Talk:Skullgirls

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

It's out now

I should probably do this honestly, but this game is out now, time to be the present tense. --86.23.27.171 (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Objection

Objection to the deletion - More citations will be coming in the future, when I have more time to edit the article further. I also am looking to the community to add more specific citations soon. All information in the initial document is correct.

Proposed deletion

I removed the proposed deletion template. The article still needs clean-up and I think is still in a stub state, but should be notable enough. I tried focusing on including citations from multiple game coverage sites to establish notability. Obonicus (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Character Bios

I'm sorry, all the bios on the page are copied verbatim from the official website. This is against Wiki policy and violates copyright laws. If you want to add a detailed character section (though having one the same length as before is questionable) you can't just copy and paste. Deleted the section.Flygongengar (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

cite for xbox version?

There is no citation for the xbox 360 version; appears citation was for the PS3 version; Please add if you know where this info came from . --RichardMills65 (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PC release date citation?

It says July 2012 but the source talking about it doesn't seem to be believable; I can't find anything about Skullgirls being out on July 2012. Not even on Steam.

Does anyone have better verification on when this game will be released?

Slapmeorelse (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Konami requested Skullgirls be removed from XBLA and PSN NA and EU.

[1] Konami has requested the game be pulled from XBL Arcade, PSN NA and PSN EU. PSN JP and PC versions are not affected as Konami was not publisher for those versions. 24.156.211.95 (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this has already been added to the article. Antoshi ☏ ★ 18:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer:

talk · contribs) 11:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]


Infobox

Lead

  • The lead had done a very poor job in summarizing the entire article. Only information regarding the game's release is mentioned, while those for reception, gameplay, development and plot are neglected.
I am currently trying to rewrite the lead in my sandbox. Since the game and development team's issues following its initial release are significant (I think...), I wrote about that. I tried to summarize the content as best as I could, but it may still be a little too much. Could I get your opinion on that? Also trying to find a way to integrate reception without breaking the flow too much. Wani (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should include some brief information from all sections. You still need to add some information regarding the game's gameplay, setting and the reception to the lead.
talk) 04:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • April–May 2012 - Should be April to May 2012. Don't use "-"
  • The references in the lead should be moved to the body article per
    WP:LEADCITE
  • There is too much information regarding the release of the Encore Edition. Their release dates should be moved to the release section.

Body

  • Skullgirls offers protection against high and low "unblockable attacks", which occur when a player, for example, uses a low attack and calls in a high-hitting assist, making it nearly impossible for the opponent to block. The game attempts to remedy the issue by offering a short grace period after blocking that guards against other hit types. - I don't quite understand what this means. Should be written in a more simple way so that normal readers can understand what it actually means
Yeah, I'm finding it to be quite difficult to actually simplify this further, since it's delving into the really technical parts of game mechanics. I've made a few minor adjustments to it within the article, but I don't know if it actually helps. Should I consider removing it? Wani (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds a bit better now. I guess you don't need to remove it.
talk) 04:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • The release of Skullgirls Encore saw numerous gameplay adjustments and additions - At release or post-release?
  • Skullgirls takes place in the fictional Canopy Kingdom, a country "reminiscent of a 1940's post-war America tinged with magic and intrigue." - I don't see the point of using a quote here. It should be rephrased.
  • Not much actual plot information is mentioned. Most of them is about the setting of the game.
  • I honestly never see the point of having a character section in most video games unless they are very very notable. I would encouraged you to merge it into the plot section.
Since the characters aren't very notable, should I forgo the complete descriptions and simply list their names in prose? Like, "The Skullgirls roster initially consisted of eight playable characters: Filia, Cerebella, blah, blah, blah..." Go for something way more concise? Wani (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and did it anyway. Wani (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lab Zero Games also added the character Fukua as a free bonus, bringing the total cast to 14. - Not sourced
  • Information with Cerebella, Peacock, Parasoul, Ms. Fortune, Painwheel, Valentine, Double and Marie are not sourced as well
  • Their personal projects were merged into Skullgirls in early 2008. = Their have 2 personal projects? I assume that their project is basically the prototype of the game, so "merge" isn't the correct word to use.
  • You should link E3 2011 to
    Electronic Entertainment Expo
  • Japanese developer and publisher Konami announced that the company would help distribute the game - Here sounds like that Konami is the distributor of the game instead of the publisher. It may lead to confusion as both the infobox and the lead call it the co-publisher of the game.
I think they were both. At least, according to Reverge Labs, Konami helped with distribution. I will add them as the distributor in the infobox. Wani (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marvelous and CyberFront, and coincided with the console releases of Squigly and the "Character Color Bundle" DLC - Marvelous should be wikilinked
  • Having a tracklist here isn't really necessary, as it basically adds nothing to the article. Our consensus is that we should only list them when they are particularly notable
Should I only delete the tracklist, or is the entire soundtrack section not notable enough for inclusion? Wani (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The soundtrack section is notable, you don't need to remove it.
talk) 04:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I cut down on the number of quotes, as well as remove some of them completely. Does it look better? Wani (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does look better now.
talk) 04:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Skullgirls won Best Fighting Game awards at the 2011 E3 conference from VG Chartz, Bitbag, and Ripten - VG Chartz is an unreliable source. Bitbag and Ripten don't sound like a notable organization as well.
  • Game Critics Awards need to be wikilinked

References

  • Cinema Blend is not a reliable source.
  • Skullgirls can never be the publisher of the source. (It should be the developer or the publisher)
  • PlayStation.Blog or sources from the game's website are primary sources. (Not necessary, but better if you replaced them with secondary sources)
  • Things like " 1UP Staff" is not necessary in a citation.

Overall

There is one more issue is that the tone of the article is not formal and neutral enough due to the inclusion of some unnecessary adjectives. But overall, it is a well-written article.

WP:WIAGA
for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "
    clear and concise", without copyvios
    , or spelling and grammar errors:
    B.
    Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists)
    :
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an
    appropriate reference section
    :
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B.
    Focused
    :
  4. Is it
    neutral
    ?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are
    copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
    :
    B. Images are provided if possible and are
    suitable captions
    :
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I will leave it on hold for a week. If the issues I mentioned above are fixed, the article is good to go. Good luck.

talk) 14:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

It seems that you have fixed all the problems I mentioned above.
talk) 05:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy sub-section

I followed all the indication in the edit regarding the controversy of the review bombing and the censorship, and yet it's still not enough, there's always something new that gets all my edits reverted. Please, let's resolve this once and for all, Wani. Grew Baddymore (talk) 07:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good sign you're trying to discuss and come to a consensus, but those sources you insist on adding are deemed unreliable. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, BIC is used on other articles, that's why I previously added it, I also didn't find anything wrong in the article in how it was written and the source is not even among the deprecated ones on Wikipedia. Same about Niche Gamer, and I found out just a few minutes ago from you that apparently is not anymore a reliable source for who knows what reasons, despite their reviews and scores being collected by Metacritic and OpenCritic. Grew Baddymore (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is also the reason I didn't want to discuss on the talk page initially, because the responses take too long. Grew Baddymore (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So the whole issue here is that you keep trying to introduce sources that are unreliable or less reliable than the list of acceptable sources as determined by
WP:NPOV policy. That SteamAH page looks like a blog and appears to only write game guides, so it'd be counted as unreliable. Also, take a look at this recent peer review I opened up for this article also: Wikipedia:Peer review/Skullgirls/archive1. One of the critiques was the use of certain unreliable sources (Shoryuken, Fanbyte, etc.). I haven't been able to start addressing the problems presented in the PR yet, but in the end, the links you've been trying to add will just end up being replaced later on anyway. Wani (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Forgot to mention,
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Just because a source is used on other pages doesn't automatically make it fine to use here. And Wikipedia is not Metacritic or Opencritic. Those are websites that indiscriminately aggregate scores from other review sites. They have no bearing on what qualifies as reliable or unreliable here. Wani (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I’m late to the party here but for the love of… I dunno, the skull heart, Parasoul’s legs, whatever… don’t use BIC. It’s an extremely pro-
GamerGate site so of course it’s unreliable. Using it would be an extremely bad look for VG good articles, which have already taken a repetitional hit from quite a few vg character GAs being deleted or merged. Dronebogus (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the input. This new fact isn't too surprising in this case. With their insistence on using BIC and whatever the hell this is, and their extreme contempt with using Polygon as a source, Baddymore had a pretty clear agenda, despite their claims otherwise. Wani (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Baddymore has been globally locked re: block evasion on Itwiki Dronebogus (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Skullgirls&oldid=1202969768"