Talk:Zero (Mega Man)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	CVG Portal
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
	This is a selected article of WikiProject Computer and video games.
CVG To-do: edit  Gaming Collaboration of the week: X-Men vs. Street Fighter Expand: New CVG Articles, List of Nintendo trademarks, Normality, Pac-Man World 2, Operation Flashpoint: Elite, Call of Juarez, Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar, Ford Street Racing, Betrayal at Krondor CVG Peer Review: Super Transformation, Turok: Dinosaur Hunter, Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games, Yoshi, Black Isle's Torn, Rise of Nations, Kirby (Nintendo), PlayStation 3, Mega Man Zero 4, Luigi Cleanup: Shiny Entertainment, Age of Mythology, Serious Sam II, Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, Ted Price, Betrayal at Krondor Merge: Current Events (Update needed!) / Deletions / Essential articles / Workshop / Magazines Assess and Prioritise articles (Log)

Zero (Mega Man) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

• Talk:Zero (Mega Man)/Archive 1

Contents 1 Was Zero Ever A Maverick? 2 False Info 3 Images 4 Failed GA 5 GA status 6 Model Number 7 References 8 GA Re-Review and In-line citations 9 Appearance inconsistencies?

[edit] Was Zero Ever A Maverick?

In Megaman X5, it is revealed that the Maverick Virus fails to turn Zero into a Maverick and only makes him stronger. Therefore, it is not possible that he could ever go Maverick. Instead, his so-called "Maverick" form is actually his true, original programming. (He was created by an evil scientist, you know.) Okay, so this can only be implied, but Zero never went Maverick, though he did carry it before he passed it on to Sigma.

Actually, newly revealed info from Capcom clears this problem up. They reveal that the source of the Maverick Virus was a "suffering circuit" originally in X and later copied to the reploids that makes them calm and hate violence. When Zero was taken back to the Hunter HQ was also installed with this "suffering circuit" resulting in his personality change. This also formed the Maverick Virus which Zero was immune to, but was a carrier and the main method of spreading the virus.

[edit] False Info

"In two years, Zero has not been seen again".

Zero's legacy survived over three millennia later, in the game Mega Man Legends 2 (the exact date of this, or even the century for that matter, are not known)."Physis gave no information about the what happend to Zero's worl afterword, only pictures to infer on. And the former statment is being removed for the sheer lunicy of it, stating something then following up saying that it's not true. Geez. ~regruBgniK

I agree. Good work for spotting that. -Zero^Talk 20:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed some of the false information, and corrected some grammer; then I remembered who was "editor" of this page, and halted. What's the point if it'll just get reverted back? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zero X Marquis (talk • contribs) 05:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC).

If it keeps getting reverted back, you should do what you just did; Question it on the talk page. Try to remember to sign your messages with ~~~~ from now on, ok? - Zero1328 _Talk? 06:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. I only revert edits that are unproductive or are less than favorable. The grammer and false information "fix" was unproductive. -Zero^Talk 10:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

See, this is why I shouldn't even have bothered. Note: you don't use " " to show significance to a term, you simply italicize it. Second, if you need not mention things more than once, or you run the error of redundancy. Third, it is unknown whether Zero was simply placed in the capsule as soon as he was finished, or whether he was used prior to which. Here's a question though: Why is it that you Zero, get to decide what "edits that are unproductive or are less than favorable." The fact is, that while this article isn't as bad as the X one, there are several grammer problems and false tidbits of fact, and while you cling to your vision of perfection, its far from it. Again though, this is pointlessZero X Marquis 16:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

One last thing. If you're going to source your work, don't lie and say that certain sources say something when they don't. I'm not to sure about the other ones (they look flimbsy as is) but I know that nowhere on the MMN does it say anything about what Zero can and cannot do in terms of the weight he can lift (the sites information has been down, which makes it even worse as you couldn't have retrieved the information that you did on that date). Don't put words in peoples mouth to help justify the words coming out of yours Zero X Marquis 17:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm dissapointed at this. I never edit with the intent to lead anything from productive edits. There does seem to be a bit of disagreement here as I'm never inclined to place words in another fellow's mouth.

MMN went down around 2005, I believe. Around the timeframe of 2003 and 2004, data was still operational and with complete inclusion. If there's a precise date you can provide for when the data was lost, including it would be appreciated.-Zero^Talk 19:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The truth of the information notwithstanding (by the way, it isn't, and there was a discussion on that sites board about the inclusion of parallel information regarding X being cited by Wikipedia as sourced from said site), while you are right regarding htat the information went down in 2003, the date that you decided to add the reference was much later (as indicated by the history of revisions for this article). Giving you the unlikely benefit of doubt that you really did obtain the information in 2003, and some how saw fit to not only remember it, but remember to cite it - if you cite something, you are supposed to cite it upon the day of its use, not 2 years later. It was your responsibility to cite what was there at the time, which was nothing. Had you cited the work back in 2003 and then the information had changed, that would have been acceptable, however, you did not do that, as such the source is invalid, and if you have nothing to back that up with, and others disagree with the information, you are creating the fallacy of appealing to ignorance; something cannont be fact because there is nothing else offered. Something to consider... Zero X Marquis 20:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I used the date that the information was still present on the website. I cited when it was still operational and veritible. I reviewed the information on site in 2003 and hence cited as such. The reference cited is when the URL is accessed and the information disclosed, not when the reference is added to the article. -Zero^Talk 20:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree all you want, but you couldn't have cited it when it was operational and added it here as it wasn't added until 2005ish (according to the history of the article). When you cited the information, you should have done so on that day, not 2 years later. Assuming though what you say is true (as unlikely as it is), you should have went back and checked if was still there and cited as such. Bottom line: you cannot cite something in 2005 of something that may or may not have existed in 2003 (especially if it doesn't exist). Keep in mind this before you say anything else: do you realise how unlikely it is that you read something in 2003, correctly jotted down the source information, and then 2 years later implement it? Zero X Marquis 20:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a blatent misrepesentation of the facts. I do not recall noting I referenced it in 2003, I surmized that I referenced it since I first viewed the information in 2003. No, I shouldn't have done so on that day becuse I was not an editor at that timeframe.

I believe it to be perfectly likely. Its cited from memory. Correctly jotting down the source after two years is a simple matter (http://www.megaman.retrofaction.com; see I did it again) I recalled information. Fairly simple simple stuff I should have thought. If you have a query concerning this in the dates of citations refractor this to a reference policy page or something similar and continue discussion over there. My view on this hasn't changed and thus it would be innapropriate for me to change it. -Zero^Talk 20:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Zero was technically a maverick you retards he was created by dr.wily who also created Sigma however something happened zero's helmet had dr.wily's emblem on it and he fell down, and also in Megaman X5 Sigma's Virus infected zero and made zero a maverick.

See, the problem with citing something by memory is that if you cite incorrectly, there's no way unverify it. Also, there is no way for you to verify that that's where you actually got your information (the point of citation) I'm sorry, but I posted this article (and the X as it uses practically the same sources) under review. Your sources are faulty, and your justification for why they are is weak. Let them decide I guess. Zero X Marquis 20:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. But I think, as you'll see, that the situation for mistermed information is negated by the source material itself. One cannot link directly to Gamefaqs, the referenced sourcebook has previously been verifed, supported by various users knowledgeable of the universe. The editor that reviewed the article is also quite well-versed. Sources are only generally provided when it is found to be dubious by a large number of editors. Noting the subject area and base of re-citing data from gameplay, this is not the case. I might comment I may have been over sufficent in the provided sources, as other character articles in this vein provided far less than I did. -Zero^Talk 20:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I'm not sure if anyone is aware of this, but the Zero pic you have on the guise of "Absolute Zero" is anything but. It's a mislabed picture of Black Zero, whereas Absolute Zero references the armor he can receive in CM. And for whatever reason the bottom link tables are overlapped over one another. Just thought you might want to look into that. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.50.80.91 (talk • contribs).

I've corrected accordingly. -Zero^Talk 06:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Two things: (1) If you're going to steal Liline's art, glad you sourced it and all, but don't take out her watermark. (2) The image of black Zero is a fan recolour; the closest this form has received an offical image for was on the box of those Bandai models —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zero X Marquis (talk • contribs) 05:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC).

Sorry, but your accusation is false. The image was in its exact same form before the time of upload. The point is to show the reader Zero changes his armor color. I think it works quiite well. -Zero^Talk 10:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine, even if it was that way when it was loaded, the fact is it was lifted from her site, a site in which you admit it being sourced from, and the original work itself has the watermark. It doesn't matter what the purpose of the picture is for, its not yours to post. I'm not questioning the effectiveness of the image, rather your right to use it. If you want to use it, knock yourself out, but get at the very least approval from the artist or obtain an image with her watermark on it. Zero X Marquis 17:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, the Black Zero image is a fan recolour (a bad one at that) but if you ignorantly insist its inclusion, I uploaded a better image. Zero X Marquis 17:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this depends on weather or not the re-coloring artist objects to the work being presented here. I was aware of no watermark. Many fair use images are not ours to upload. The original proprieter is Capcom and thus ultimate fair use claims are left to them. The image was to depict a color change in appearence. I left it there.

As for the new upload, that's very nice of you. The new one is much more clearly defined about the edges. -Zero^Talk 19:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies: In an attempt to correct the tag for the Zero image, I left it in a tangle. I was going to revert it back to the way it was, but something urgent called me away from my computer (and by the time I came back someone had already fixed it) Again, my bad. Zero X Marquis 00:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, seriously you guys need to take Liline's art down or at least up load the images with the watermarks. You source the artwork from her site, and on her site the images have watermarks. Not only, clearly the watermarks have been Adobed (poorly at that) out. Zero X Marquis 10:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

Although there is a lot of good work here, this article falls well short of the featured article criteria and significantly short of the good article criteria. The biggest problem is that it does not meet the conditions of WP:FICT - it seems to be written almost entirely from within the point of view of a fictional universe. It also fails to meet the conditions of WP:LEAD - not enough context is provided in the introductory paragraphs. An additional problem is that it doesn't meet WP:REF or WP:RS.

To give you an example of what is seriously wrong at the moment, "Zero was created by Dr. Wily, as implied throughout all the Mega Man series." is silly - X was created by Keiji Inafune! In fact, most of the article is utterly incomprehensible to somebody not familiar with the series - in fact, this entire paragraph:

Zero was created by Dr. Wily, as implied throughout all the Mega Man series. In Bass' ending for Mega Man 2: The Power Fighters, Wily informed Bass that he was working on a new robot that would replace Bass as his strongest creation. The silhouette of this robot was shown to be Zero in his post-X3 design, and a buster on his right arm, but without the Z-Saber. Beyond this, no more is mentioned on the subject in the classic series; however it is once more shown in Mega Man X4 that Dr. Wily is Zero's creator, as in his opening sequence it depicts the mad scientist lecturing Zero on Dr. Light (who he refers to as "his nemesis"), and how he must destroy him. Also, when flashbacks are shown of Zero stepping out of his original capsule, Wily's "W" and Skull insignias can be seen. Wily's name also appears among the random text during the Mega Man X5 opening video. It is not mentioned what happened to Zero, Wily, Mega Man or any of the other characters after Zero was released.

which really is meant to be introducing the character's history to the reader, actually serves no purpose at all unless you are familiar with the plot and characters.

Some ideas that could help:

• Try to write from a point of view outside the perspective of the fictional universe
• Can you include details about the process of authorship? Which writers or creators developed the ideas behind this character? What did they base it on? How original is the idea? Is it based on something in real life? You ought to be able to verify this using reliable sources.
• What has the influence of the idea been outside this fictional realm? Have any other game designers professed to "adapting" ideas like this for their shows?
• What about critical response to the character? Perhaps you can talk about the gameplay aspects?

To help you along, here are 3 really useful links:

• User:Uncle G/Describe this universe (Gives the right philosophy for writing about fiction in WP: Describe this universe! Keep that at the centre of all your writing on this topic and you'll be fine.)
• Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction (pretty much the official guide on what is required of articles about fiction. Helpful but a bit dry!)
• User:BrianSmithson/Writing about fiction (Funny and useful! A must-read for anyone writing about fiction on Wikipedia... I guarantee you will find it helpful.)

You also need to consider your references carefully. Whenever a claim like "In the Rockman X manga by Iwamoto, Zero is somewhat different compared to his game-counterpart. He is usually sarcastic and has an extremely short-temper, especially towards Dr. Cain" is made that needs a specific citation - who is it who states that he is more sarcastic in the manga? Stuff like "Zero is usually pretty cold around death. He's witnessed countless deaths of innocents and those influenced by the Sigma Virus, but he never even batted an eyelash. In fairness, he has witnessed countless deaths, many by his hands, and many of innocents when he was a Maverick. Having to put this behind him could've influenced his inability to become emotional when he witnesses death" is actually a subjective opinion, not an objective fact, so that needs a specific citation. The references section is not correctly formatted. All external links used as references should have (as much as this is possible) the author, date copyrighted, and without fail the last date the URL was accessed (e.g. a good example of a linked reference would be this:

"German Sept 11 theory stokes anti-US feeling", Kate Connolly, November 20, 2003, telegraph.co.uk (URL accessed 6 April 2006)

The link to www.gamefaqs.com needs to link to the specific subpages used in the article. A fansite doesn't reach WP:RS unless it is only being used to cite the opinions of fans - i.e. to describe the way fans have reacted to the character.

It might be a good idea to look at Spoo, which became a featured article. Read through and look for all the "encyclopedic" qualities of the article - not just the humour, but the fact that it had extensive inline references, all the references were reliable, authoritative sources, not just fan-sites (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources), it was written from the point of view of "this" universe, it considers in depth the process by which the idea was created, and it looks at the real-world impact of it. This shows that there is no reason an article on a fictional topic can't make it all the way to featured article status, but you have to do a lot of work, including extensive research, to get there!TheGrappler 19:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This article was quite a bit better than Mega Man X (character) at the time of the respective GA nomination. Copying and pasting the qualms pertaining to it was unnecessary and does not match the intent. Nonetheless, I've done some clean-up here and there, all that remains are the citations. -Zero^Talk 01:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Got those too. -Zero^Talk 22:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA status

Well whatever problems Grappler mentioned in his analysis, they seem to be gone now. Looks NPOV to me, a good enough read, seems to capture the importance of the character, and it has references. If I may offer some advice though, unless the references you have there are super general, try to find some more, its a very large article and it just seems to me like there ought to be more citations somewhere in there. Also, the big "game history" section I would think should be split up into several sections, surely there's a couple clear divides in there somewhere, I think it would make it a more interesting read than the rather large lump of text there now. Homestarmy 00:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like good advice to me. I'll get on it. -Zero^Talk 05:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Model Number

Has it been stated anywhere what Zero's model number is? I would assume it to be something like DWN-000 or DWN-00Z (Bass is supposedly DWN-001, while Mega Man X is DRN-00X). WiteoutKing 17:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Why don't they work? and where do they direct to? Like 16, I clicked on it, it led no where...confused! Judgesurreal777 06:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 21:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appearance inconsistencies?

We should really bring this up. If I recall properly, wasn't there a cutscene in X4 where Zero is activated by Wily that portrayed Zero with square shoulders and the updated (X2 and after) armor design, even though the flashback technically proceeded the first X game chronologically? Was this a retcon to Zero's original design or just a developer oversight?

Secondly...in one of the Megaman Zero games (I don't know which, since I haven't played them all) it's said that Zero is pitted against his "original" body. Strangely enough, that body looks pretty much identical to the Megaman Zero body. Dissapointing not to see his original X Series form thrown in...but anyway, the point is, was that another developer oversight or did Zero recieve more upgrades/body replacements than we are aware of?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.95.197.103 (talk)

The flashback in X4 could be shrugged off as an oversight, but I'd say that all the design changes are just due to art design changes in general, like the obvious difference in the X games to Zero games. - Zero1328 _Talk? 09:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)