Talk:Characters of the Soulcalibur series

The english voice actors for Heihachi and Spawn are stated as Victor Stone, but the page for this is a fictional character. Could someone verify these facts?

There should be articles about the unplayable characters. I'll create them.

Future

In Heihachi Mishima section it says that the Tekken series is in the future of the Soul Calibur series. Can somebody prove this? Otherwise I'm deleting it within the week. MrDrak

Tekken= 21st Century or beyond. Soul Calibur= 16th Century. That's the only way I can see that as true. Wingedregent 01:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Heihachi's profile specifically mentions that he went back in time, so it is logical to say that it occurs in the future. BassxForte 06:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Could anyone explain why characters important to the Soul Calibur canon (Cervantes, Cassandra, and Astaroth) redirect to one page with limited profiles, yet characters that aren't (Strife, Abelia, Lynette, etc.) have their own pages? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rsmith3813 (talk • contribs) 19:26, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

I have just started merging today, so it is going to be a little bit before it is finished. TTN 19:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, how do you justify merging characters into this page, when they have enough notability to have their own page? BassxForte 19:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:FICT and WP:WAF. These lack any real, non-trivial real world information, so they cannot be declared notable by this site's standards. TTN 19:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it was better when they all had their own pages, since their bios (Cervantes, Astoroth, Voldo, Nightmare,etc.) span across 4-5 games, making their profiles larger as time goes on. The minor characters (Chronicles of the Sword Character, guest characters, and Bonus characters) should all get limited bios instead of the main ones.Wingedregent 01:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

TTN, you still fail to understand that the contents of the article don't require real-world notability to be deserving of an article. BassxForte 06:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not even getting into this discussion with you. That is the general consensus of the site. If you don't like it, either get the way things work changed or just ignore fiction articles. TTN 15:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop merging the articles. Seriously, you're ruining them all. Don't give me that, "They're not notable," rubbish. They deserve to have their own articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.215.199.234 (talk) 10:56, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me, I don't discuss with people who can't be reasoned with in the first place. BassxForte 07:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

WTF is this? this merging is stupid, I much preferred when the characters that deserved profiles actually had them. If they're the main characters of a popular videogame, then why shouldn't they? --86.6.179.6 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:23, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

General consensus? No, TTN, no it isn't. I wholeheartedly disagree with you on this matter. Literally thousands of other fictional characters possess bios throughout Wikipedia. Each article here was relevant and contained a large amount of information, making your actions unnecessary. Merging the articles is pointless, if not idiotic to the extremes. You have absolutely no right or valid reason to continue doing this. In fact, I’m asking anyone who can recall the immense mass of data that was collected within the articles to restore them to their original splendor as soon as possible so that we can deliver them from this sickening state. Kageryushin 22:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Kageryushin has a point. Merging pages like that is completely unnecessary. There really is no point for you to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.211.236 (talk) 23:25, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Kageryushin. "Sickening" is a good word for this because of the amount of information that is being destroyed. I come here trying to find a character's background and there's barely any information, when previously there was lots of information said about each characters backstory, characteristics, and activities in each game. All of this was well worth a page, and still not in the realm of excessive. Here, one can barely learn anything, which defeats the point of the article. Also, this format doesn't make it easy to add information about the characters as future installments in the series are released. These are characters in a long-running and major franchise; I think they're notable enough to have their own page. In my opinion, I think the impact of the Soul Calibur series makes this kind of information worthwhile enough to qualify for the standards of WP:FICT. Also, (and I know this isn't a reason to flat-out ignore wikipedia's policies but i think it's important anyway) lots of people find character-specific articles helpful and practical, and to organize character information like this only makes things more difficult and uninformative. What you're doing isn't worth the effort because it doesn't help wikipedia or its users. One more thing, WP:WAF shouldn't have anything to do with merging; the problems in that domain are corrected by changing the style, not moving and compressing information. AlmightyDoctor 23:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I came here looking for an entire page on Nightmare, what do I get? A paragraph! Honestly, whoever made this article, make the articles seperate pages again! -Mythmonster2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythmonster2 (talk • contribs) 18:07, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I did the same thing as the above poster! I wanted to read up on Nightmare and Zasalamel, but all I find is a paragraph of things I already knew. I wish the articles get returned to their original state, because this kinda sucks.Wingedregent 02:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Who keeps determining that pages about fictional characters and objects is not relevant enough for Wikipedia? It's the aspect I've most praised about Wikipedia since I joined, and I make every attempt to EXPAND these pages... Someone needs to stop being quite so self centered and cease thinking that only their types of articles are worthy... And of course, I'll help rebuild this page when it inevitably gets reverted. I love these characters. ShadowHare 04:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time I see such unreasonable decisions here on Wikipedia. These are notable characters which deserve their own articles that were very informative. Especially Nightmare, who is considered by many to be the icon of the game. Major decisions such as these are usually decided by a vote (which I'm sure would've been in favor of keeping the articles) and not decided by TTN, who isn't even an admin here and who's talk page is full of people complaining about unexplained merges and deletes. —TigerK 69 04:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Merging these articles was a very, very bad idea. 128.198.20.26 (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:39458121 nin soul 203b.jpg

Image:39458121 nin soul 203b.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 11:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Link (SC II).jpg

Image:Link (SC II).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 21:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What the!?

Does anyone know what's up with Darth Vader and Yoda being in here? I mean, this isn't serious, right?

Dante 10:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Totally serious, dude. SCIV will have freaking Yoda for X-Box and Vader for PS3. No word yet on bios or why their use of the force won't totally overpower them or why one hit from their lightsabers wouldn't kill an opponent. (or would it?) Sliferjam (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

What happened to all the pictures of the characters? They get deleted? If they did then wikipedia is being a real bitch. It's not like they run out of room. Hobocrow (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Internet's like that nowadays. Everything is copyrighted and watermarked and protected by ubiguous laws (which don't really apply since Internet is universal, and not tied to any country's legislation). In reality, I don't think the game companies mind people using the pictures (it's kinda like free advertising, really), unless people claim they made the art. SamSandy (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Improving the article

I modified the article today quite a lot, but as anybody can see, there's still much to be done to make this something beyond a mere list of characters. I put own slots for the bonus characters in this page as well, since not all of them have an article of their own. The individual articles could always be merged with this one, but it would make this page helluva long, so I wouldn't recommend it. SamSandy (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm against merging Arthur with the minor characters article. In a way, he's official. He was technically in two games thus earning 'Main Character' status. Seong Han Myeong was only a guest in Soul Blade/Edge and he gets 'Main Character' status, Arthur should too. Therefore Arthur's individual profile should remain and moved to the 'Main Character' area. (Highwayman Myth (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC))

Merging

I noticed that Greed and Miser, who are even more minor than Lynette, still has their own articles up but I don't think they need much emphasis since they don't even have a story of their own.--JCD ^(Talk) 07:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

My bad, they're just wrong links. However, I think Arthur must be merged in this article since he is only a replacement for Mitsurugi and nonetheless only a very minor in SCIII.--JCD ^(Talk) 07:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OMG, what happened to Arthur's article? At least a part of it should be included in Mitsurugi's imo... Though it was directly moved.

And I think Hualin and Valeria should be included here.--JCD ^(Talk) 04:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I wish the people who do these mergers would at least do them well. Now this article is a complete mess with several character's information missing. This is not a type of article I'd enjoy reading in Wikipedia... SamSandy (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please re-instate Rock to his own page, he's a main character, not a minor one. Li Long and Hwang have their own pages and have appeared in less games.

I agree, Rock is more of a major character than many with their own articles. Stabby Joe (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

And a major character with no discussion. That's why he's here. Li Long and Hwang are going to end up following suit like we discussed on the Talk: Soul (series) page.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well at this rate is might awell be all of them except like 3 or 4... Stabby Joe (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Won't be that bad...right now of the articles I've worked on a lot of them have enough notability. It's just a matter of finding people that talked about them and citing them. Right now Inferno's one that isn't looking all that good for that reason though...even Algol's got more talk than him.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick question actually, you mention that you're doing these merges on the basis of the content of their talk pages and not the article? I ask because theres many articles without a single comment passed yet they still stand because there plenty of info on them and the fact they meet the same guidelines as others articles of the same format. I'm not arguing, more like asking why. Stabby Joe (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As much as I see it, people's reception about boss characters are rather not being brought to a greater height. Probably because, they're boss characters and imo, discussions about them are well.. fewer. For example, Inferno wasn't playable in II and III:AE, it's just an implication, lesser receptions would be made on how he could fight. Same as Abyss who was merged with Zasalamel's article and Algol, who's article was deleted.

However, I really don't have an idea on what to do about Inferno's article. Guess I'll just leave it to you on what to do with it.--JCD ^(Talk) 01:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we're done with the merging for the time being...a few of the articles have me worried, but it should be possible to find the sources needed for them. Yun-seong and Setsuka were the last two merged: the first never seemed to get out from under Hwang's shadow and the second never got as big a fanbase as the other females :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

^Not true. 79.74.123.237 (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You have third party coverage to show people talked about her in a citable context for reception?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you delete all that when you merged her article? But that's not even the point - when was Wikipedia about popularity contests? Are there credible and citable sources that declare her to be thoroughly unpopular, or is it just your POV?

There was a very good Setsuka article with plenty of cited information, and since she is one of the main characters and not a bonus or background character I think she should have an individual article like all the others. I would say the same for Yun-Seong, as he has been a main character since Hwang's departure. It makes sense for Hwang, Rock etc to be in this article because they have been in and out of the main lineup of characters for the last couple of games, but not Setsuka and Yun-Seong, who have been part of the main cast since their debuts (and especially not if it's only based on an apparent lack of popularity, which is completely subjective). 79.74.123.237 (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The most third party discussion regarding Yun-Seong not regarding his gameplay were comments about his role as a replacement for Hwang in SC2 reviews. Setsuka got mentions about her character's fighting style in SC3, but that was it beyond that: not even comparisons to other characters. The subjects need third party coverage in order to remain on wikipedia or this happens when someone goes and cleans up. I'm sorry it sucks but that's the deal, this can give you more information: WP:N. If you want to bring the article's back you'll need to present something showing there's a real world impact of some sort by the characters.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

To add something, they've had merge tags on their pages for weeks now: there was plenty of time to oppose a merge, and nobody did.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm really failing to see how any of these have asserted independent notability. The development information should all be fine, but the reception is mainly junk or filler in most cases. Each article that uses a number of reviews has like two or three good sentences, but the rest is just either trivial in context or the source is just too trivial overall to be used to assert that something is notable. Notability does not stem from people commenting on a little gameplay pro or con a number of times. It also doesn't stem from the character being mentioned in such a limited list as a top ten list of the characters in series (10 out of like 35 main series characters and 10-15 guest characters). Noting that a character appears on any kind of artwork falls into the junk category (even if these do ever really assert notability, those mentions should be removed), and merchandise falls under filler (it's relevant, but not independent as it can be applied to the series a whole). It would really be a much better use of time to attempt to work this into a featured list with the good development and reception information. TTN (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to know that the articles are not in the hands of one person making all the choices. The only reason I found out the page was deleted was because I tried to get information on Setsuka. I wanted her name in Japanese as it was listed on the page, and now it's gone. Just put it back the way it was, it wasn't hurting anything. 67.169.115.189 (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I remedied that a little: dug in the history for each page and pulled out the japanese text, working it back into each section. Unlike TTN's mad rush above which results in a royal screw up like those pokemon lists that are going to be stagnant forever it seems, I'm aiming to try and get all the character articles to Good Aritlce status or higher so a Featured Topic can be formed covering them all. Things that get merged here are just articles that don't have sufficient coverage to get to GA status; reception's pretty much the biggest one there, which breaks down to "is it being talked about in a significant manner about the character itself." So Setsuka being on this list doesn't mean she's a bad character or anything, just there isn't enough to discuss for at least a GA-status article :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

^Hey there, user with IP 67.169.115.189, you could still access Setsuka's page if you track the article's history. Here's a direct link hope it this helps at least. And also, Kung Fu Man, I guess it wouldn't hurt if Sets' and Yun-Seong's article would be returned the way it was since they are already both solid characters. Also, according to Wikipedia:N#Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content, Notability only guides users on what kind of articles must be created "but do not specifically regulate the content of articles". Which could mean Sets' article could still pass the verifiability. However, I guess Yun-seong's wouldn't qualify as such since a total of NO reference and citations are present within the article. However, these are just my opinions and doesn't want to argue with anyone...--JCD ^(Talk) 15:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for doing that you guys, it did help a lot, sorry if I came across as disgruntled or unappreciative. Being that Setsuka and Yun-Seong are (of course) my favorite characters, my bias got the best of me. I'm sure you'll do the right thing for the articles. 67.169.115.189 (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Is merging all of these articles into one really worth the cost and the backlash? 128.198.20.26 (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Necrid

Shouldn't Necrid be on this page? I'd add him myself, but I'm not very good with wiki editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.96.187 (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarity needed...

The qualifications of minor characters and characters deserving of their own pages is fast becoming blurred. Rock's been in Soul Blade, Calibur, Calibur III and Calibur IV and yet he's reduced to a minor character? I move to either strip all the characters of their individual pages and handle this matter similarly to the Samurai Shodown series or restore any character who is an official part of the narrative at any point in the series (not counting guest characters, of course). SuperSonicTH (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Both ideas are bad. Some of the characters do have enough notability for their own articles so you can't kill them all off (the samsho thing was a blunder to be honest), and you can't bring them all back as some don't pass WP:N or even really WP:V. A split off list might be a better option.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well not to play "that card" but Tekken's roster has full pages dedicated to each playable character. Maybe it is a waste of space to do it like that but it is uneven standards. SuperSonicTH (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Tekken will get dealt with eventually, there are already a few people suggesting the idea of cleaning them up and merging lesser characters. As it stands I'd like to get the SC character articles to featured topic status. We've already got one going up for GA, and there's nothing to say an article can't be revived if discussion turns up to satisfy WP:N. Also, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Background characters

I think this section needs to be trimmed back: a lot of characters can be covered in their respective articles or sections and don't need their own (for instance, Berserker is discussed, but then Durer is discussed later on when he's directly related to them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Took care of it myself to an extent. I left some bits there, but everything else really doesn't need to be covered in its own section, and I'm not sure that the SCL duo do either as it seems more like a retelling of that game's plot, or at least part of it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Series characters

Ok, as far as it seems, all of them are well, "not so" discussed (outside wiki) characters. But I just want to know if Sophitia could be merged there too. Not much discussion about her have been made and she's been always appearing as a hidden or an unlockable character. What do you think?--JCD ^(Talk) 02:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Considered that. Cassandra at the least seems to have the advantage where she's discussed more in a few contexts, though I haven't dug deep enough yet on Sophitia. Worst case the best result might be to combine the sisters into one article, like I'm thinking would be necessary for Siegfried and Nightmare (since until SC3, they were the same character and a lot of the reception about Nightmare is from 2 or prior).

What do you think about possibly Maxi though? While I've been going with an angle of presenting the reception of Astaroth as a "big brute" stereotype, I've noticed there's not a lot talking about him as an actual character. Even the Elvis comparison is at best minor.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)