Talk:Rufus (Street Fighter)

Content

I have removed a couple of the extraneous links from this page. A reference article is not meant to be "Everything we can find out about Rufus". It is not enough simply to Google his name every day and indiscriminately list everything that comes up. References should only be used to back up a point that's being made.

Finally, unless Rufus turns out to be from Florda, I won't expect to see any more mention of the Tampa Tribune. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.96 (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's indiscriminately listing anything: the sources are reliable publications and websites. There's no region lock on a reference, just a requirement that if something's cited the source is reliable and verifiable. Look around at any other character article for crying out loud.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if a site is "reliable and verifiable". It shouldn't get added as a reference just for referencing's sake. You need to make or establish notable points, not just provide backup that a certain magazine likes or dislikes a character. If Rufus tops a poll, that might count, but otherwise you're just providing news/publicity updates. See most of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, especially section 2.9, point 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.96 (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Part of the point of reception is publicity: reception boiled down is literally "what the public thinks about the character". You want to argue with sources, try here. Also point 2.5 subsection 5 covers creating articles based on random news items, such as kidnappings and so forth. Not their use as sources in articles.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with the source itself. That would be silly. I'm echoing that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It doesn't matter that you can find a source to back something up if you are not saying anything worth saying. If you think Rufus is worth having his own article, try providing an insight into his character, or explaining what makes him unique or revolutionary or popular (or unpopular). So far, none of this has been done.

The restaurant stuff, nobody knows what nationwide means. It's either international, or it needs to be explained what nation you're talking about.

Finally, Rufus would probably be summed up by everyone as "a fat character". Surely it would be good to know how fat, by listing his official weight?

Also, please do not remove notability flag without good reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.96 (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Why you keep deleting the popcorn stuff? Since he's only been in one game, we have very little to go on about his character, so this is one of the key details revealed in official artwork.

And gameplay wise, the vitality is a key advantage of this character over all the others... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.96 (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I'm removing the notability tag because I'm contesting the claim. If you want to push it further I suggest you take it to a AfD

Second, nothing here is handled in a fashion that's a collection of miscellaneous info. The promotion section contributes towards the company's handling of the character (in comparison to others such as Balrog (Street Fighter)) while the reception covers people's reactions to the characters in citable media, which is not simply "he's fat".

Third, the weight stat was something that was covered to death for character articles and considered trivial compared to height or three-sizes for female characters which contributed to understanding a character's appearance in relation to another. However saying in the design section Rufus weighs over 200 lbs if it can be cited isn't a bad idea (227, right?) Also the higher defense needs a source, but for the most part is trivial (larger characters in games have higher defense, that's a given).

But like I said, if you feel this shouldn't be here, AfD it. I'm working on expanding it and right now you're just impeding that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I' have taken out the references to the actors again. It's just clutter. Please see Ryu, Guile, Chun-Li or Bison, as well as the 4 non-gaming characters I mentioned before. References would be needed if you were saying something controversial, or something that wasn't easily verified by anyone playing the game. They most definitely are not needed for actors.

"removing the notability tag because I'm contesting the claim"? That's not for you to decide. The point of that tag is that it remains for at least a month, and until a consensus is reached. At the moment this seems to be a one-man article.

Anyway, I'll tell it straight so that you don't waste too much of your time. This is not the place for every quote you can find. IGN saying that he is "a capable fighter" is not worth mentioning, likewise for most of the other quotes. Maybe you could use that reference among a list of 2 or 3 to state that, for example, "overwhelming opinion is that Rufus is the most popular new character" or something (although anecdotaly I'd say that wasn't the case, but it's an example of what you might try to establish). Furthermore, if you want to manage a complete database of all character references and reviews, then that's up to you, but please take it to a fansite hosted elsewhere.

You're making a very big deal out of them being "citable media", when in fact this doesn't matter as long as the points themselves are irrelevant. Wikipedia readers do not need to know whether a certain newspaper likes a character, or whether a website dislikes them. You need to concentrate on making points that are valid and worthwhile. How does he compare to other new and old characters? Does he have any truly unique features or moves? What stereotypes does he reinforce/break? These sorts of questions might add something, but shallow and throwaway one-liners do not.

As for his defence, well that's one of the key elements to his gameplay. I'll dig out a reference if it meant that you wouldn't delete the entry out of revenge 30 seconds after I put it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.96 (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, I just went through 13 other SF characters, and 9 other random characters from games/movies/comics, and do you know how many others saw fit to reference a link that backed up their actor? NONE. It is simply not common practice, no matter what else you may have read. Please quit trying to reintroduce these pointless links. Everybody believes you without a url that says the same thing as can be seen onscreen.

On another issue, related to you revamping the article, I have no objection provided you establish some much needed notability. In particular, you have one week to prove that Rufus is more significant or important than, say, Yun, Hokuto or Alex.

As a pointer, Tiamat's SF canon guide has all of the official backstories translated into English from Capcom Japan at http://www.capcom.co.jp/sf4/cs_stories_index.html . Did you ever take a look at it? Try to pick out one or two of the key story points for inclusion here - I think that would help.

Also, the weight is 185 kg, from a published book, although I think I converted it into lbs before. However, kg seems like the best unit to use, so it's back in.

Instead of trying to revert anything written by somebody else besides you, please be constructive and improve the article by adding material, as I think you are enthusiastic enough to make it happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.96 (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that the only article higher than B-class quality is Poison (Final Fight) for the whole series of characters, and you'll notice it cites the actors. The other articles *should*. When you make any claim on wikipedia, it *should* be cited somewhere in the text. I've been at this awhile. I'm pretty much one of the few guys on the project that works on character articles, and I've helped get several to Good Article status (sometimes as the primary editor working on the aritcle at all). That might sound big winded, but I'm just saying I know what I'm talking about here.

I have one week to prove to you that it's notable? No way, you don't believe it then just slap it up for deletion like I said. Let them sort it out so I can keep working on it. I will say pound for pound this is more said about this one character than most SF characters *period*. And that's actually disturbing.

Tiamat's plot guide, sadly, has been deemed an unreliable source simply because he interprets what other sources say. It can't be used, and shouldn't be used. :(

I'll look for a player's guide for the stats so I can cite a page for them at least. Beyond that I've asked the video games project to take a look into this and offer some input in our debate.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Per the {{underconstruction}} tag, this article should not have notability pointed to it until it's removed or several days of relative stability have been achieved. If at such a time you still feel it does not meet the WP:GNG or we should still make an exception to the rule and delete this, you can propose it.

As for references, generally like the lead, infoboxes are discouraged from having references cited in them if they are later on in the series. So both of you are wrong to some degree. However, sourcing is required for statements like that. If they can be done in-game, fine.

This discussion is a bit hard to follow without the comments from the edit history. But in regard to referencing content, most times it is better to error on the side of caution and add a citation. Particularly when dealing with content related to real, living people. Though there are numerous examples of fictional character articles that do not provide a citation for the actor, there are also many that do: Aerith Gainsborough, Iori Yagami, Soma Cruz, Ayu Tsukimiya, List of Naruto characters, Sailor Venus, etc. All of which have undergone a quality review to make sure they adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Personally, I think the absence of such links actually hurts the article's quality and reliability, and I do not believe that adding such links to reliable sources would diminish it? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC))

In summary: When in doubt, cite. Nifboy (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what Nifboy said. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC))

So what does this boil down to? Notability? Those sources look reliable enough to me. Generally, if a character has been mentioned in as many reliable publications as that, they're notable. Rufus is no exception; he should have his own article. As for how those sources are presented, many GA and higher video game articles specifically mention references from IGN, GameSpot, etc. Would you contest Roger Ebert being specifically cited in a movie article? Also, anonymous user, your sassy comments in this discussion are bordering on incivility.— Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, notability of the character is one thing. Sure, he gets mentioned all over the place, but then, when you have the most eagerly anticipated game of 2009, and that game is reviewed in every single newspaper in the western world, then sure, the 4 new characters are bound to get namedropped and have a one-line description written about them. But like I've been saying all along, he's irrelevant to the story, has nothing original in the way of gameplay, and hasn't truly captured imaginations in a meaningful way. Only time will tell if he becomes as iconic as Ryu, Guile, Chun-Li, Bison, or even, to pick names at random of people who currently don't warrant their own articles, Karin or Sodom. But right now, numbers of Google results are, for the newbies in the following search terms:

132,000 for "street fighter IV" rufus.

157,000 for "street fighter IV" fuerte.

219,000 for "street fighter IV" viper.

2,120,000 for "street fighter IV" abel.

So he's not being talked about as much as any of the others- make of that what you will. If it's consensus that merely being one of the 25 characters in SFIV is enough to make you notable, then I can't object to that, but otherwise, let's not kid ourselves and make him into something he's not.

Another thing is simply the stuff that is actually being referenced. I don't feel that pointing out that Rufus is arrogant adds anything to the article. The main objection? An encyclopedia article is not meant to be an incoherent list of inane opinion and trivia. There has to be quality control so that it doesn't simply become a collection of "every time his name has appeared in print". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.96 (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

After looking through the first half of the article's references, Rufus was described in more than just a single line or passing mention almost all of them. Most had decent sized paragraphs describing his creation and role in the game. And few did say they "captured their imaginations".

In regard to the google numbers (which were surprising different when I did the same searches) a search engine test can be helpful in research, but it is not a definite measuring stick for notability. Search engines do not take into account Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, and do not take into account the quantity of mention in a single hit. For all we know, most of Abel's search results could be one-line or passing mentions.

So while he may be irrelevant in an in-universe perspective (don't know, I haven't played the game), the article's sources seem to point that he's made quite a big splash from an out-of-universe perspective (reviewers and developers talking about the character in context outside of the game), which is the perspective Wikipedia is most concerned with. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

Regarding the most recent reversal by Kung Fu Man, who doesn't seem to understand that wikipedia is a community effort where consensus rules, my points are as follows: I improved the original version of the article, which said "arcade versions of Street Fighter IV", which is not correct. As of right now, and unlike SF2, SFEX and SF Alpha, there has been no patch, update or sequel to SFIV, and so there is just one arcade version. I can't believe anybody would argue against this. It's incontestable. Secondly, the original article said "about 6 ½ feet (195 cm) tall", which I improved. Again, the character was invented in Japan for a Japanese game, and so the original units were cm. Furthermore, the article doesn't even make sense to state the original measurement as "about", and then go on to state something more specific as the secondary unit. Feet and inches don't even come into it, and at best are only a conversion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.96 (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• sighs* I really need a vacation...

Anon, I've pointed out policies, similar articles of GA or higher quality, and so forth. Can you please look at them instead of blindly rushing in there? I mean you do have one point about the arcade factor (I'd forgotten that SF4 didn't have a seprate American development like many arcade games do for translation purposes), but the measurements issue is covered under policy. Fighting with you is impeding the hell out of this article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, funny that ALL of your counterexamples (Reptile, Poison, Necrid) are articles that you have commandeered and made your own one-man projects. Just bite the bullet and accept you are wrong on this one- the units need to be in cm and kg, as they originate in those units because of the game's production staff being Japanese. This is consistent with all wikipedia policies. I can't believe you're even arguing this- just ignore it and concentrate on expanding the other sections!

Please also explain why you want to be less specific and create confusion as to what game(s) Rufus has appeared in? If he's in SFIV, it's fundamental that we say so, rather than being vague and using the word "series" when it's not needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.96 (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What "confusions"? If a character appears in one single title it's part of the series, even if the character appears again in a related title 10 years down the line. Other articles note similar just fine. I don't understand your insistence either on the weights and measurements front either, as citing it in the manner here is for the sake of uniformity. It's not horribly important, but MoS leaves the standard optional and for the sake of reason on English wikipedia it's easier to describe a character's description by conventional measurements more familiar to English speakers than metrics first, and again offers the sake of consistency through articles.

I'll add that through this you've become increasingly antagonistic. It'd be a good idea to start exercising Good Faith...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's not even get started on this. Most English speakers (as indeed, most people worldwide) use cm. "conventional measurement" is cm. Plus, as stated before, the original source uses cm, so converting just makes it more approximate, as you yourself admit in your edits. Let's not use words like "about" and "over" if we don't have to, as an exact source is available (and is recommended by Wikipedia:Manual of Style). This case is closed.

Also, are you really trying to say that people wouldn't understand that a game called "Street Fighter IV" would inherently be part of a series?! In any case, unlike other characters who have appeared in multiple games in a subseries (and indeed multiple subseries within a main series), Rufus is a character from SFIV. This is the most straightforward way of saying it. He has yet to become a series character in its true sense. We need to be explicit and precise, and not use words that aren't needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.96 (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the constant back and forth revisions are not improving the article. Both sides should refrain from such edits until this matter is sorted out on this talk. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

Guyinblack is absolutely right. As it stands, now, both users are past WP:3RR (I'll give the IP a little leeway in that he may not be aware of that policy and left a formal warning on his talk page; Kung Fu Man should know better, however.) No more revert-warring, OK? MuZemike 14:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

^ Thanks for yor input guys, it seems I'm not the only one who's finding the possessive input a bit much. Aside form the fact that (1) Kung Fu Man himself thinks it's not an important issue, and then goes and reverts countless times, but also, my points have been all along that (2) it's no use saying he's "about 6 ½ feet" when we have a much more accurate version available (to the nearest half-inch!), and (3) Wiki style (as linked by KFM before) would favor the original source units (metric in this case).

For the other point, it's obvious that we need to be precise in our language. Saying he's "from the Street Fighter games" is unarguably less precise than saying he's "from the game Street Fighter IV". Am I wrong? All the information is conveyed in the second phrasing, while not leading the unfamiliar into thinking he was in SF1 or SF3 or whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.96 (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain about the other issues. But in regard to the wording of SFIV, I believe more context would make the article more accessible to the layman. I would use something similar to Kung Fu Man's wording: "...a fictional character in the Street Fighter series of video games. Designed by Capcom's development team, he first appeared in arcade versions of Street Fighter IV and later appeared in related promotions and media for the title." This way it gives enough information to those unfamiliar with video games. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

That sounds good to me if there are no complaints. Sorry for letting that get out of hand folks >_<--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you're aware, but he has only appeared in Street Fighter IV. With this being the case, why does series come into it? What's wrong with stating it in the most obvious and straightforward way? This way, a casual reader is not forced to read an extra line. If it is needed, "series" is evident even to the most dimwitted, due to the number in the title. Jar Jar Binks is mentioned explicitly is this way, for example, and I don't see a valid reason for the extra words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.96 (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree the wording isn't perfect, but giving the reader the series helps give those unfamiliar with the video games some context. Mentioning the series also provides the reader a link. Basically, try imagining what it'd be like to describe the character to your grandmother. Does she know about Street Fighter IV? Does she know what the Street Fighter series is? Giving context helps others better understand a topic. Assuming the reader doesn't need some basic information can result in them not fully grasping everything. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 01:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

My grandmother doesn't understand the concept of a series. However, if I tell her that there's a game called Street Fighter IV, and that he's a character in it, she will get it. As I pointed out before, the term SFIV would be linked in this case as well, so there's no loss of information. It's just more straightforward, you must agree, to include the essential information with nothing else to get in the way. Plus, just in case nobody had noticed, the article is called "Rufus (Street Fighter)"!!

Anyway, getting back to the progress of this article, we are now half way through the week, and although one or two interesting articles have recently been linked, it's still the case that we simply have a growing list of one-line quotes.

My main point, I suppose, is that just because something is true, and just because it has a link to back it up (from a notable source, naturally!), that does not mean that it warrants inclusion in an article like this. It doesn't matter what anyone says, all we have at the moment is an unrelated collection of links pointing out the opinion of critics (mostly written to a tight deadline, after around half a day of playing a pre-release version of the game, and sometimes even by those unfamiliar with videogames in the first place).

It can be taken for granted that Rufus will be mentioned in every review in the game (in fact, I'd pan any review that didn't have a section focusing on the new characters), but do you follow what I'm saying? He gets mentioned in a review. It's true, but Big deal. He gets praised. It's true, but so what? He gets slated. It's true, but who cares? There's a promotional pot noodle named after him. Whoopie. There is much more to it than that. This is an encyclopedia where people are meant to learn about a character. Right now we simply have a couple of interesting lines about his design, then an overly detailed spoiler of his story, followed by the point of view of every newspaper in the world. Then finally, the other 30% of the article is a long list of references backing up that he's a character in a videogame and that reviewers have mentioned him when reviewing the game!!

Besides these facts, even if we do accept Rufus as a significant character, there are 3 other new characters in the game that very clearly deserve their own article ahead of Rufus (ie they are demonstrably more significant from a point of view of promotion, public discussion, backstory, popularity and gameplay). I'd suggest merging this back into the List of SF Characters until the article is improved to such a point. Carry out the work in progress over there, and then split once complete.

In any case, we desperately need some meat to this article. There is no substance. Rigorously-sourced banalities are not enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.96 (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't worked on this article for the past two days because I've been sick the first day and spending time with my girlfriend on the second. Not even this is going to get between me and my girlfriend. Anyway I have more content to work in here. As for the other four characters new to the game: no, not all of them are covered in reviews or have development information. Seth for example has next to none, other than his name is based off of Seth Killian's. Viper is probably the only other one with a fallback on for article content. So no, by this one having an article the others are not immediately validated to have articles of their own.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

81.141.22.96- There seems to be a discrepancy as to what we each consider "essential" and "notable commentary". I'm not arguing that SFIV should not be linked, nor am I arguing that the title "Rufus (Street Fighter)" is not a big red flag that provides information. What I'm saying is that the article is not meant to only provide information about a SFIV character. It is meant to give information about a fictional character the reader may or may not know anything about. Giving a bit more info helps give more context. And while I agree that cutting down the lead is more straightforward, I believe it is only straightforward to readers familiar with video games. Such an approach will make the article less accessible to non-gamers.

In regard to including information only on the basis of being true, I pose the same statement back to you. What makes the character's weight, food preference, and vitality statistics notable? Though these facts are true, they are only true within the fictional world of the game. Why should those facts be included? However, how the character was received by the gaming journalists, and how the character came to be is information relevant to the real world. Such a perspective is in-line with how topics about fiction are meant to be written.

I'll admit the article is not in good shape, but Kung Fu Man has a record of greatly improving video game character articles. To merge the article in its current, work-in-progress state is like demolishing a house in mid-construction because it isn't finished. Give him time to work on the article and I assure you it will comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. For example, he turned this version of Reptile (Mortal Kombat) and this version of Necrid into their current forms: [1][2]. Both of which are rated Good article.

If you really think the article needs some improvement, give Kung Fu Man time to work on it. You are more than welcome to help out, but disputes should be resolved here on the talk page, not through edit warring. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC))

It also is apparently good enough to be listed on the Did you know? portion of the main page of Wikipedia (see [3]). MuZemike 05:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Kung Fu Man - yes, it's fairly obvious that Seth is the exception to the rule here. It should not surprise you that players would not be enthusiastic about a character they couldn't play as, and that journalists wouldn't mention a boss character that they are not good enough to play against. My point was that Abel, Gouken and Viper are all provably and indisputably more significant than Rufus in all the five criteria I mentioned before. Anyway, by "I have more content to work in here", am I to assume that you have found a quote from a notable source that has nothing to do with anything, but that you are working on a way to somehow distort the flow and include that quote in the article? If so, I'd remind you that encyclopedia is not meant to be "everything published about Rufus". Show some discretion!

Guyinblack25- that's my point!! I AM trying to make the article more accessible to non-gamers. These people will not get the concept of a series, so we should just name the game. You think I'd go to all this hassle to muddy things? Look up Number theory or Random-access memory or Winston Churchill. All start with a concise first sentence that gets to the point and does not allude to anything unnecessary.

Oh, also, note that I didn't add the blood group (or height), and that vitality statistics are not fictional - they affect gameplay and can make a difference at world-championship-level play (see Zangief's leader for something similar about the most damaging move, and note also that fast and speed are both mentioned here - it's the same thing - a gameplay attribute). Since he's not first or top in any list, isn't second place good enough? As for his weight, look at the picture, it is his one defining characteristic- and surely you can't call him fat without saying how heavy? (Oh, and I notice that the leader makes reference to his appearance, and then frustratingly goes on not to describe it!) Also, the popcorn is about the only detail that recurs (ie it's seen more than the bike, which curiously is mentioned), so I would have thought that was just as significant as describing, for example, his clothing.

Anyway, I note that nobody has contested the "stick to the original source units" guideline, so I'll reprioritize to the 15x more accurate numbers shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.96 (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

81.141.22.96- With all due respect, I don't think Kung Fu Man appreciates the tone you've shown in your comments directed at him; I know I don't. I suggest you disengage from the issue for a while if you do not think you can show civility towards a fellow editor.

In regard to your other comments. I do not dispute that you are well-intentioned. Few people would fight for a malicious stance. Rather than argue each others' definitions of accessibility, perhaps taking time to copy edit suggestions would be more productive. Any thoughts, comments, and suggestions to the sentence below are welcome.

"Rufus is a fictional character in the Street Fighter franchise that first appeared in Street Fight IV."

As far as including information, I'd argue that a character's exact height and weight are a trivial details. While I concede that gameplay details can be included if their real world relevance is established, without sources or sufficient time to gauge an impact it is mainly hypothetical at this point. If the popcorn is a recurring attribute, then it too could be included. However, the capacity it serves would determine if it is trivial or not, and whether it should be included. Since I'm not knowledgeable about this game, I'll leave those to be sorted out between you, Kung Fu Man, and others familiar with the subject. However, I'd advise that if you want to work with someone, it is best not to continually call their contributes as content "that has nothing to do with anything".

In regard to the "stick to the original source units" discussion, I must admit that I'm not certain what you are talking about, and find searching through this lengthy discussion difficult. If you'd like to discussion it, we can. However, I suggest tackling things in smaller doses, than all at once. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC))

Generally height is the only thing I've included when working on character articles because it helps gauge one character's appearance, especially in regards to other fictional characters. It offers a bit more than a description of tall or short would. Generally I don't use weight at all but this seemed enough of an extreme to note. If nobody else objects to using metrics first I can concede that then; if it comes up at a GAN or FAC as a problem, it can be reversed then.

As for our anon friend here: the other character articles, Gouken already has one User:Jonny2x4 has been working on extensively. As for Abel and Viper, they can be touched upon when the time comes. It depends if information is available, though it honestly seems to favor the latter rather than the former. If you feel articles can be done rather than argue with us gather sources, sort them out on the talk page here under it's own subsection and see if you have significant content at the end of it all for something.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of which format is chosen, I suggest using {{Convert}} to help simplify things. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC))

How strange... Only characters created by Kung Fu Man have their own articles at Wikipedia. Don't dare to make changes or anything else, he is the owner of Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.117.55.93 (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else notice a resemblance to Paul John Teutul, Sr?

This would be original research I know, purely conjecture here, but after reading the backstory (runs a motorcycle shop, long winded, "hasty personality, prone to jumping to conclusions to achieve a goal" and the moustache) anyone se a connection or is it just me? 198.6.46.11 (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A-class assessment

The articles looks pretty good. In addition to some copy edits I made, a few minor issues here and there stood out to me.

• I'd change chest hair to abdomen hair; sounds more descriptive/appropriate. Maybe wikilink it to Chest hair though. (Never thought I'd be talking about chest hair on Wikipedia...)
• I'd move the fight moves sketch further down to the more relevant text.
• In "Personality and attributes", is there a word missing? "...changing the jumpsuit to dark blue and green version with sleeves..."
• In "Promotion and reception", should this be singular? "...including hand-drawn sprites of the characters..."
• The New Straits Times article says the newspaper is a tabloid, which makes me question its reliability. But since it's only used for the author's opinion, there shouldn't be any issue.
• No external links? Capcom's SFVI website or strategy wiki for gameplay maybe?

Once these minor issues are addressed, I'll be happy to support A-class. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

Alright, nailed all of them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Support: Looks good to me. Good job. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC))

Support as well. --PresN 23:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

WTF?

They have minor characters from minor vidgames now?! Ryu and Dictator, maybe, but what's this Rufus doing here? You certainly won't find him in any other authoritative site like this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.84 (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

> kungfuman must justify his continuous rollbacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.84 (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

why rufus has his own article and the others doesnt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.138.88.30 (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

^ Indeed, nobody owns any article, and all rollbacks must be justified.

As for Rufus having has his own article, I think it's dramatic overkill. Let's look at the evidence: he's in the bottom 20% of the most talked about characters on shoryuken.com, the leading English-language SF message board. and also somewhere around the middle of the list of most effective characters according to worldwide SFIV tournaments. And he's 2nd from last in the list of characters with the most fan-modified costumes. And when Seth Killian's blog had a poll on Aug 6, '09 on who should be turned into a figurine, they listed all the SFIV characters except Rufus, showing that Capcom didn't even consider him.

http://blog.capcom.com/archives

All these factors would indicate he's not a good candidate for inclusion in a future game, meaning that his story will likely not continue. So what makes him stand out? Not merely the fact that all 4 new characters got mentioned by reviewers, surely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.84 (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if this sounds late, but I too can't understand why Rufus has his own article. The other characters who do are each notable: the Original 12 are considerable the most popular characters of the series, Cammy and Akuma have both had a major role in the Alpha series, Dan is Capcom's parody of SNK's King of Fighters, and Gouken is Capcom's response to EGM's famous "Sheng Long" joke. There has been no proof that Rufus is as notable as these characters, nor does he deserve an article any more than characters like Seth and C. Viper. If possible, I vote this article to be merged back into the List of Street Fighter Characters page. 74.101.104.241 (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

He has significant reception and development information. Popularity has nothing to do with notability in the end.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This article has highly controversial relevance. I personally think that this has no value as a separate article of the street fighter one. Wikipedia has totally inconsequential articles to characters for the series and are only here because it happens that you are one of the principal editors in them, therefore, there is a conflict of interest, which violates one of the pillars that is the neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.231.222.176 (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

@190.231.222, Well if we're giving out personal opinions than I here's mine: what you typed there is a load. Just because he's an editor does not mean he can't be a contributor as well. This article doesn't solely exist because of the editor's interest in it. Personally, I came to the article because I wanted to read about Rufus as a character not get some two and a half lines of garbage on an article that is pages upon pages long--having to sift through generations of Street Fighter games just to find the character I'm looking for. I believe that if there is substantial information about a character then they should have their own page (directly tied to the Street Fighter main article(s)). There is no limit to the amount of articles Wikipedia has, there is only a limit on the lack of quality of an article. Since it seems that we are fooling ourselves here and debating relevance instead of sustenance; it should go without saying, this article has a right to exist. CrazedSpartanHadouken (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

How does this meet the notability standards of Wikipedia? It seems the only "notability" of the subject at hand is one editor's obsessive desire to ensure that an INCREDIBLY minor character in the SF series has it's own article. Isn't there a process to repair this, merge or something? SoheiFox (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems the majority discussion has come to the conclusion that Rufus does not meet the notability requirements. It is improper to remove tags suggesting merge when the consensus is that the article should BE merged, and reading over this whole discussion page that seems to have been the result. It is hard to assume good faith when an editor attempts to subvert consensus by removing tags. SoheiFox (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This character is not notable. It only appears in Street Fighter IV; while other more notable characters like Sagat or Guy, which are more notable than Rufus, were merged by this user. I'm suggesting merging this character with the list of Street Fighter Characters. --Juan D. (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you please check WP:Notability? This is already being discussed in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-03-21/Rufus (Street Fighter).Tintor2 (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This characters is simply not notable - he has only been in one game (Street Fighter IV), was not a major character in that, and has never been seen in other media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.242.162 (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I strongly oppose. According to the appearances section he has been featured in a crossover game as well as comics. Additionally, it has a lot of real world information than most of the Street Fighter characters article and has enough reception to pass WP:Notability.Tintor2 (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - Not a valid merger rationale. There's no magic number of "game appearances" that make a character notable or not. Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

While it's true that in general major characters are more likely to have significant coverage and therefore be notable enough to have an article being a minor character in itself does not disqualify a charter from having an article.--67.68.29.34 (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Sergecross. There needs to be a proper rationale. Are the sources not appropriate in some way? ~Mable (chat) 20:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Rufus (Street Fighter). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.capcom-fc.com/sf4/2009/04/post_103.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.capcom-fc.com/sf4/2008/06/post_36.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.capcom.co.jp/sf4/IV/cs_stories6.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.capcom-fc.com/sf4/2008/11/post_75.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.capcom-fc.com/sf4/2008/05/post_35.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.capcom.co.jp/sf4/IV/cs_stories3.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.capcom-fc.com/sf4/2009/01/iv_1.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.capcom-fc.com/sf4/2009/01/post_85.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090427022922/http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/streetfighteriv/review.html to http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/streetfighteriv/review.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rufus (Street Fighter). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3165156
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3169458
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120718013640/http://gamevideos.1up.com/video/id/19310 to http://gamevideos.1up.com/video/id/19310
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66gNMxqMV?url=http://www.1up.com/reviews/street-fighter-4 to http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3172832
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/mar/09/video-game-review-street-fighter-iv/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Bias, Stubbornness, and Vandalism from User Kung Fu Man

Kung Fu Man refuses to listen to sources or any arguments. 173.70.229.137 (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)