Jump to content

Talk:Chris Redfield

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleChris Redfield has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 21, 2008Articles for deletionKept
February 27, 2017Good article nomineeListed
March 29, 2024Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 12, 2017.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that video game character Chris Redfield was suspected of abusing steroids?
Current status: Good article

Name

[edit]

Is the information on his name really relevant? The etymology presented is also inaccurate. I'll provide a more plausible etymology if requested, however, I don't see the relevance because his surname was most likely chosen based on how "Anglo" and "American" it sounds ("Redfield" is rare for someone outside of the United States to have, and this is largely because the surname evolved from another name, and this "evolution" took place in the United States in the mid to late 1600s), and not because it has some kind of underlying, relevant meaning. --Hurd Hatfield (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this sentiment. I'm just going to remove this section entirely in a week unless someone can provide a reason as to why it should stay. --Heat (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The section regarding his name is sourced, and attributed to a source. It's being mentioned in context to the source and not necessarily as an objective fact. Had this article of mentioned it out of the blue without any proper sources, I'd vote to have it removed. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  23:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{General CVG character}}

[edit]

This article is currently a testbed for a unified computer/video game character infobox, {{General CVG character}}. It uses a series-specific subbox, {{Resident Evil characterbox}}.

Input on this infobox would be appreciated; note that the addition of things that would be obvious to readers unfamiliar with Resident Evil (such as what series is involved and the series' creator) is intentional. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "relatives" and "occupation" section in the box are the wrong way around. I looked at the code but it seemed ok in the source. Could anyone have a look at this? (FSME (talk) 14:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Official backstory for Chris

[edit]

I have added this selection because the novels by Hiroyuki Ariga and Capcom, were his complete background and the novels are official. (there's more than one book in the series, and they are from Hong Kong.) The background was created for Chris before they had introduced him in the first original Resident Evil video game, and used for the conception of what type of character Chris would be. As for Chris being from New York, I have no idea if he was. I like to say he was, but with no resources to back this ideal up, I have removed it. - *.:.`ShadowFox` S.T.A.R.S..:.* 20:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to prove this is canon, or it shall be removed. The S D Perry novels are official too, they're just not canon - there's a difference between something being official and canon. I can't see there being a difference between an English Perry novelization, and an Asian Hiroyuki Ariga novel, I know Perry and Hiroyuki both mention Billy Rabbitson. And isn't Hong Kong in China?? Parjay 07:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the Hiroyuki Ariga novel (Biohazard: The Beginning) was originally a portion of a book titled The True Story behind Biohazard, which contains an interview with Shinji Mikami about the development of the game (very informative). The Biohazard Archives states that the novel is no longer canon due to contradictions with later games in the series. Jonny2x4 06:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Pity that it is, (it was really hard to find a reliable source to prove this) because it would great to add to the page, however it's no longer accurent. For now, I will just display the information on here for those to view. According to the book Chris was 20 yrs. old when his parents passed and Claire was 15 yrs. old (1993) when their parents died. Here's a second source of information from the book that a forum had featured on their site, http://bbs.chinabroadcast.cn/read.php?tid=109739] which also confirms Chris' and Claire's parents' deaths. The book talks about events that happened before Resident Evil 1. (Original):

"Chapter One: Resident Evil

Chris: Whenever the phone rings in the middle of the night. I know someone's dead who wasn't dead the day before. Happens all the time. Except when it's a wrong number. Like this totally drunk woman who thought I was her long lost lover. Or the idiot who tied up my line with a long monologue in Portuguese.

I've had this late-night fear of the phone for five years now, ever since a state police chaplain called me at two a.m. to tell me my parents were dead. Their vacation van had been crushed by a runaway big rig. The coroner had to ID them through dental records, they were mangled so bad." *.:.`ShadowFox` S.T.A.R.S..:.* 17:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

[edit]

I have removed the trivia section. Some other way should be found of working it into the article. I have preserved it here in case someone wishes to do so. Perhaps a new charaterization/personality section for the inclusion of the info about the smoking and such? Showers 21:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Chris was originally characterized as a cigarette smoker as seen in uncensored version of the live-action footage used in the original uncut version of Resident Evil. Due to SCEA's strict policy against depiction of tobacco use, all scenes that featured Chris were edited. Chris has a lighter in his default equipment in the GameCube version of the game (which he had to obtain separately in both the original and Resident Evil Code: Veronica).
  • The Made in Heaven jacket that Chris wears is based on actual military jacket that bears the exact same slogan and logo (an angel surrounded by bombs). -
  • In Resident Evil 2, the Made in Heaven jacket can be seen by his desk. Also, there is a guitar, car posters, and marksman trophies that can be seen. -
  • Chris's police ID is 738. -
  • Chris is the first Resident Evil character gamers are introduced to. He features on the original cover, in the opening promo clip, and he narrates the intro video. -
  • Chris plays a part in Resident Evil, Resident Evil 2 (Extreme Battle mode), Resident Evil 3: Nemesis (Epilogue), Resident Evil: Code Veronica, and the two upcoming games, Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles, and Resident Evil 5.

Restoration of "General references"

[edit]

Doktor Wilhelm and I are apparently having a feud over a reference section that I added to this article (as well as several other RE-related articles) last week. The reference section contains scripts and file transcripts from RE games verify all the in-universe details within the article. Certain links, such as ReHorror.net and UGO.com (which is an actual website) specifically offer individual profiles for Resident Evil characters, as well as official plot summaries (RE Digest files from RE:UC). I already presented my case Wilhelm and AIN that the links within the reference section comply with WP:Cite, WP:RS, and WP:EL, while also preventing the article from being deleted per WP:A. As suggested by an administrator on AIN, it’s probably for the best we have a community discussion on discussion page. So, I ask, does anybody else have specific issue] with adding this reference section? --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 17:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you are adding is not References to the article, denoted by the fact that you feel a need to put them in a section seperate from references. What you are usuing is a list of external links, with out any attempt to use it to reference the actual content of the article! The way it is being set up by yourself is: "here's the whole plot/script to all the Resident Evil games, this chracter was in one of them"!  Doktor  Wilhelm  17:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they're references, surely they can just go in the existing references section? If they comply with Cite and RS, surely they can be used like any other reference? Geoff B (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the sites added are of reference to the characters article, then I'm sure that the addition of relevent ref/citation tags, etc, would show what content of the articles the references are for, otherwise it is just external links to game plot/script and character biography/details, and at the lest it should go there not under ==Notes== & then ==General references==!  Doktor  Wilhelm  18:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's really tedious to cite individual quotes from the script using in-line citations (See Final Fantasy VII#References, specifically ref #53). WP:CITE does not require references to use in-line citations as long they are properly annotated, and use something similar to the WP:CITET templates. Some FA articles, such as Chicago Board of Trade Building#References, use both Note and Reference sections. The reference section contains cites entire books, not just pages or lines. However, are you suggesting a combination of both sections a la the 2005 Texas Longhorn football team#Notes and references article? --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 18:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the point in fact is that you were not using the references to show points in the article (see Final Fantasy VII#References, that you qoute for how this is done), there is still the little number besides the reference and the same number is somewhere in the article, your list of links referenced nothing in the article! That is the point! Your links are just external links, not referenced within the articles!  Doktor  Wilhelm  19:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CITE does not say that a reference is needed to be placed after every statement - that would simply clutter a page. As I pointed out in another FA articles, stand alone sections like that are perfectly fine. The Texas Long Horn external links without in-line citations in its Reference section. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 19:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know that "a reference is not needed to be placed after every statement", no-one is saying that it should be! but the references you are placing are external links and not references!  Doktor  Wilhelm  19:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How are they not references? Articles use Online Game Books, which contain play-by-play notations, to verify a single players performance or accomplishments in a single game. Unless you can find a policy that directly states that there is something wrong with the link, then I am not doing anything wrong. You are not an authority on this encyclopedia and cannot remove material unless it violates Wikipedia's policies - not even admins can get away with that. I have defended my claims with respects to all the aforementioned policies. Unless you know of a specific rule that defines what a "reference" is on Wikipedia, and can explicitly state the section I am adding is not a "reference" you do not have a right to remove the content. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 19:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again: You are not using them to reference anything in the article, and they are either links to gameguides, nothing specific to the characters or they are links to Character Bios, which if anything should go into external links, as you are not referencing anything in the article with them, besides the article its self!  Doktor  Wilhelm  20:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The links are not game guides, they are scripts, taken directly from the games. As I stated before, you have submitted no evidence whatsoever that disqualifies them as references. You have presented no evidence that dictates that all references must be wrapped in reference tags, where as I have shown you several well-written articles that contain stand-alone references to entire books, websites , or databases.

I have solely added the references to verify information within the article, with no other purpose. The links contain information that summarize each character's exact interactions, quotes, and actions directly within their respected games. The General references section is being used in a similar fashion to the Reference section from the Chicago Board of Trade Building, which uses 200+ page books to backup information. The section I added merely uses External links, which comply with WP:CITET.

You can deny that they may not verify the information within the article, but you cannot prove it, or justify their removal with any of Wikipedia's policies - your, or my own opinion on this matter is practically meaningless with jurisdiction from Wikipedia's policies. With this said, unless you can prove the links do not verify information within the article, or do not belong on Wikipedia per some legit policy, I do not see how you have legitimate case to remove the links to begin with. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 20:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I do not see how you have legitimate case to add the links under the title "General references" to begin with. as you say "they are scripts, taken directly from the games", what relevence do they have to articles about characters besides to say: "here's the whole plot/script to all the Resident Evil games, this chracter was in one of them", they are external links (at the best), and not references!  Doktor  Wilhelm  20:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out to you, other articles have used entire books, databases, websites. WP:Cite does not says that I cannot use script to back up information. Furthermore, it does not clearly define what reference is, only to determine how reliable a reference is. For that matter, the back of a soda can could be used to verify information. And As I have stated before, you have not even presented any evidence to back up your claim. Whereas I have presented several articles that use a similar format, which have all recived FA-Status. If it is all right there to use a 300-page book to verify an article even tough five lines talk about the subject in question, I do not see how it cannot work here. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim - I've asked you this several times, because I think I know the answer. ;)

Unless you can specifically call me out on breaking a policy, I do not see what is wrong with these additions. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 21:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is pointless argument, plese do not add the links back unless it's as external links. The articles you use as examples do not show any reason why an addition of General references is needed to these articles! You repeated comments prove nothing of why it should be added, I have stated (repeatedly) why it should not be! I repeat:
You (ShadowJester07) do not use script to back up information, instead you (ShadowJester07) are adding in links to "scripts, taken directly from the games" that have no bearing on the chracters articles other than to show that "here's the whole plot/script to all the Resident Evil games, this chracter was in one of them", and that doesn't help reference ther article in any way shape or form, if you (ShadowJester07) can point out the key parts of the article that the links reference, they should go in a External links section, if at all...
I am getting bored of having to repeat myself, every time you reapeat a pointless argument for includding the links in the articles! This is ment to be an open discussion after One on One discussion and contacting Admins (which you started) has not reached a conclussion to your liking, so please just leave it as such, we both know each others views on the subject, and this is getting us no where (while some of the articles in question are set to be deleated!!!).  Doktor  Wilhelm  22:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are only stating your opinion on the matter. You cannot even verify that I am doing anything wrong - thats the matter of this fact. I see your point of view in this, but you have not brought up any points of evidence to backup the claim that I cannot use those links on Wikipedia. None of the Admins even bothered to address this issue, not leave write me up for breaking a specific policy. So, If an admin did not bother stopping me from adding the content, why should you be allowed to - especially since you have provided no legitimate evidence (ex polices or quotes from other admins), you have no proof that I am doing anything wrong. Your opinion is not enough Either show me a policy that I violating or sit on your hands. If authorities in real life cannot stop someone from doing something perfectly legal, I doubt someone could on Wikipedia.

Not that it matters now anyway...--ShadowJester07 ► Talk 22:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Jester is correct in the fact that providing general references does not violate wikipedia policy. However, inline citations are far more preferable to having general citations as general citations often prevents an article from reaching GA or FA status. It's better for the references in question to be put in a inline format. Showers (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reception...

[edit]

Somebody added that Tyler Cameron (whoever that is...) put Christ #2 on characters with ridiculous biceps... Ummm... Who cares... This is not a professional reference... If it was G4TV, than that's fine, but a fan's opinion, or even a fan with a website... It doesn't matter... I'm going to delete all the opinions on this page.

Looks like a professional reference to me. Detroit Examiner? It's a newspaper. Geoff B (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some IGN stuff

[edit]

--94.246.154.130 (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Chris Redfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 06:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chris Redfield. 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:

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 04:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chris Redfield. 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:

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Chris Redfield/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 01:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this one. Rather than bring them up here, I will just fix any minor issues I see myself. If you're unhappy with any of my changes, just revert them and we'll discuss here instead. I'm happy for you to work on any issues I bring up as I bring them up; don't feel the need to wait until I finish the entire review. Freikorp (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Lead
    "Chris also appears in the live-action Resident Evil film series," - since he only appears in one of the films I think it is innapropriate to say he appears in the series - just mention the one film he appeared in.  Fixed
    According to the body only one source has commented on Chris' sex appeal. Accordingly I think it's a stretch to say he has been "recognized for his sex appeal" in the lead. Suggest lead focuses on another area, or at the very least attribute the mention to who ranked him the "seventh sexiest video game character" and when. Fixed
    Well I've added two more sources that comment on Chris' attractiveness in the "Reception" section. Will that suffice? If not, I could find more. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better. Freikorp (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Resident Evil games
    A large portion of the text in the 'Resident Evil games' is unreferenced. Everything needs to be backed up by a reliable source, or removed.  Fixed
    In films
    The "rejected" film - when was it rejected? No time frame is indicated on when this script was written either. Both would be helpful.  Fixed
    Information about comic books appearances does no appear here.  Fixed
    The last two sentences in this section are unreferenced.  Fixed
    Other appearances
    "He will return in the sequel Project X Zone 2" - this games was released 2 years ago. Update this information.  Fixed
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    There are 'permanent dead links' in the reference section. These obviously need to be fixed. Handy tip: If you can't find a source archived at the Wayback Machine try archive.is.  Fixed
    Checklinks finds several more dead references and redirects: [1]  Fixed
    There is inconsistent date formatting in the references. For example: "Retrieved 2013-07-22" and "Retrieved April 24, 2015". Pick one style and stick with it. I would strongly recommend the latter (I.e April 24, 2015).  Fixed
    There are two citation request tags in the article. Obviously citations must be found otherwise the statements in question must be deleted.  Fixed
    There appears to be no standard reference format. Template:Cite web is used, but other online references are simply typed up manually and there is even a bare URL. You need to pick one method of referencing. I strongly recommend Cite web, in which case you should also use Template:Cite journal for the offline magazine references.  Fixed
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    As mentioned above.  Fixed
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Hi PanagiotisZois. I've identified all the major issues above. This needs some major work in terms of its references and unreferenced information. In the future I recommended at least using checklinks to make sure all the references are still live, and addressing all tags on the article (such as the citation request tags) prior to nomination. I have not commented on grammar/sentence flow or completed a source check yet; I will do this if the above issues are addressed. Please let me know if you think you can address these concerns or if you think you should withdraw the nomination, work on the issues, and renominate it at a later date. It's up to you. I am happy for this nomination to stay open longer than the recommended seven days, IF you can start addressing them and think you can fix them all in a reasonable time frame (certainly less than a month). Let me know what you want to do. Freikorp (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for reviewing the article. I will attempt to fix the issues you've pointed out. Hopefully in less than seven days. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @PanagiotisZois:, I chipped in and helped fix some of the dead-links. Please let me know if you need additional references for the Resident Evil Games section. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  20:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good so far; keep up the good work. Freikorp (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright @Freikorp:, I believe I have fixed all of the issues. Please let me know if you believe the article requires additional editing for improvement. PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do a full review of this article later tonight. Right now I see two outstanding problems. Another editor has added information from RE 7. This is fine, but the lead now needs to be updated. The lead mentions Chris' roles in RE 5 and 6, but not 7. Also the term 'BOW' appears in the article three times but its meaning is never explained. What the term stand for should be explained (in brackets like this) after the first mention. Freikorp (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final prose check:

  • "Rockfort Island" - where is Rockfort Island? If it is fictional, specify this.  Fixed
  • It is mentioned that Wesker dies in the first game then when the second one is mentioned he returns without explanation.  Fixed
  • "Only Chris and Piers Nivans survive the assault." - So who dies exactly then?  Fixed
  • "Chris continues to serve them in Piers' memory" - continues to serve who?  Fixed
  • "Chris' increased muscle mass in the game" - this comes out of nowhere. I know its referring to RE 5, but other readers won't.  Fixed
  • "According to PSU.com, Chris is" - it might be helpful to know when PSU made these comments. What year?  Fixed
  • "(according to PSU.com, "now a beastly, muscle-bound warrior with biceps the size of water melons"[14])" Having this in brackets is un-encyclopeadic. Rework it into standard prose. Or just lose it.  Fixed

After these issues are addressed I'll do a source check and assuming that is all good I'll pass this. Sorry it's taking so long, I've been a bit busy. Freikorp (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. I'm in no hurry. PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I believe I've fixed all of them. I've also used CheckLink and all the dead links have been archived. For some reason it says two IGN sources change sub-domain but I've checked them and the link stays the same. PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I can explain what that means. For example, the IGN link might be to the IGN article on the American server, whereas if you're accessing it from the UK or Australia it will redirect you to the same article but at. "uk.ign" or "au.ign" instead. It's not a problem. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Source check:

  • Firstly something I've just noticed - you don't need citations in the lead for non-controversial information. Everything in the lead needs to be sourced later in the article, but that inline citation shouldn't be there.  Fixed
  • source 29, the resident evil script, doesn't back up that Capcom fired Romero or that Anderson wrote the new script. I've moved the source to what it backs up, so you'll need a new source for the firing and the new script writer. Also the source is only the script itself and the wesbite hosting it doesn't fill me with confidence. If you could find secondary sources covering that Romero wrote a Resident evil script that would be good.  Fixed
  • Both the James Hawkins sources and the Brittany Vincent source are not formatted with Template:Cite web.  Fixed
  • The source consistency is much, much better, but there's still some inconsistency with source titles. For example most sources are referred to by their name (i.e IGN, Moby Games), however other are referred to by their URL (guardian.co.uk, Complex.com, Stars.ign.com). You need to pick one format. Going by name as opposed to base URL is preferred. Freikorp (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)  Fixed[reply]
Fixed all of the problems. PanagiotisZois (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work. I'm happy for this to pass now. Well done on fixing everything; hopefully this has also given you some indication of things it is good to check prior to GA nomination :). As a final note, I do recommend going through and archiving all the sources when you get a chance. It will strongly increase the chances of this article keeping its GA status; sources will inevitably go dead and often the archive websites don't already have them saved when that happens. A little work now could save you a lot of work in the future. Freikorp (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We still don't know if it's actually Chris in re7

[edit]

Basically, a guy who Capcom says is Chris comes in an Umbrella branded chopper, yet the dude looks nothing like Chris due to him beng redesigned, which isn't saying much. The content he stars in in if it's him, well...it hasn't even been released yet. We ought to treat "Chris Redfield" being that character in the endings as speculation, or him truly even being that mystery man until proven otherwise.PeterMan844 (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. It's him.PeterMan844 (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Chris Redfield. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chris Redfield. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Redfield as Main Protagonist

[edit]

While Chris Redfield has made the most canonical appearances in the Resident Evil video game series, I do not believe there is a WP:RS that confirms he is officially the primary or central protagonist of the series. I along with the two other editors who reverted TankRedfield96's edits, feel it should be left as "one of the protagonists". I'll leave this up for discussion here to gather more input. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  14:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That boulder moment

[edit]

Just a minor thought, but would it be worth mentioning Chris punching that boulder in RE5's climax? It's often talked about within both the Fandom and is widely considered one of the series' most mocked moments, often considered where Resident Evil jumped the shark. It's also been mentioned in the recent Resident Evil Village, so it's as notable as the "Jill Sandwich" line from RE1. Dark knight 2013 (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth mentioning in the Reception section, which features commentary about his muscular appearance in RE5. As you mentioned, there are quite few retrospectives that discuss that scene.[2][3][4][5]. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  19:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. It's iconic! 😋

ChewNaChunkx (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Queer appeal and fandom" section

[edit]

user:StarScream1007, do you think this removal here [6] is appropriate? User keeps promoting how sexy chris is and keeps adding fanfiction queer section with unreliable sources. 2001:4455:6CD:CC00:B140:CFF6:A2B3:DD5D (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably support the inclusion of "Chris has been described as a gay icon and proven popular with gay gamers. The Geekiary's Farid-ul-Haq has described Chris as a queer icon,[86] as has Dread XP's Lee Meyer, who acknowledged that the character has "long been a favorite of the gay community." The second half of Meyer's statement is a bit too speculative. It's also too speculative to claim or suggest he's in a relationship with Piers, which is never mentioned in the games or anyone of the directors/devs. I think it mentioning his popularity in the gay community can probably go to the "Sex Appeal" section above. Mentioning his appearance in Queerty, which lists attractive male video game characters, is probably fine too in the Sex Appeal section. The fan-fic commentary should be excluded IMO - they are based on content that's 100% unofficial and fan-created, and really only reflect a sliver of the fan-fics and memes involving Chris. My two cents. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  00:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About the sections "Sex symbol" and "Queer appeal and fandom", I don't see how it makes it noteworthy for wikipedia if someone says "he is a gay icon" or "he is sexy", both a subjective opinions. "Queer appeal and fandom" should be removed and the section "Sex symbol" should be reduced to "Many of Chris' alternate outfits since the release of Resident Evil 5 have been acknowledged for highlighting his muscular physique and sexualizing the character.[81] Within Revelations, Chris has an unlockable outfit where he dresses as a sailor, which Jason Wojnar of TheGamer argued as being the best oufit Chris has worn throughout the franchise, describing it as "charming" and showing off his legs.", everything afterwards is repetetive, and the part before is just the same repetetive subjetive opinion. RedWhiteDevil (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article relying on PSU as a source

[edit]

I have concerns about this article. 1st: The development section is quite flimsy? and doesn't have a voice actors section. 2nd: The article relies on a PSU as a source, and there seem to be other unreliable sources that have been used, like Pink Vulture. 3rd: maybe needs to be organized by theme for it to look better. This will probably be sent out to GAR soon. Heads up to the main author thou PanagiotisZois. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article needs reworking. There's very little info on the character's creation in the first game, and none on Code Veronica. PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::Yeah, its really sad. I can help a bit, but god I don't wanna spend much time like I did to Ada Wong. But, its safe to send this article to GAR soon if nothing happens in a couple of months. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [reply]

One editor said PSU should be an okay source, so it shouldn't really matter at all. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, how about this idea? If you're still interested in this article, you could work only at the concept and design section and a bit on lead (it lacks development info), and I'll do the reception and organise the appearances a little bit, like in the article by Ada Wong. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 03:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

== Saving source ==

The Sara Grimes source has some nice comparisons of the differences between Jill and Chris, and the Paul Martin source has quite a bit of detail on Chris's background and his journey up to and including RE5. Copy pasted here. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 08:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bias and Inaccuracy

[edit]

I'd like to reduce the article's bias and inaccuracy.

Chris is a fan-favorite character according to Capcom and fan surveys. See: https://game.capcom.com/residentevil/en/umbrella-20230203110000.html and https://gamerant.com/best-resident-evil-characters-ranked/. This should be added.

Also, the "reception" section seems biased. Chris has not only received negative feedback, but also positive feedback by several critics. It should be added. See: https://medium.com/@cmagett/lessons-i-learned-from-chris-redfield-resident-evil-9b91dc7dd850 and https://gamerant.com/resident-evil-playable-characters-ranked/.

According to The six good article criteria, a good article should be neutral and without editorial bias. The "reception" section (Chris Redfield) is based on lowquality sources (Kotaku) and positive reviews from critics are not mentioned/ included. Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wdyt bias, GameRant is lowquality source, while the primary sources are not needed to add

for reception. Pls discuss this further at Ferret's talk page before reverting or changing the content. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Kotaku losquality source? you cited them Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to The six good article criteria, a good article should be neutral and without editorial bias. The "reception" section (Chris Redfield) is based on lowquality sources (Kotaku) and positive reviews from critics are not mentioned/ included. Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 06:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kotaku isn't a "lowquality source". 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 07:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is. And the source doesn't contain a character analysis. Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you say? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 07:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having a bias against a video game character shouldn't affect the editing, don't you think? Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Kotaku isn't a "lowquality source"."
--> it should be removed from the reception section then Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

reduce biased editing

[edit]

Chris is a fan favorite character. See various video game magazines and fan survey:

https://gamerant.com/best-resident-evil-characters-ranked/ https://www.thegamer.com/resident-evil-best-characters/ https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2023/03/resident-evils-most-popular-character-revealed-in-famitsu-reader-survey https://mynintendonews.com/2023/03/22/japan-famitsu-readers-reveal-favourite-resident-evil-characters/ https://www.pcgamer.com/resident-evil-fans-vote-for-their-favorite-character-leon/ (This source is also cited for the Leon Kennedy Wikipedia article)

Chris being a fan-favorite charater needs to be mentioned in the article. Articles on other Resident Evil characters mention fan reception as well. Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The PC Gamer and Nintnedo life are exactly the same. A single reliable source with no commentary isn't really necessary to be included, unless more reliable sources have een found. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 17:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Editors do not own article content, or their own edits, and any other editor has the right to revert edits as appropriate. Unwarranted resistance to such efforts may be a sign of ownership behavior and lead to sanctions.Wikipedia:Harassment Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current problem with the article is that it starts mostly with his 7 persona. Chris stands out in his protagonist roles which gave him two paragraphs and guest appearance in Marvel vs Capcom. I suggest first talking about Chris' early appearances and then move to the Village. It's how the media analyzed Chris' character chronologically. Tintor2 (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is, that the reception section is mostly based on low-quality sources rather than character analysis.
One of the sources: Jonathan Beach (VICE 2016): "my ex-girlfriend once told me she wished I had arms as big as Chris's. So he makes the list (Video Gaming's biggest d*ckheads) by default.". That's not a character analysis. That's not a character review. That's not a logical, valid point. Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy? [7] I've also managed to find another source to add [8] [9], but it is the only positive feedback from the character and it doesn't warrant a mention at lead. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it's better now. Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Kotaku source is still low quality. should get deleted. no character analysis, nothing. just 2 lines of a random rant Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Looking over the article (I believe it's this one right?) there's a fairly decent amount of reception in there. Arguing it's "low quality" honestly feels silly.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chris_Redfield&oldid=1243023596"