Jump to content

Talk:E-100 Series

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Listen Up!

[edit]

I don't care what you think Cigraphix and Man in Black, the PAGE STAYS! Understood!? User:Looney Guy

Where is the necessary reliable sourcing and real-world context to show its notability, though? Arguments alone the lines of "I like it" are not enough to justify inclusion on Wikipedia. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the Chaotix have a page like this. Why not the E-100 model machines too? User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 00:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Using the Chaotix is an "other stuff exists" arguement that is also an argument to avoid just like the "I like it" arguement. Haipa Doragon described (and provided links to) several of the most important rules of Wikipedia - which all articles must follow. Furthermore a similar page had already existed (E-Series (Sonic the Hedgehog)) and concensus among editors after a painstaking debate was to merge it to List of recurring characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games). CIGraphix (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then why can't you put Main Article on it? User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 13:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking why can't the E-series have their own page? If you are then what it needs is to have all of the information in it to be verified with reliable sources to prove notability just as Haipa Doragon said - look at Wikipedia:Featured_articles and you will see everything establish that (every little number put in those paragraphs links to its referenced reliable source in the References section at the bottom of the page). I looked for reliable sources for the E-series back when the debate about merging happened and found almost nothing, and I doubt that's changed; so the compromise to merge it to List of recurring characters from Sonic the Hedgehog (games) rather than outright deletion is the best we got. CIGraphix (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, three things. 1. There the E-100 Series, just a part of the E-Series. 2. I need help finding images of the other members and more information. And 3. They are the most popular Eggman robots. User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 20:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I don't care who did it this time, but the page STAYS! User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Arguments like WP:ILIKEIT aren't valid on Wikipedia; all articles must follow the notability guideline, which this currently fails to do. Unless reliable sources can be provided to show such notability, there is no valid reason for this article to exist. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All this page needs is more information about the robots themselves, thats all! User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 17:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
No, it needs reliable, third-party sources to show real-world context. It doesn't need just information on the robots themselves, but independent sources to verify the subject's notability, justifying its inclusion on Wikipedia. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well why don't you ask them what to do, they can ethier put main article on the E-Series part of the page, let it put some more information, or make a new orginazations page. User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Ask who? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The guy who owns Wikipedia. User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 18:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
No-one owns Wikipedia, and only consensus with regard to the established policies and guidelines decides what happens. Anyway, I don't get what you're referring to by "main article". All this article needs are reliable, secondary sources to establish real-world context and therefore notability; without such sources, it does not satisfy the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it as in:

Error: no page names specified (help). put that on the E-Series part of reccuring characters in Sonic the Hedgehog series page. User: Looney Guy

That won't do anything to establish this article's notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what does? User: Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 20:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
As I stated above; reliable, independent sources. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you do that for me? User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Why can't you do it yourself? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't know what to do. User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Well, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources for a list clarifying what is and isn't a reliable source with regards to video games; Google or similar search engines are good for actually looking for the sources; and see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for a guide to adding sources to articles. I don't actually do a lot of referencing myself, but simply putting a link (if it's a website you're citing), page reference (for books, magazines or other print sources) or other reference to a reliable source between <ref></ref> tags will be enough to source a statement. See Wikipedia:Help desk for further questions related to sourcing the article; they'll likely give a better answer than from me. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Haipa Dragon, I've had enough of this, the page stays and that's final! OK? User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Main article}} put that on the E-Series part of reccuring characters in Sonic the Hedgehog series page. User: Looney Guy

That won't do anything to establish this article's notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what does? User: Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 20:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
As I stated above; reliable, independent sources. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you do that for me? User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Why can't you do it yourself? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't know what to do. User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Well, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources for a list clarifying what is and isn't a reliable source with regards to video games; Google or similar search engines are good for actually looking for the sources; and see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for a guide to adding sources to articles. I don't actually do a lot of referencing myself, but simply putting a link (if it's a website you're citing), page reference (for books, magazines or other print sources) or other reference to a reliable source between <ref></ref> tags will be enough to source a statement. See Wikipedia:Help desk for further questions related to sourcing the article; they'll likely give a better answer than from me. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Haipa Dragon, I've had enough of this, the page stays and that's final! OK? User:Looney Guy
You haven't provided a single reliable source to verify the article's content and justify its notability. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines on what should and shouldn't be included and you've not taken a single bit of notice of that; no amount of "I've had enough of this, the page stays for no valid reason"-type arguments are going to change that. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable source is Sonic News Network, OK?!? User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 17:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Wikis are tertiary sources and therefore not reliable sources; see WP:PSTS. The information there is essentially as unverifiable as the unsourced information that this article contains. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try again, SEGA?!? User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 18:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
...That's a primary source, as are all developers/publishers of the Sonic games and the games themselves; what articles need are primarily secondary, independent sources; see WP:VG/S. We can't just think up potential sources, either. Per WP:V, sources have to be directly cited and therefore verified; vague definitions like "Sega" are completely unverifiable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, anyone else got any ideas? User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, I think this article should be redirected to the character list of supporting/recurring characters. Only Gamma and Omega are really main supporting characters, plus the E-100 Series overall is already mentioned in said article. This argument has been done a billion or so times that it makes me want to go crazy like Robotnik did at the end of SatAM. A redirect is the best option. I am just expressing my opinion and do not wish to cause problems. Evilgidgit (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, the robot series itself is recurring, so I think it has the right to stay. Besides, I was talking about copyright. User:Looney Guy
Merely being recurring does not make something notable; unless secondary sources are verified for a subject, that subject shouldn't have an article on Wikipedia, and that's exactly the case here. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're acting almost like a teacher, Haipa Dragon. But back on topic, is Sonic Team okay? User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
No, I'm merely citing the policies and guidelines, which apply all across Wikipedia. Like I said, the game or its developers are primary sources and do not establish notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now I know what to do, how about the guy who made Sonic, what's his name again? User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 03:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
His name is Yuji Naka. Evilgidgit (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, him. User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 15:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
...No, that's still a primary source because he's affiliated with Sonic Team/Sega. None of this "I know what might be a source" is helping, anyway. Unless you can find and cite secondary sources, the article does not pass the notability guideline. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, The Sonic Stadium? User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Again, all this suggesting of potential sources isn't doing anything for the article. Also, stop adding images without fair-use rationales to the article. Non-free images need rationales for each article they are used on, and no such rationales currently exist for the ones concerned. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop this constant readdition of copyrighted images. Either provide a rationale for using the images or you will be blocked for vandalism. Don't think I can't see through your sockpuppetry, either. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalisim eh, well what if I made new images of them? User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 01:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, you will be blocked if you continue adding these images. This is copyrighted content and should not in any case be used on an article without a corresponding fair-use rationale for that article. You have been warned for your repeated, unexplained addition of such images several times now. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking a different question! What if I made new images? User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 02:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
How would that accurately depict the subject concerned? Moreover, what form of images are you talking about? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of the other E-100 series robots. User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 16:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I believe Looney Guy means take photos of something along those lines of the E-100 Series. Evilgidgit (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What could he take photos of? Anyway, no amount of images, free- or fair-use, are going to establish notability for this article. Instead of fussing about trying to create images, let's focus on establishing consensus about the article itself. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I think this should become a redirect to the section on the recurring characters article. Evilgidgit (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can stop this IF you get the other E-100 Series robots on that recurring characters page. User:Looney Guy
Why? The only other robots listed in this article are trivial mentions like "E-105 Zeta is a purple robot from Sonic Adventure. After his exile, he returns to the crashed Egg Carrier, and integrates himself into a room." Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate listing of every element in a work of fiction, and we certainly don't need trivial entries like those. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then just type in other robots on it! User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 15:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Eh, whichever. Are you actually fine with a redirect now? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking about it. Maybe if just E-102 and E-123 had separate pages. User:Looney Guy
I doubt that would work either. Gamma has only had one major game appearance and Omega has had only about three-four. Evilgidgit (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; it'd require more content and sourcing, not less, as an individual robot provides a smaller scope for information than the group the robot is in. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's that suposed to mean? User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 12:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
This article, which covers a group of robots, is lacking in reliable sources and therefore notability already. If we were to take part of what this article covers, a single robot, and try to make a whole article for that subject alone, we would need more sources to justify its notability. There are currently no sources cited for this wider topic, the group of robots, so an entire article about just part of that topic won't establish notability either. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To correct an earier comment, actully E-102 made another appearence in Sonic Battle. User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Right. Are you understanding what I'm saying, though? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, but what kind of reliable sources are there? That's what's confusing me. User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Anything cited by anything listed at WP:VG/S would qualify as a reliable source; where such sources relevant to this topic, are, however, is a different question, and it's up to those whom are asserting that a topic is notable to find them. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I looked at them, and I have decided, IGN. User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
What about IGN? Where is the content on IGN that can contribute to this article? You can't just say "I think this site has the necessary information" and be done with it; you need to directly cite where the relevant information is. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think they have star bios for each robot. User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 13:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Careful with the IGN character bios, like this Knuckles the Echidna profile, they appear to be written by board members (also known as fans) not by the IGN staff - so they would be no better than a fan site which is not a reliable source (Knuckles was written by "Ryan_the_Game_Master" who runs the fan site Concept: Mobius). CIGraphix (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean you finally think there is a good reliable source? User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

No, he's saying that the character bios at IGN, like the one he linked to, aren't reliable sources. Whether or not there is content at IGN which can be used for this article is still a question which hasn't been answered yet. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why don't you ask someone in this wiki who works at IGN. User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I don't think there is anyone who does; even so, it is your responsibility to look for sources if you want to show notability for a topic, not mine. More relevantly, can we just redirect this? Until the relevant secondary sources actually turn up for this subject, there shouldn't be an article on it, and the section at the recurring characters list is more than enough coverage. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, as said earlier there are not enough good sources to produce a good article on these characters. It should be a redirect. Evilgidgit (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, oh, alright it can be deleted, but only if you put something that will give more info about the other robots, and have either E-102 or E-123 (your choice) have their own page. User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 17:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Why give them their own page? This article's subject has already proven to be non-notable, so to split off parts of it into their own articles isn't going to result in any any more notable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as an Archie comic writer who's name escapes me said, Can't have Team Dark without the big guy. User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 17:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Whuh? That doesn't seem relevant to Wikipedia. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what secondary sources are most recommended? User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 17:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I don't know; sites like IGN, GameSpot, etc., as listed at WP:VG/S, are potential sources and can all essentially be recommended, but they're useless unless you can actually find information on them pertaining to this article's subject. Unless such info can be found, there's nothing to base notability on. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's settled, a week from now, this page will be fused with list of recurring characters, and the remaining robots will be placed as other robots. And hopefully one day, one of the red robots will get a page of his own. User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 01:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Why a week from now? We can just redirect the page now. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK now. Besides already added more info about Gamma and Omega. User:Looney Guy —Preceding undated comment added 02:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:E-100_Series&oldid=1196099479"