Talk:List of Star Fox characters

Untitled

• Archive 1

Added info on Panther's Japanese name

Apparently, Caluroso translates to hot, warm, enthusiastic, or energetic in Spanish. I dunno why they have to change it to English, but it fits Panther well. XD—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.85.202 (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Leon?

Where's Leons picture? It has dissapeared!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.69.210.3 (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted because the source URL could not be found. Thunderbrand 18:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Kanji / Kana for Star Wolf?

Hmm it looks like the kanjis for the three members are missing. I thought they can be found in the Japanese sites?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.97.46 (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Panther's name talk

I was told to see the talk page about this issue, but it appears there's no discussion about it. I think it should be listed as Caruso, since that is the most recent version of his name. If someone doesn't dispute this in the next little while, I'll change it. 199.126.137.209 05:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

See the archive link at the top of the page. It should probably be changed to "Caruso" as the offical site lists that too. Thunderbrand 13:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think "Caroso", because that's technically his original name (the American release of Star Fox: Assault came out way before the Japanese version). 208.101.148.128 13:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No more individual pages?

I see in the to-do list that it states the stub-inclusion of articles on all the main characters here, as well as links to the individual character pages, but now it appears as though the character pages have been changed into redirect pages, with far less information in the sections here as well. For example: The information on Falco's name source and his rivalry with Leon were both lost in the transition, and have not since been recovered or reimplemented. Is this the final form, or are things still being moved? Just worried since there was no discussion of this on Falco's talk page. --Blinkstale 04:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There was a pretty big discussion about it in this page's archive. There is a link at the top of this page. Some stuff had to be trimmed down when it was moved here. The stuff on Falco was pretty much speculation, since his name origin wasn't sourced. His "rivalry" with Leon is a very minor thing. Thunderbrand 14:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, I wouldn't have thought to look there. Should there be anything linking to major discussions of the past on this page, kind of like a miniFAQ? That way, the same discussions don't continually rearise after you guys delete them from the discussion pages? Just a thought. --Blinkstale 00:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I liked the individual pages, it was far more cleaner, and we could go in detail about the characters. Now that's all redirected, it looks very ugly and not very pleasing to the eyes. --Willy105

I agree 100%, individual pages are very convenient if you are listing characters from a franchise with so many characters at least you can have a picture of each one without looking over illustrated, this must be disscused futher-Dark Dragon Flame 05:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that most people here agree that we need individual pages, myself included. If it is close to unanimously agreed then why not do it? I would think majority rules... Just putting it out there. I would be more than happy to help contribute to the new pages. Joeseph Robert (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

do a barrel role

why does going to that page redirect to here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.204.29 (talk • contribs)

Because Peppy's entry is here. There is no justification for its own page. Thunderbrand 14:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Do a Barrel Role is redirected to here because it is a trademark line for Peppy Hare dating back to the original Starwing on the SNES Guess who i am 08:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a barrel roll is not exclusive to Star Fox. It's an aircraft maneuver term.

Somebody clean up Leon's page.

It looks like a four year old wrote it. And wrote it poorly for a four year old at that. Gah.

Vandalism

It seems that someone keeps adding unnecessary images on this page. I added some info on a few sections yesterday and they downright removed it. There is also an issue dealing with speculation in Wolf's section, something about his "eyepatch" or whatever it is being a "targeting system". Any suggestions? --AgreeneyedFox 19:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it back a few versions, I'm not sure if that deleted some of your info, if it did i'm sorry I had to do it because there were sings of vandalism, someone is removing images of important characters like James McCloud and adding images of non-important secondary characters at the bottom of the page, speculations and stuff it's not rare in this page either see Tricky for example-Dark Dragon Flame 00:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, Krystal should have her own article...

Honest to goodness, do any of you guys realize just how popular Krystal is? She needs to have her own article back!!! Just look at Fanfiction.net or [Fanart Central]; Krystal has a small legion of devoted fans. I'm not exactly one of them, but I feel like the fanbase justifies giving Krystal her own article back. I've been trying to do that, but, so far, I've only succeeded in starting an edit war. See the talk page for the details. --Luigifan 20:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems no other users besides you wants to change the article back. Her write-up in the article is practically the same as it was when there was a separate article. Thunderbrand 22:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that the original separate article had what I thought was a lot of useful info that warranted having its own article, I don't agree that Krystal should be given her own article again just because she's a popular character. This article is about the characters as they exist in the game series, not as they exist in fan fiction. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Krystal doesn't NEED her own article, but her section IS getting pretty big, and most character sections (if not all) will continue to grow, assuming there will be another Star Fox game. Other than that, I don't know what to say. --AgreeneyedFox 05:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

She might not need it now but as soon as another game comes out it's definetily going to be needed-Dark Dragon Flame 07:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, there's no reason to split Krystal or any other character out of this list unless there's commentary in reliable sources independent of the fictional works in which they appear. Seriously. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, AMIB? Hbdragon88 05:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... Krystal's role in all of the three games she's appeared in is pretty important, but important enough to warrant her own article? Well, I have to admit, unless there's something we missed, maybe not... --Luigifan 12:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that Krystal's long and interesting development history (including her place in Dinosaur Planet), warrants an article for her. She is definitely as significant as any Star Fox character or item that has its own article (like Star Wolf (Star Fox)). She should get her article back. Rhindle The Red 10:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice that Star Wolf deals with a group as a whole, not about any individual character. All of the characters who are Star Wolf members have their own section in this article. Krystal should not be granted any exceptions. Hbdragon88 23:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

AGREE She is one of the most important Chracters in the Star Fox universe, ther is NO reason NOT to have an article about her. Artanis-EN 21:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Falco, Slippy, Peppy, Krystal, Andross, and Wolf need their own articles back

Please,give the above listed characters their articles back, I can think of a lot of Categories they would fit in to.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.164 (talk • contribs)

You got my vote it was just plum bitter that way and what happend to there height,weight and age they use to have that

I agree to an extent, but not each character having individual articles for themselves (with the possible exceptions of Fox and Andross), but more like a team article, ie A whole page about the Starfox Team. That way more information could be gathered without making the article as a whole as spacious as the character atricle could be if the same instance was applied. Because, each character had quite interesting information regarding them (which were verified), which the character article does not include or loosely mentions. that makes the sections for each character incomplete, up to recent events anyway. For example, Andross' article has one small note that he appeared in Star Foz Command in that he appears piloting a Bio weapon. The whole point of his appearance is left completely left out (his reason for being there for example), and even the fact that there was a fake Andross in Star Fox 64. A similarly used concept was used for the Cult of Skaro article for Doctor Who, which is a character article about The cult as a whole, and included much more information about each member, more information than what is stated for the character article we have here, and most of the characters in this article have made many more appearances then the Cult of Skaro havein Doctor Who. Seriously, more information is necessary for the characters, and the most effective way is to grant each character, or whole team (Star Fox, and Star Wolf) an article. In fact more could then be said about the villains associates (such as the bosses in Star Fox 64) in their respective articles as well (all the bosses having a brief description in the Andross article as his associates), in much the same their would be articles for each team, so that each article would be equally about more then one character associated with a group of team. The First Darklord (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it would be a good idea to make a page for the Star Fox and Star Wolf teams individually, but not a page for each character. 75.60.227.23 (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Panther, Leon, Pigma, and Andrew need their own articles

I think the above character should have their own articles, there are so many Categories they would fit into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.164 (talk • contribs)

The consensus was to merge them. Most of the stuff written about them is crufty anyway and needs a lot of work. Thunderbrand 00:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

General Scales needs his own article

Seriously, the guy needs his own article. He has just as much info as Fox does, we will be able to get a clearer image of his personality, and I hear a big rumor that he might appear in the next Star Fox game and Super Smash Bros. Brawl as a playable character.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.175.119 (talk • contribs)

Scales' article was fairly small when it was merged, since there isn't a whole lot of info on him. And anyone could be in the next SSBB. Just wait until there is concrete evidence. Thunderbrand 17:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Give Falco, Slippy, Krystal, Wolf, and Andross their articles back, Pretty Please?

the above characters should have their articles back, I can think of a lot of categories they would fit into. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.244.187.115 (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree, these guys are not minor characters. --Luigifan 11:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

They are not characters about which reliable publications have seen fit to comment upon. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and reliable publications talk about Pokey all the time, right? Thores 15:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, he does have a point about Pokey. As much as I hate to bring up the Pokemon Test, some of these characters are pretty notable. --Piemanmoo 06:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, General Scales too!

Not Scales but Falco's so Damn important and maybe Wolf they definitely need articles. BaconBoy914 (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The AGENCY

There is this cool web comic out called The AGENCY. This has quite a bit of different animated characters from different universes, and some of the characters are from Star Fox! Maybe we could create a Wikipedia page about this web comic; You guys have to read it first, though (I've already read through it all) at the point I've written this). To read the comic, look for JediAnn Solo on Drunk Duck Webcomics. Add to this section if you are ready to create a new page! Dragonstar4 8:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Voice Acting for Starfox 64

For fact I can confirm Falco's voice actor to be Bill Johns, he is listed in the credits, but no name assigned. If more evidence is needed I will get it, as he is my brother's drama teacher. As for the other characters, I cannot provide evidence. When I try to add Bill Johns as a voice actor it just gets deleted.

Edited Panther's article

His article sounds a bit unjust for him, so I edited it to be fair in his case (i.e. his breaking of the stereotype in Command). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.83.13.16 (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Restoration for Krystal

Seriously, Krystal is a rather popular character, and I feel that she should have her own article back. For instance, she's the most popular StarFox character on Fanart Central. --Luigifan 11:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

'That's not enough justification.

Panther's dialogue

He speaks normally in other languages in Command - it's only his English version that sounds weird. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.2.116.244 (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Should Captain Shears be mentioned in this article?

I mean, why not? Captain Shears is a star fox character (even if it was from the Star Fox Adventures Prequel Manga, he is still a star fox character nonetheless), and he served as the antagonist who was trying to revive Andross from the grave. I mean, if you were able to add a Starfox SNES comic-only character (Fara Phoenix) into this article, then you can sure as heck add Captain Shears to this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.182.50 (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Sure, I think Shears should get mentioned. But he isn't very significant, no more than Fara. Q Games has also recently drawn inspiration from the comics, officially adding Papetoon to the list of planets in Lylat, so Shears and Fara probably have a chance of being canon as well.--Blinkstale 20:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Fara did appear in an early version of Star Fox 2. Takuthehedgehog 15:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Papetoon was stated as being Fox's home planet way back in the Japanese manual for Star Fox 64. 208.101.136.230 23:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Captain Shears is worthy to be in this article. One, it was directly under the supervision of Nintendo of Japan, so it's much more in line with the games than, say, the Nintendo Power spin-off. Second, there are no major contradictions between the manga and the games, and it doesn't try to be its own storyline. Third, just like Star Fox Command's overall game-play, Captain Shears was borrowed from a lost element of Star Fox 2 (notice that Captain Shears is exactly the same as General Pepper's redesign had the game been released, except that he's wearing green instead of blue and he reveals his eyes). 208.101.148.128 13:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone here type in Japanese?

Through google I found the Japanese Star Fox Assault site, but everyone's names are in the form of images. If anyone can type them out we could put them in the article. Also here's the Japanese Command site, I don't have time to explore it right now. Takuthehedgehog 15:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• I can via FireFox. Simply right-click the thumbnails of Star Wolf trio in the Japanese Star Fox Assault site and select Properties. It should contain the katakana.

James - Once and for all.

According to the original Japanese manual for Star Fox 64 (translation available at IGN), Andross set up a trap for James "in which he did not survive". This very explicitly states that James died, and nothing vague like 'his fate' or such like (which is probably a way of censorship and making less references to death). And as for him being a playable character in Command, realize that no one except Fox felt his presence, just like in Star Fox 64. Obviously there is a spiritual connection between them. To say now that James is alive is just trying to be idealistic. 208.101.136.230 23:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's a pretty good argument. But it seems like all subsequent games since Star Fox 64 have been deliberately vague on the matter. The Japanese SF64 manual makes it seem final, but Nintendo have changed their minds on certain elements of continuity for their franchises before, especially if this is only stated within the manual and not the actual Japanese version game. But like I said, it's a good argument (if this IS really in the manual, by the way, if we decide to do things your way you'll have to cite your source in more detail.. page number etc, if not a link to the actual manual page), and I think we should hear other opinions on how we should go about this before a final decision is made. Thores 05:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. I don't have the exact page number, but the whole IGN translation is pretty reliable since it also made us realize that Papetoon was in the game continuity even before Star Fox Command: http://ign64.ign.com/articles/060/060767p1.html . But maybe there should be more direct translations from other sources before a definite conclusion can be reached. One thing I do know is that, in Star Fox Command's pilot galley, James' section never said that "it was said that he lost his life" in the Japanese version (although I don't think I can back that up since the site that it was on, Arwing Landing, decided to 'update' all the pilot info with their counterparts in the English version instead of keeping both, and I don't know if the translation exists elsewhere, but it might still be on the forums somewhere). Maybe if someone could, say, translate the Japanese Trophies in Super Smash Bros. Melee, that'd be a very good start. 208.101.148.128 10:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's available at GameFAQs: http://www.gamefaqs.com/portable/ds/file/933009/44395 . And it does say something similar to the English version. 208.101.148.128 09:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, going by this, I'd say it's entirely possible that James was definitely intended to be dead, no question about it, when Star Fox 64 was released. However, it seems like both the American and Japanese versions have decided to keep the issue of his death vague since then, so I think we should let the theories stay in the article until either a game director or a future Star Fox game reveals more. Thores 08:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think he's dead since he only appears for Fox and he's the only one who can see/hear him. Then again, you never know. Son of Jadoja 20:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

SSBM

Shouldn't Falco's appearence in Super Smash Brothers Melee make him able to qualify for an article? He's the only Melee character that doesn't have one. Simply MP 20:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

His appearence in Melee doesn't add much to write about him, he's doesn't need an article.

Leon's image missing?

Deleted?

Abilities, appearances, and personality?

Should they be added to each character?

Fair use rationale for Image:Dashstarfox.jpg

Image:Dashstarfox.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:James Command.jpg

Image:James Command.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EmperorAnglar.jpg

Image:EmperorAnglar.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Amandastarfox.jpg

Image:Amandastarfox.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 09:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Merging Fox

Fox does not have any real world information at the moment, and I cannot imagine there being more than a paragraph of it available. It needs to be merged because of that. TTN (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem prudent, merging Fox will most likely spark a edit war, even worst than Goomba or Koopa, I would tag it with {{in-universe}} first, but I still can't see how this article will stay stable post-merge. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine actual users edit warring if this is left up long enough. It'll just need to be protected if anons attack. TTN (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Fox's article does not need to be merged. It has enough information to remain an article by itself. --AgreeneyedFox (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Real world information is all that matters in deciding if a single character article needs to stay or go. TTN (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Real world information"? I honestly have no idea what that means. --AgreeneyedFox (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It is information focused around the character's impact in the real world. That includes creation/development information and reception information. Fox doesn't have any now, and doesn't have the potential for much. TTN (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge - As part of a larger Characters of Star Fox article, there might actually be a chance of producing one good article as opposed to two weaker articles which is the current situation. Perhaps we could make a Star Fox featured topic! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No Merge. As the lead character in a popular series, as well as having made many appearances in other games and in other media, he needs his own article for proper encyclopedic treatment. Rhindle The Red (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No, without real world information, a section will suffice. This is not a fan site. TTN (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That does not justify a merge, it justifies adding more real world information. And this is not a fan site, it's an encyclopedia, so articles on notable fictional characters should not be merged just because you're not happy with the shape the article is in. Rhindle The Red (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to show that the information exists for that to be valid. If enough did exist, then this would be fine as it is. TTN (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't. My opinion and the consensus on the articles fate are not dependant on any guideline. Real world information is not "all that matters" when it comes to an article. It is important and needs to be included, but lacking it does not justify a merge. Second, what makes you think that Fox McCloud, star of four major video games, a major video game character, "doesn't have potential for much" real world information? You make that statement as if it is fact, when it is your opinion only. We can argue in circles again, but know this: you are not the final arbiter of what articles should stay and what articles should go and you cannot use your personal interpretation of wikipedia guidelines as if they are some sort of uniform code by which you can feel free to merge any article you wish. Frankly, most of the time, you are right and consensus will support your moves. But doggedly pursuing every article you feel is in violation of a wikipedia guideline and ignoring any argument that disgrees with your personal interpretations of said guidelines neither improves the Wikipedia, nor displays good faith trust in your fellow editors. Rhindle The Red (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:V, yes, you do. Topics must have notability asserted through secondary reliable sources. With fiction, this means real world information. If a topic lacks notability, it needs to be merged or deleted.

You can speculate about sources as much as you want, but without proof it means nothing. Important characters of one series may not need articles while a rather minor character of another may become a featured article. TTN (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:V doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about. That has to do with verifiability of material. Naturally, any material added to an article should be verified through references and so forth. Notability and verifiability are two separate things. You should be citing WP:NOTE, which is "not set in stone and should be treated with common sense".

Here's what WP:NOTE says about articles not satisfying the notability guidelines:

"If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or: Ask the article's creator for advice on where to look for sources. Put the {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors. To place a dated tag, put a {{subst:dated|notability}} tag. If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online."

Did you look for sources yourself? Did you ask the article's creator for advice on where to look for sources? Did you put the notability tag on the article to alert other editors? No, you didn't. I repeat: merging is not the solution to this article's problems. Rhindle The Red (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

V, RS, and N are pretty much just one package, so it is easier just to refer to the main part. Anyways, those are the most common ways to help assert an article, but they are in no way required. Merging is not an irreversible process, so there is no harm in going right to it. TTN (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

And there's no harm in following procedure and not "going right to it". Rhindle The Red (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

TTN's right, you have to establish its notability, otherwise you don't have a counter argument. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the article needs to establish notability. It is one of the things the article is lacking. But TTN has, as usual, circumvented the suggested method for resolving a lack of established notability. He chooses regularly to shoot past proper procedure becuase he can't see how an article will improve. He shows a lack of good faith in his fellow editors and just wants to "get things over with". Now, most of the time, as I said, this is fine. But common sense will tell you that a character like Fox McCloud should be able to be shown to be notable. Therefore, *in this case*, the answer would be to follow the full procedure and tag the article so people can try to fix it, rather than just merge it because it isn't up to snuff at the moment. Notability is not a core principal, it is a guideline. An articles failure, at any given time, to establish notability is not a viable argument for its merger or deletion. Rhindle The Red (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is, so don't pretend it isn't. If an article isn't notable, its not encyclopedic and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Just because people like to actually implement wikipedia policy over the shrill cries of people who don't understand wikipedia policy, or simply don't care, doesn't make them "mean" or lacking good faith. And if this article is so notable, please by all means, demonstrate it by posting links here so we can understand how wrong we are, but I suspect that wont happen. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't say that a subject that isn't notable should have an article. I said that just because the article does not address it's subject's notability is not a reason to delete or merge it. That is a reason to address notability in the article. The proper procedure for fixing an article's notability problem was not followed in this case. Rhindle The Red (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge - Fox McCloud does not need a page on Wikipedia, especially because it has no real-life data. I'd prefer it being deleted and transwikied to a Wikia instead. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As my points have not been addressed, there has been no consensus on this issue. Rhindle The Red (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You are not the deciding party. The discussion has show that there is not enough information to establish an article, so that's it. TTN (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the discussion has shown that *you* believe there is not enough information to establish an article, as you have from the beginning. Just because *you* have not been convinced does not mean that consensus has been reached. Please respond to my points or move along. Rhindle The Red (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine, what point are you talking about? You derailed into the little "follow the every single little thing by the book, even though they are suggestions more than actual rules or just do what is necessary" discussion that we have had twenty times. That is irrelevant to this discussion. The character needs more than two sentences of creation info and a bunch of reception info in order to thrive. Otherwise, it needs to be merged, then split when the information is available (just so you know, that it the by the book approach). Do you have that information or do you know where to find it? TTN (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked why you moved to merge this article instead of attempting to gather notability sources yourself, tag the article for a lack of notability, or attempt to contact editors knowledgable in the field to help establish notability. You then proceeded to claim that WP:V was somehow relevant and was "one package" with WP:NOTE, but never explain why. I have not demanded that you go "by the book" on every single item you choose to merge. I have asked you, repeatedly, to use common sense and follow a more careful pattern on articles that you should know are going to be disputed. Fox McCloud, lead character of four popular video games and a comic series, is not Troy McClure. You should have taken extra steps before attempting to merge him. Far from me being Mr. "by the book", it is you who thinks that every article must be dealt with in the same manner and constantly wants articles to toe the line *instantly*, no matter what it is or if it prudent to do so. Rhindle The Red (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, the path that I choose to take is completely irrelevant to the discussion, and being a main character of something means absolutely nothing. You can either provide sources or a reasonable assertion for sources, or you can let the merge go through. If you want to talk over the semantics of this, feel free to drop by my talk page. TTN (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge - TTN is right in this case, and suggesting a merge is an appropriate action to deal with articles that fail to meet notability requirements particularly for fictional articles. Just because he's the lead character in a long running series does not make him notable (per WP's definition), that only makes him important but that's not enough to qualify the character article. Merge overall details into List article, transwiki the rest. --MASEM 01:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT MERGE. I fully support Rhindle The Red in this debate and suggest that we all make the effort to provide the article with enough sourced information rather than just take the easy way out and simply condense it into the character list article. --AgreeneyedFox (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Don't merge: The article already contains some real world info about the conception of this character, he's loosely based on a Japanese deity. It's not sourced, although I recall a documentary stating much the same thing. Might have to dig through offline sources. This doesn't differ substantially from Rinoa Heartilly in any case. --Nydas^(Talk) 16:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Three sentences of creation information does not warrant an article. Without information to back it up, it is better suited to the list. It is true, though. I just need to figure out the correct way to cite a player's guide (it doesn't really fit "Cite book" or anything else). Rinoa Heartilly has more than a few sentences of information, though I wouldn't really object to it being merged at this point. TTN 19:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• What's the 'correct' number of sentences?--Nydas^(Talk) 21:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• There's no 'right' number, but it comes back to undue weight - how much real-world information is there relative to the in-universe information? The three sentences given on creation info are far outweighed by the rest of the article. --MASEM 21:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• In which case, the first option should be to trim the in-universe stuff back.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Which is certainly an option, but that means that to achieve no undue weight, would mean the article on Fox would be sufficiently short (no more than 4 paragraphs at most) as to not need its own article and would be better merged in the "List of" article. --MASEM 23:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• That seems arbitary. The character is one of Nintendo's staples, and with half a dozen redesigns under the belt, it seems likely that other information can be found, even if the blog linked below isn't 'enough'. That 'List of' articles are better is not a view I share; they are virtually always trainwrecks, especially after they've been ravaged by the fair users and TTN launches his inevitable deletion effort.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Remember, WP is not hear to fully provide plot details, including character details, of fictional works - the main purpose is to identify what a subject is and what real-world importance it has. Certainly, this doesn't mean we can't briefly describe FM, but for the reader who may be researching video games but has never and will likely never play the Star Fox series, going into all the in-universe details is useless. The in-universe descriptions should be used to support the real-world importance, instead of how people tend to seek out real-world information to add to in-universe details to suddenly make an article notable. I don't disagree that you'll likely be able to find real-world information and then can write the in-universe stuff around it, but until that information is found, a separate article for FM is really not needed, but once it is, a full article is merited. --MASEM 19:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to be saying that the article can only be recreated at good or featured level. I don't believe there is any requirement that plot and real-world information be integrated flawlessly, only that the latter exists. Holding this to a fantastically high standard just to exist is special pleading.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• They need enough to warrant separation from the parent article. As it stands, Fox is fine with three sentences. Now, if Fox had six paragraphs of information compared to the one or two for the other characters, with three of those being solid paragraphs of real world information, then that would probably warrant an article. TTN 12:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Again, introducing these arbitary ratios is special pleading. Your ratio is 50%, Masem's is 25%. Where did these come from? Have these been discussed anywhere? Why aren't they applied to featured articles? In any case, with hedging terms like 'solid paragraphs' and 'probably', you're indicating that if this article did pass these criteria, it would still be a matter for your judgement.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• It comes from the fact that some sort of threshold is required to avoid having every character with a sentence or two of real world information receive an article. My criteria may be slightly different than another person's, but I'm sure we can all agree that three sentences is not enough. TTN 14:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• There are at least seven sentences communicating out-of-universe information. This recent AfD (started by you) was closed as a keep due to a single piece of real world info. Having a correct 'ratio' of real-world information seems to be a policy that has been invented for this discussion.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• There is no set ratio or range of ratios - it is what makes common sense. 50% is perfect "balance' while 25% can be maybe a little heavy on the in-universe side but still reasonable depending on certain cases. But don't write towards the numbers, write towards what real-world information you can find, using in-universe information to fill the gaps. We already have that McCloud is based on that statue, so a statement about his appearance including his signature red scarf is appropriate and well-matched to that information. If some developer talked about needing to give McCloud a nemesis in Andross, then the section on the current page about his childhood and death of his mother would be appropriate; but if no such real-world commentary exists, then there's no point of this section beyond being fancruft. I'm not saying these are one-to-one (50%); to not state that McCloud is the leader of the Star Fox team because no real-world source even mentions this aspect is not a good idea, as this is a key plot element, but remember, we are not hear to give complete fictional character biographies that lack real-world information, which is what the FM page currently looks like. --MASEM 15:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• As I said before, this is a critique for a featured or good article, not a rationale for redirecting. Neither is talking up a particularly bad section as if it is indicative of the article as a whole, past, present and future.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Break

(un-indent) There needs to be something to decide if a character needs an article or not. The only way is the amount of possible real world information. This has three sentences, and I cannot see the possibility for more at this point. I don't know if you can, but you'll have to back that assertion. TTN 20:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That's an argument from personal incredulity. If you can't advance your viewpoint beyond miscounting sentences and arbitary personal yardsticks (not applied to Sonic or Final Fantasy, of course!), then there's nothing else to discuss.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Did I not just mention "the amount of possible real world information"? There is absolutely no assertion that there is more out there. Sonic is a mess and I haven't really dealt with Final Fantasy beyond a small number of redirects and a couple of merge discussion, so I cannot really compare those standards to this one. TTN 20:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. There is more than enough real world information to create an article at the same level as other good-rated video game character articles, like Cortana and Squall Leonhart.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The Cortana article is one thing (though heavily weighted on "top video game characters" but, hey, that's fair), but be aware that Squall was passed as a GA prior to the new notability guidelines. All but 4 references for Squall come from secondary sources, and 3 of those 4 come directly from reviews of the game; there is definitely too much undue weight on the in-universe stuff. The Characters of Final Fantasy VIII is a better page. This is the wrong place and wrong time for suggesting a GA re-review (to prove a WP:POINT), but the point I'm trying to make here is that be careful about applying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - we have to evaluate the notability and the demonstration of each article on its own.

My thought is: you are going to have a lot better chance of making a well rounded, highly notable and verifiable list of Star Fox characters page, than you are going to have trying to do the same for Fox McCloud. The List page does not need each character balanced with equal numbers of paragraphs, so Fox can get a bit more coverage, but overall, finding articles on specific characters (particularly from a game series that started before the internet boom) is going to be very very tricky; finding articles on at least the entire cast wll be much easier. Again, I use the Squall vs Characters of FFVIII comparison again: the list just has a lot more in secondary sources to make it a strong article. --MASEM 14:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with asserting notability 'on its own' is that you are demanding adherence to a standard which does not have traction anywhere else. Only a tiny number of video game character articles even come close to your standards, and most of those will be featured. Which brings us back to you demanding featured standards or else.

There's already enough sources for a very good creation section regarding Shigeru Miyamoto's idea from the statues at Fushimi Inari-taisha, and information about the character's later development is also available. Characters of Final Fantasy VIII is not a good comparison; it's a party RPG, not an protagonist-led action series.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Three sentences are all that can be taken from the initial creation part (make sure that you're looking at the list entry that I had merged here). After that, I can only see one or two more from the sources below, but those also apply to the general creation of the characters, which will be present here anyways. So, all there is to establish an article independent from this one is a small paragraph that easily fits here and helps to establish this article's notability. What exactly warrants separation? Also, your examples up there clearly have multiple paragraphs available to warrant separation (maybe not in Squall's case). TTN 22:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, that is an argument from personal incredulity. It's a given that you will only 'see' a single paragraph because you want the article deleted. There are at least four or five paragraphs about the creation alone, as well as a picture of the Inari statue. Your stub list entry tells us nothing about why the character was needed, glosses over the mythological inspiration and fails to mention the Argonaut team. There is nothing about how the character was added at a late stage to what became Star Fox Adventures (following a request from Miyamoto), necessitating a re-write of the game. There's nothing about the critical reaction to this decision (IGN notes that Fox is clearly out of place) or the generally positive reaction to the character model.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Details about the creation of the first Star Fox game are irrelevant to the single character (unless you want to be completely redundant, as he was also creating the other aspects of the game). Maybe a sentence would be warranted. Unless you want to fluff it up to hell by including every little detail about the where the statue is located and all that stuff (undue weight), the current details represent everything necessary. I missed the part about Fox looking like the old main character of DP, but any other details are exclusive to the games. Reception like that is good, but again, it is better kept in the one place that it matters rather than shoved into an article to hastily assert notability. TTN 21:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

On November the 19th you said real-world information is "focused around the character's impact in the real world. That includes creation/development information and reception information." Now you're moving the goalposts. This novel new idea of creation, development and reception information being redundant with work of fiction articles could spark a whole new era of deleting fictional things; why not try to get it written up as an actual guideline?--Nydas^(Talk) 21:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

We're not looking at a black and white standard. If one article is repeating information already stated on three others, while only having a paragraph of its own unique information, don't you think that something is fairly redundant? It's the same thing with movie characters. Often, there is enough information to justify an article (based on only the amount of real world info), but the information is kept in the main article because it makes sense stylistically. It's the same exact case here. And as I have explained, most of the information that you have talked about relates mainly to the games, which if added here, would be a whole other kind of redundant. TTN (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, the more appearances a character has, the less notable they become. If you want these new ideas to become enshrined as a guideline, then take them to the usual places.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is pointless. Just follow Masem's suggestion of a sandbox, and we'll go from there. TTN (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(to Nydas above) - Again, be aware that the new definition of notability is less than a year old - applying it across WP is not going to happen with a snap of the fingers. While TTN's methods have been criticized in the past (see this AN/I report), most agree that what he's doing is correct - that the bulk of the articles he's trying to delete or merge fail notability guidelines (for the record, I believe TTN is doing this FM discussion completely by-the-book instead of being overly bold to avoid displeasure at his editing approach). We only just got done getting every Pokemon article down to a lists of 20 save for a few, and once former featured articles like "Goomba" have since been merged to articles. But there's hundreds of such characters articles and only a few editors highly aware of notability concerns; most others want to give every minor character their own page as soon as possible.

I also point out that an ultimate goal of WP is to have every article of FA quality, though obviously not all articles can be FA from the moment of creation. While there is no time limit for getting articles to FA, one must consider the potential of the article to become an FA. This is part of what drives the five pillars of WP in that it defines that articles must be well-written, neutral, accurate, and the topic notable. Thus, we are trying to evaluate whether Fox's article will ever be FA quality and so far there is not a strong demonstration of notability - at least to have Fox stand on his own. --MASEM 14:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It is without precedent to claim that the ideal of perfection entails every article having featured-grade sourcing instantly available (otherwise, annihilation!). Notability is not mentioned on the five pillars of Wikipedia - but 'perfection is not required' is. The topic's notability has been established, even by the new standards, and certainly by the standards of AfD and scrutinised video game character articles.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability is covered by Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. One secondary source (the interview) does not establish "significant coverage" (the dojo/Super Smash stuff are all primary sources). --MASEM 21:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT only mentions notability in the context of advertising, vanity and news stories. It says plot summaries need real world information, which we have in spades here. There's masses of creation info, at least as good as *any* other video game character article, and there's plenty of other real world info - adding this character to Dinosaur Planet delayed the game by two years and contributed to the Nintendo/Rare split. The video game historian's long article, linked below, contains some decent info, and IGN's review of SFA has a good -sized paragraph about how Fox is 'wrong' for the game. I repeat that this is more than enough to pass the standard set by AfD and other scrutinised video game character articles.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because it's not linked directly from WP:FIVE or WP:NOT doesn't make Notability a non-core guideline. It is considered a key guideline to WP, however (see Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines). And I've mentioned this before, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument: articles have to be treated on a case-by-case basis - we know there's a lot of crap vg character article out there, but there's no way they all can be handled in a short period without concerted effort. That said, (and knowing that it can't be added to the article as its fullprot) those references you talk about are new to this discussion, and that could change things. My suggestion is to make a sandbox version of the article in your userspace and update the article to include those and then let's see where it stands. --MASEM 13:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability may or may not be a 'core guideline', but you still haven't provided any basis for your novel interpretations of it. My arguments are valid; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an ignorable essay that happens to be mostly wrong. Ignoring precedent set by high profile and heavily discussed articles sets the stage for massive WP:NPOV violations.

I'll just ask an admin to unlock the Fox McCloud article and start working on it. It's not a controversial issue that needs to be tiptoed around. Creating it in my userspace for you to 'judge' would imply that your judgement is better than mine, and that you have some sort of expertise in this area.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Of course this should be merged based on the consensus behind WP:N, WP:V & WP:FICT. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site, and articles need to assert real-world notability. Eusebeus 20:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(I strongly suggest that Rhindle and other fans above visit http://starfox.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page, which would warmly welcome a full exploration of the in-universe dimensions across all major themes. Eusebeus)

Fox has plenty of potential for "real world" info. For example, many reviewers of Star Fox Adventures criticized the game for having Fox out of place, and if I can remember correctly, I believe it was IGN that said something along the lines of "Fox is only on this world at Nintendo's request, not because he belongs." A reviewer of Command noted that "Fox is finally back in the Arwing, where he belongs." I also recall an entry in Craig Harris' blog on IGN Wii that was called "F--ed up Fox" where he rambled on and on about how Nintendo couldn't solidify what the Star Fox franchise was, and plenty of his own opinions concerning Fox, namely his character models. Here's the link [1] --AgreeneyedFox 23:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The first few things have more to do with the games and the overall series rather than Fox, and the personal opinions from just one guy don't really seem relevant. He may be a main writer, but unlike the rest of the content of the site, it does not appear to have undergone any sort of editorial process. If you want to take those reviews and set up a rough draft here, we can see if they're useful or not. TTN 23:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Interview in N-gamer

There's an interview in N-gamer which has lots of real world information.[2]. --Nydas^(Talk) 18:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Also, a stupendously long article in Advanced Media Network.[3] --Nydas^(Talk) 18:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Those will work well here, and substitute the player's guide information. I don't know if you're trying to make a case for Fox or something, though. TTN 20:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Where the Lawrence Whelk are the pictures?

Or are they not even notable enough for that? Come on, people! 153.42.168.174 (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Merging Fox, take two

There is still nothing that warrants separation from the article. In creation, the first paragraph is filler (it's about the series). The second fits in the general concept and creation. The basis for Fox fits in here just fine, though the part about the scarf will have to be removed, unless I'm missing a mention of it. The part about being based off of Miyamoto's personality also fits into the general creation, as it goes with the mention of the other character's personalities. The rest of the minor notes throughout the article can also be placed here as well. TTN (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of wasting everyone's time with made-up policies and your grudge against Nintendo articles, why not apply these notions of yours to the Sonic and Dragonball Z articles? You are a fan of these franchises, I believe.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with policies or guidelines. It's about managing content in a way that makes sense. Despite what you seem to believe, this is not a contest to obtain the most articles. It's about writing a detailed encyclopedia. This information works much better in the list; there is no other reason for my proposal. I hope that in time all of our fiction will have appropriate weight; it's just going to take a while. TTN (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You must admit, the article isn't exactly bursting with content, especially as a lot of OR was trimmed away...it would probably condense well into two- three paragraphs and greatly help the characters article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The article has more out-of-universe content than all but a handful of video game character articles. I didn't realise that articles had to 'burst' with content to be worth keeping, are we back to your 'good-or-featured-within-a-month-or-else' ideology? As for organising information sensibly, it makes no sense to target solid fiction articles when there's stuff like the Sly Cooper bosses, Sonic character forks or Spoo hanging about.--Nydas^(Talk) 23:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And the information still belongs here. It fits nicely; it helps establish notability; it's nowhere near requiring a split. Don't even bother using WAX; it's one of the worst arguments around. TTN (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No merge. For the reasons I've given and supported earlier, NO merge. --AgreeneyedFox (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A Star Wolf Reference?

Does anyone think that Star Wolf's hideout in Assault (Sargasso Sea Space) is a reference to the novel Wide Sargasso Sea and its various media adaptations? ChromeWulf ZX (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Fara Phoenix

Fara Phoenix redirects here, but she's nowhere to be found in this article. - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Anon attempting to add unsourced Krystal speculation

I'd hit it myself, but I'm at 2RR and would like to stay that way. Can someone else please take care of this? Coreycubed (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Panther and Leon appear as trophies and special taunts in Brawl

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v213/wolfoxokamichan/trophy2.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v213/wolfoxokamichan/trophy.jpg

taunt: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gNXQzmmafQA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.128.25 (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

star pex

someone edited general peppers article. and he used star pex. i edited it back. but why did he do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.186.33 (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Any idea on Wolf's English VA for Brawl?

Here's the vid. http://youtube.com/watch?v=arRHChWh5tk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.112.210 (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Caroso spelling in Brawl?

Is there any proof to this?

Yeah--his trophy, and the special dialogue on the Lylat Cruise stage. 74.14.11.169 (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Where to find citation for Pigma Dengar's namesake

I remember when I was a kid when our neighbor gave me all of his old Nintendo Power magazines. There was an interview with one of the creators of Star Fox 64. One question I thought odd was 'Is there any character you dislike,' to which was answered, 'Well, I really hated the English version of Bill's voice.' However, another question asked was, 'We're all curious, while other character's names have fairly obvious connotations, "Pigma Dengar's" last name doesn't mean anything in English. Any comments?' 'Well, that's actually a pun on a Japanese word which means (he said something like, 'to go against,' or, 'to betray'), and is sort of an inside joke with us.'

Anyway, I have long since thrown those issues away. If anyone has a NP stash around there house, that's where you can find the citation. I don't remember which issue it was, but I think it will have "Interview with creator, etc" on it. Sorry. :? ~TJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.117.184 (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Slippy's gender

Just where exactly is the source for Slippy's gender?--Herb-Sewell (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm changing any references to Slippy's gender until we get a source. Herb-Sewell (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this a joke? --(trogga) 22:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Slippy has a girlfriend -_- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.116.237.148 (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC) That That doesn't actually confirm that the engagement can't be one between two homosexuals. Until there's an actual verifiable source, Slippy's gender remains ambiguous.--Herb-Sewell (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the script of Ending 5 from SF Command.

"The years passed. Slippy and Amanda had a veritable army of children, and Slippy thought he could never be any happier. His children grew tall and strong in the clean Aquas air, and loved to hear stories of how Dad flew with the legendary Star Fox team.

Slippy decided to leave Star Fox behind and make a new life of the beautiful Planet of Aquas...with Amanda by his side. There was no indecision or regret on his part. He would live for his family now...

Several decades pass. Slippy is now an old man who loves to recount tales of the good old days for visiting children. When he finishes a yarn, he often thinks on his friends. Do they still cross the galaxy righting wrongs? He can only watch the sky and wonder..."

Slippy is male. GET THE HELL OVER IT. 70.48.216.109 (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

O.K., see, that's there a proper source.--Herb-Sewell (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, Peppy's statement after the Titania mission in SF64: "I'm sure He's learned his lesson!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.191.26 (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Over a decade later: In the official Chinese localisation of Star Fox 64, Slippy is referred to as '她' (she) in the manual. Jhynjhiruu (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Brawl English VA?

I am pretty sure only Slippy, Fox and Krystal are the ones who are voiced by their Assault VA. As you check this vid, you can see that Wolf, Panther, Leon, Falco, and Peppy didn't have their Assault voice actors credited (that, and they actually sound different). Any idea who voiced them in Brawl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.126.98 (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know. Falco does sound like Mike Maddeoy to me, and I've heard rumors that Grant Goodeve (Assault VA) is still Wolf, and I did see Dex Manley (ROB 64 in Assault) in the credits when I finished SSE. Either the Assault VAs were replaced, there were scheduling conflicts, or they're uncredited/under psuedonyms. ChromeWulf ZX (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling that they are credited, but the problem is that SSE Credits didn't specify who voiced who. Wolf sounds different here when compared to his Assault voice, and Dex voiced someone else here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.124.202 (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibility that Goodeve did Wolf and Madoey did Falco here?

Wolf does indeed sound a lot like Engineer and Assault Wolf (the gruffness on the voice).

In Star Fox Assault, you can hint that Falco there has an accent similar to the one in Brawl.

Is it possible that the two are not credited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuffiekun123 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does it Krystal's bio describe Ending 4?

Where does it say that the real ending the the one where Krystal changes her identity and migrates to a new planet? I believe Starfox Command has no true ending, and if Nintendo says there is, then it's most likely Ending 1 because it's a combination of Endings 5, 6, and 7. Joey368 (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• There's no canon ending, but if there should be one, then it's the default one, but as far as things go there is no canon ending.

Actually, endings 1, 2 and 5 seem to be the ones most likely to be chosen as possible canon endings. The default ending is one of the farthest you can get from what should be canon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.0.102 (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Jay Ward?!

How can Wolf be voiced by Jay Ward if he's dead? --Coconutfred73 (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Not that Jay Ward, but the Jay Ward who did Metroid Theme's narration. Also, Falco's voice was done by Dex Manley.122.2.118.239 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Krystal's outfits

Do we really need the long list of outfits that Krystal wears in each game? It's not notable (and i don't just mean in the real world; even in the Star Fox universe I don't see how it's notable), and it's more specific information than we are giving in the article for any other character, including Fox, which makes the article look awkward. I am deleting that list for now; if someone wants to bring it back, could you please explain here why you think it's important to have that section? Thanks. --Politizer (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Alex 8194

Can you please explain why you are removing Image:Star Fox Brawl.jpg from the lead-in of the article? So far, you have not left any edit summaries or discussed your edits so none of us can tell what your rationale is.

Furthermore, regarding your additions of Image:Falco Command.jpg and Image:Wolf O'Donnell.jpg...I don't have a problem with having those images there, but if we are adding images of them and removing one of the few images that actually has Fox in it, won't we risk facing issues of undue weight? Please expain below. --Politizer (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As there has been no response yet, I'm going to put that picture back for now. If anyone thinks the picture (or any of the other pictures in the article) should be removed, please discuss it here. Thanks, Politizer (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Placement of images

I removed the extra whitespace added in this edit and I figured I should explain why here, to avoid any revert wars. I can see why you added that whitespace--so that the beginning of Fox's entry would line up against the left margin, instead of being indented by the image. But I think having that large amount of whitespace (as you can see if in the old edit) is probably not visually pleasing (I don't know if there is an official WP policy on this), and guessed that having the beginning of the Fox entry offset a bit by the image is not as bad as having all that whitespace.

Alternatives to this would be putting the image in question (the image of the Star Fox team) on the right-hand side of the article; that isn't really a good alternative here, though, because there are already two images close together on the right side (the image in the lead-in, and the image of Falco not long after), and squishing this image in between them is also not aesthetically pleasing. One could remove the lead-in image and put this Star Fox team image in the lead-in instead (after all, the lead-in image is from Brawl, not from a Star Fox game); the only problem with that is that this image is very small, and also doesn't look good in the lead-in (trust me, I tried it and it didn't look good).

The best solution is probably just to come up with a better image, put it in the lead-in, and scrap both this and the Brawl image. In the meantime, though, I have put the image where it is because this seems to be the most aesthetically pleasing layout, given the materials we have to work with. --Politizer (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Star Fox 2 Characters?

Despite Star Fox 2 not being an officially released game, but still nonetheless very real, should Fay Spaniel and Miyu Lynx perhaps have honorable mentions? There might not be very much to put, however, since little can be established of their characters aside from animated gestures and translated dialogue... ProjectPlatinum 00:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Merging Fox McCloud

The article really doesn't have anything going for it besides some creation information, so it would be best to merge it her in order to strengthen this article. TTN (talk) 01:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support It's like a ton of Nintendo articles, though unlike several has more pronounced dev info. If reception can be found and added to the article I'll withdraw this vote. Emphasizing the last bit because far too often people start citing reception in discussions but never actually work them into the article...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This is actually a little disheartening: you'd think more people would care to give input one way or another on this matter.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not think that this would help. Fox McCloud is linked from this article, so if someone had something to contribute, they could just go to that article. Personally, I think the Concept and creation section is enough to warrant having its own article, but there is also the Characteristics and Appearances sections. Also, because this is a list, it would mean that the whole Fox McCloud article would have to be condensed here, deterring any detailed expansion. RP9 (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the merge, since as the star character of an entire series Fox is definitely notable. The article could use a "reception" or "cultural impact" section, but it is already sourced as far as the character's development goes.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Some advice for reception searching: Search articles on IGN! Thought it's hard for common names like Navi (which brings up Navigation, Navy, etc.), Fox McCloud would be easy to find some articles on. Remember, just because an article isn't about Fox's reception doesn't mean a piece of reception about him isn't worth mentioning! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: I agree that the article needs lots of work, and we need to cut the junk about what color Fox's pants are. I do not think that Fox should be merged, because he is deserving of an article as the major protagonist, and has made appearances in other video games. Plus, he would dominate the content of the article when merged--bad idea. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK...the result of this is this dead/keep Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wolf's Design

Why does the article state that Wolf's change in design (from 64 to Assault onward) is "... due to the fact that he got into more serious criminal manners and therefore has a bounty on his head." ?? What would entail such an impression? (67.58.249.220 (talk) 05:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC))

WHY? >_< (66.116.4.100 (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC))

"Caiman (Star Fox)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Caiman (Star Fox). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 15#Caiman (Star Fox) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 07:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

"Slippy" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Slippy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 30 § Slippy until a consensus is reached. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

"Vixy Reinard" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Vixy Reinard has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 30 § Vixy Reinard until a consensus is reached. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

As a result of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 22#Vixy Reinard, here are the contributions of the article formerly at Vixy Reinard. -- Tavix (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

04:20, 5 August 2005‎ Thunderbrand (talk · contribs) 60 bytes −1,334‎ 16:02, 7 July 2005‎ Thunderbrand (talk · contribs) 1,394 bytes +13‎ 03:29, 8 June 2005‎ PDH (talk · contribs) 1,381 bytes −33‎ 06:48, 12 May 2005‎ Almafeta (talk · contribs)‎ m 1,414 bytes +33‎ 04:55, 3 May 2005‎ JetsLuvver (talk · contribs) 1,381 bytes +14‎ 00:25, 3 May 2005‎ 11111111111 (talk · contribs) 1,367 bytes +2‎ 16:22, 27 April 2005‎ Oberiko (talk · contribs) 1,365 bytes +11‎ 16:34, 22 April 2005‎ Thunderbrand (talk · contribs)‎ m 1,354 bytes 0‎ 00:46, 22 April 2005‎ 152.163.100.202 (talk · contribs) 1,354 bytes −230‎ 00:46, 22 April 2005‎ 152.163.100.202 (talk · contribs) 1,584 bytes +2‎ 00:44, 22 April 2005‎ 152.163.100.202 (talk · contribs) 1,582 bytes −17‎ 01:41, 19 April 2005‎ Gilgamesh~enwiki (talk · contribs) 1,599 bytes +29‎ 03:41, 12 April 2005‎ DZComposer (talk · contribs) 1,570 bytes +32‎ 01:25, 6 April 2005‎ Evice (talk · contribs) m 1,538 bytes +8‎ 22:57, 21 March 2005‎ DZComposer (talk · contribs) 1,530 bytes +1,530‎

"List of minor characters in the Star Fox series" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of minor characters in the Star Fox series has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 30 § List of minor characters in the Star Fox series until a consensus is reached. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

"Fay Spaniel" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Fay Spaniel has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 28 § Fay Spaniel until a consensus is reached. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

"Herbert the Android Pig" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Herbert the Android Pig has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 28 § Herbert the Android Pig until a consensus is reached. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

"Ruffian (Star Fox)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ruffian (Star Fox) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 28 § Ruffian (Star Fox) until a consensus is reached. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

"Facecore" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Facecore has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 28 § Facecore until a consensus is reached. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)