosenberg RFC was designed as an instrumental question of whether several "significant" listicles together constitute enough coverage for a separate/dedicated article. Its conclusion and wide participation show how non-cherrypicked discussions end when they aren't brigaded by partisans. So I agree, this discussion requires (1) that editors look at the actual depth of coverage, and (2) new voices—less of us. czar 17:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- I like to think Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are a bit stricter than two years ago (see the recent "List of characters" redirect spree, for example). I have a hard time figuring this article out, though: by far the majority of the sources are in-game quotes, and they drown out the regular reliable sources. I see some specific game reviews, though I don't believe they do much for establishing notability. Multiple "worst characters"/"best characters" lists help out, though. There's GamesRadar, 1UP, and Nintendo Magazine, which is already more than the Ken Rosenberg article had. There's also a development section based on reliable sources. I'm gravitating towards a weak keep, though I agree that most of the fictional content should be trimmed... and once that is done, it could probably easily be merged into the characters article. Hmm.... Neutral. ~Mable (chat) 13:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- To be fair, the recent "list of characters" redirect spree was mostly done by just one editor (User:Czar) and has not gone unnoticed: there's a discussion at WT:ANIME here right now about it and some have since been reversed or kept. Wikipedia's inclusion criteria has not gotten stricter - the wording of WP:GNG, for example, has literally not changed - what has shifted is the subjective opinion of editors to a more and more deletionist perspective - which explains the recent flurry of en masse character redirecting. Question is: do we want even stricter interpretation of notability requirements on fictional characters, especially since they are already held to a double standard compared to the rest of Wikipedia? I certainly hope not, and would strongly oppose it. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 04:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- The interpretation of the rules are always subjective – that's what I mean when I say the inclusion criteria is slightly stricter than before. I wasn't aware that fictional characters were already held up to a double standard, though? I'm just looking for a few in-detail sources so we can write a whole article without synthesizing from general game reviews and quoting the games themselves. I think that basically the entirety of the "appearances" section doesn't meet our guidelines, as it is almost entirely based on primary sources. That being said, I think that the reception section and development section are fine. What we should ask is whether the article is too long to be merged into the overall characters list. I don't know. ~Mable (chat) 05:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Different subjects have wildly different standards of notability. For example, animal species, schools, and towns/cities are declared to be inherently notable and only need a single source to prove their existence. BLPs, video games, items etc. are judged to generally harsher standards, and fictional content, such as fictional characters, fictional organizations etc. are judged the harshest of all. Obviously this is somewhat subjective, and I don't necessarily have the statistics to prove this, but it is my strongly held belief that such a double standard is existant, and at least a few other editors are of the same opinion. Take a tour around Wikipedia - compare and contrast the average number of sources of a video game article with that of a video game fictional character. Compare and contrast the percentage of video games that are stubs versus the percentage of video game characters that are stubs. I think you'll find the data to match my hypothesis nicely.
- There is nothing in WP:PRIMARY about such sources being unusable, like you've suggested for the "Appearances" section. They just need to be taken with care and don't necessarily establish notability, but as the article also has plenty of secondary sources, it's a non-issue. 28,264 bytes is plenty long enough for a standalone. I daresay it's longer than several GAs. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 06:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree, we really need to get rid of buildings and towns that just don't have any sources discussing them. The fact that there is a lot of stuff that still needs to be deleted doesn't mean that the guidelines aren't universal. Many buildings could be merged into their city's article, and many cities can be merged into a list of cities.
- For the record, I think there's enough notable content to write two or three paragraphs about him. If there wasn't a list of characters to merge him into, I would have definitely voted keep. This is basically where I put the line between a keep and a merge. ~Mable (chat) 06:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- The interpretation of the rules are always subjective – that's what I mean when I say the inclusion criteria is slightly stricter than before. I wasn't aware that fictional characters were already held up to a double standard, though? I'm just looking for a few in-detail sources so we can write a whole article without synthesizing from general game reviews and quoting the games themselves. I think that basically the entirety of the "appearances" section doesn't meet our guidelines, as it is almost entirely based on primary sources. That being said, I think that the reception section and development section are fine. What we should ask is whether the article is too long to be merged into the overall characters list. I don't know. ~Mable (chat) 05:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- To be fair, the recent "list of characters" redirect spree was mostly done by just one editor (User:Czar) and has not gone unnoticed: there's a discussion at WT:ANIME here right now about it and some have since been reversed or kept. Wikipedia's inclusion criteria has not gotten stricter - the wording of WP:GNG, for example, has literally not changed - what has shifted is the subjective opinion of editors to a more and more deletionist perspective - which explains the recent flurry of en masse character redirecting. Question is: do we want even stricter interpretation of notability requirements on fictional characters, especially since they are already held to a double standard compared to the rest of Wikipedia? I certainly hope not, and would strongly oppose it. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 04:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, @Satellizer:, I also redirected a whole lot of "list of... characters", not just @Czar:. That was also done after input from WP:VG. I'm on my phone right now, otherwise I would've looked up the discussion. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose merge/keep: Yeah, like @Satellizer:, my arguments from the previously proposed merge from two years ago still applies here. For the reason Satellizer stated about the precedent for Ken Rosenberg RFC, it really should be taken with a grain of salt at best. Kokoro20 (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Merge/Delete - Fails WP:42 as there are no 3rd party sources that discuss the topic in detail. The whole "conception and creation" section can be merged into the development sections of Sonic Adventure and Sonic Adventure 2. The rest is pretty much fancruft that is best covered in a niche wikia. --Niwi3 (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Merge. Just like with the recent developments concerning the "List of [...] characters", concensus can change. Most of the sources referenced here are first-party, like text taken verbatim from the games, instruction manuals or TV episodes. Those that are RS'es mention the character in a tiny blurb on how much they despise the character. There's not enough to have an entire article on the character. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, and even last time, it didn't close as "keep", it closed as "no consensus"... Sergecross73 msg me 16:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Merge, there is a sliver of meaningful coverage here padded by a mountain of borderline trivia and JUSTPLOT. I think merging is the square peg in a square hole solution in this case. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Merge, as everything that is not just indiscriminately-placed information about the character (such as plot details that belong in a relevant fan wiki) can be covered in the list. Esquivalience t 14:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Merge - I didn't want to be the only bad guy again, so I was waiting to see how things were going, so now I'm deciding to weigh in, and also in favor of merging. There's just very little in the way of creation or reception on him. I removed a few bits for various reasons - usually that the sources weren't considered reliable - and what's left is a few journalists adding a single sentence here or there calling the character "fat" or "stupid" in the game reviews, and a few other passing mentions of "I hate that guy" or "I'm glad he's not in X game". That's not the significant coverage we require for articles. I mean, I didn't see a single article dedicated to the subject. I'm not sure I even saw a paragraph dedicated to it. Far too much of the article is just plot, and he's not even really know much for that (and it shows, its mostly sourced to the games he comes from - 1st party accounts - rather than third party accounts.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.officialnintendomagazine.co.uk/50022/features/the-best-and-worst-sonic-characters/?page=6
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)