Talk:Ryu (Street Fighter)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	CVG Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of Mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
	This article is supported by the Capcom task force.
CVG To-do: edit  Gaming Collaboration of the week: Kirby Super Star Expand: New CVG Articles, 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: List of F-Zero titles, Kya: Dark Lineage, Wii Remote, Dynasty Warriors 4, The Sims 2, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Kirby's Dream Land, Electronic sports, Fire Emblem, Dante (Devil May Cry), The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Final Fantasy XII, Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit), Classes in World of Warcraft Cleanup: Age of Mythology, Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, Betrayal at Krondor, List of Nintendo trademarks Merge: Deletions / Essential articles / Magazines Assess and Prioritise articles (Log)

Contents 1 Move 2 Hair Color 3 Sources? 3.1 Sources List 4 Kanji meaning 5 Street Fighter III/Street Fighter The Movie/Street Fighter EX 6 Dispute about Chun-Li relationship 7 Alter Ego 8 Ryu/Chun-Li fancruft vote 8.1 Discussion 9 ...Canon? 10 vitals/proportions 11 Ryu vs. Ken's speed 12 Stop mentioning Alpha Generations 13 Where does it say that Ryu used Kyokushin? 14 Storyline sections... 15 Ryu Pic 16 Gotcha Force 17 Infobox 18 Vandalism 19 SF1 Retcon 20 What does Ruy do for a living

[edit] Move

I moved this page because there is another Ryu in the video game word - Ryu Hayabusa of Ninja Gaiden. WhisperToMe 23:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just curious if this was noteworthy to maybe put under triva: in the first megaman X game there was a secret Dr. Light hologram where you would recieve the power to use the Hadoken. I only remember that and dont currently have anysources to back it up but if people feel this would be something worth adding I could look for some 64.53.130.241 03:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

That sort of trivia is better on one of the Street Fighter pages than Ryu's page, since the Hadouken isn't unique to just him. Virogtheconq 08:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hair Color

Ryu's red hair is his younger version, and his brown hair is his older version. --Zachkudrna18@yahoo.com

Not only that, his hair was black in the Street Fighter 3 games.

[edit] Sources?

Where in Street Fighter canon does it say that the fabled blow Ryu delivered to Sagat was a "cheap shot," or a dark Shoryuken, or that he'd lost to Ken when receiving the headband? Second time I've seen questionable twists on known Ryu history. Where also is being captured, brainwashed, and rescued in canon? Is all this referring to some sort of Street Fighter Alpha series ending? If so, I haven't noticed it in either of his first two in those games. Does this instead refer to endings for Ken or Sagat? If that's the case, I don't think the version of events in their stories can necessarily be considered the official background for his (Sagat is even reported as saying in Street Fighter Alpha 3 that the dark Ryu is not the one who gave him the scar). Changing this to what's strictly known as canon unless these matters are verified.

Ryu received the red headband from Ken in Ken's SFA/SFA2 ending. The "capture and brainwash" part comes from Ken, Sakura, and Sagat's SFA3 pre-Bison battles. The Street Fighter II animated movie is not part of SF canon, therefore the "Shoryuken/Hadouken" finish isn't applicable. The Street Fighter Plot Canon Guide, derived from the book All About Capcom, contains everything that was put into the character entries on Wikipedia. DarkSoldier 05:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the Sakura, Ken, and Sagat pre-Bison battles, I feel that, as was mentioned above, the versions of events in those stories can't definitely be considered the one and only official events in Ryu's (no more than something about one of them in his version of events could be considered their official canon). I think it's better off left out. Whether the "Shoryuken/Hadouken" finish is applicable strikes me as rather trivial; regardless of just how he won, the official story remains that Ryu beat Sagat in Street Fighter 1. That "All About Capcom" book sounds interesting. I couldn't find anything on it. Have a link? -- James26 07:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, AAC is only in Japanese. I found it for sale at Sasuga Japanese Bookstore for $32. Regarding what happens to other characters, if there is nothing to contradict those statements, then they can be taken as canon until such time as they are contradicted. DarkSoldier 01:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. -- James26 23:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources List

Why is the list of sources at the bottom of the page constantly being removed? Nawara Ven 04:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kanji meaning

I think there is an error in the definition of the name "Ryu". The page states that his name means "prosperity", though I have seen in many sources, such as a Japanese-English dictionary that it can mean Dragon, smartly dressed, or a fighting style. I have seen nothing before stating that it means Prosperity. I am not very experienced in Japanese, so anyone who can confirm or disprove this is free to.

• Ryu does mean "Dragon" in Japanese, not "Prosperity". I have the anime Street Fighter V, Japanese soundtrack with Chinese subtitles. The Chinese translation was "Dragon".

• Shoryuken is the Japanese name for Dragon Punch. Shoryuken is Dragon Punch. Shoryuken is Dragon Punch. Tekken is Iron Fist or Punch.

As far as I know, "ryu" indeed means "dragon". I was kinda surprised to see "prosperity" there. If nobody is against it, I think it should be fixed.--Kaonashi 03:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I've discovered something about this some time ago, and I think I should share with you. I looked on my kanji dictionaries and searched for the very same character shown on the article (隆) for its definition. It indeed means "prosperity", and not "dragon". The word "ryū" can mean several things in Japanese, including "dragon", but this one kanji character refer to "prosperity". I looked on Street Fighter's section at capcom.co.jp, but I didn't find the kanji referring to his name (to check if this is the one). Only in katakana.

So, for that reason, I think we should see the "dragon" stuff we're discussing here as a mere speculation. The kanji for "dragon" is not that one, and that's for sure. Until anyone comes up with proof, I think the article should stay the way it is now.--Kaonashi 03:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Capcom only spelled Ryu's and Ken's names in kanji back when the original Street Fighter was released. After Street Fighter II, they spelled them in plain katakana. The kanji in Ryu's name definitely the one for prosperity and not dragon though. I'm guessing the misconception comes from the fact that most of Ryu's techniques have a Dragon motif. http://ameblo.jp/user_images/1e/b3/10000706467_s.jpg Jonny2x4 07:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes. It's for something like that I've been looking for. I took a look at the Street Fighter ROMs I have here, but I couldn't find anything. I hoped to see something on Street Fighter II for the PC Engine, but not even there. I also remember playing the first Street Fighter at some point, but I didn't remember the kanji. Thanks for finding that out. It's indeed the prosperity one.--Kaonashi 04:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Call me a skeptic, but I'd like to see some official documentation on Ryu's kanji. Not to say that you'd photoshop a pic like that or anything, but your source may or may not be an official capcom text. I'm just having trouble believing ryu's obvious "dragon" connection would be overlooked for the kanji for prosperity.

I do read japanese however... and it does look pretty legit though. Nevertheless, after reading through some japanese websites (including wikipedia's own Japanese's article on ryuu) It seems that his name has been changed 2 or 3 times. Since SF2 to the present its only written in katakana, so I left only the katakana name. If we want to discuss the name changes in the actual article, I wouldn't be averse to adding a few sentences explaing thatLinkMaster 04:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

---Ryu is pronounced 'roo', I believe, I will make such a correction to the article, any objections?

That is wrong. "Ryu" is pronounced moer or less like "ree-ooh". "Roo" is very far from that.--Kaonashi 01:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Street Fighter III/Street Fighter The Movie/Street Fighter EX

This article needs more Ryu images from these games. I would like to upload some images and edit the article, making a gallery. --Mateusc 16:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean to accuse, but you'd have to admit this is probably a tad too suspicious coming immediately after the page has been protected from vandalism. It's best to hold off on this idea; I agree with Mackeriv that the article should just stay locked for a while, as all the written content that needs to be there is pretty much there (meaning the first priority has been met). --James26

1. I never vandalized articles in Wikipedia. If you think that I suspect, you should ask for IP verification to an administrator instead of pose of plaintiff coward.

2. My intention is expand the article, because Ryu was shown significantly different in many games and also in a movie.

3. What Mackeriv thinks on articles is not what the community thinks. Vandalism is a problem in the wikipedia, but not a reason to keep locked without power to be expanded. Thanks. --Mateusc 16:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

1. I never vandalized articles in Wikipedia. If you think that I suspect, you should ask for IP verification to an administrator instead of pose of plaintiff coward.

Okay, I'm not sure what you were trying to say here, but it sounds like you've overreacted.

What Mackeriv thinks on articles is not what the community thinks.

I hadn't noticed any overwhelming disagreement in regards to this particular case, so...

Vandalism is a problem in the wikipedia, but not a reason to keep locked without power to be expanded.

I disagree when it comes to certain matters. This being one of them. Perhaps if you'd been fighting this particular vandalism you would too.

Thanks.

Welcome. --James26 04:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute about Chun-Li relationship

I removed it a while ago, and I'll remove it again - it's pretty common knowledge on Wikipedia that fancruft just isn't encyclopaedic. That paragraph is more circumstantial than speculative, but it still doesn't belong here, no matter how much the 'shippers or fanfiction authors want it. Sorry, but "some fans" isn't enough to merit inclusion. The "trivia" section isn't a blank slate to put down whatever pops into your head about the character. I don't want to start an edit war over this. --Marcg106 05:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't have many strong opinions regarding this (though I'd probably leave that info away, since it doesn't sound a lot good to be here to me), but it's a little strange to hear you saying "don't start a revert war" when you're the one reverting in the first place, without explaining why first (like you're doing just now). If you were really concerned about revert wars, you'd probably only talk instead of editing the article for a second time. You'd have talked instead of taking actions. Just keep that in mind next time.--Kaonashi 19:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not interested in revert wars either, but respectfully, I tend to disagree with the reasoning here. The definition of fancruft refers to it as detailed information, and includes the following.

". . . Or because too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan, when its exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage as a whole."

A simple mention that Ryu and Chun-Li are a popular fan-pairing is not overly detailed nor distracting. Listing and describing several notable fanfics, fan-sites, pieces of fanart, and petitions to Capcom to get them together might be; simply stating that the notion exists, however, is not. This has nothing to do with being a "shipper," as you put it. (And I also agree that if you object so strongly, the right thing to do would have been to discuss first, as that info has been present for a while). Stating that the trivia section is not a blank slate to put down "whatever pops into your head about the character" doesn't strike me as a very valid argument; it rather strikes me as a means of trying to dodge the argument. The trivia section is a blank slate to put down information that is both interesting and factual. This qualifies as that, not, by definition, as fancruft. As it is neither overly detailed or distracting, I'm therefore restoring the information unless there is another reason given for why it shouldn't be there. Thank you. --Respectfully, James26 17:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I was a hardcore Street Fighter fan in the early and mid 90's, and I don't recall anyone I played with thinking that Ryu and Chun-Li would be a good pairing. And in any event, fan speculation doesn't really have a place in an encylopedia, does it? It's one thing, for example, to have an article about fan-fiction, it's another entirely to include said fan-fiction in articles. -Locke Cole 01:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Articles shouldn't revolve around what anyone does or doesn't recall personally. And as I myself have argued, I agree that fanfiction does not belong in articles. This, however, isn't "fanfiction," it's trivia. Let's stop attempting to redefine things as fancruft or fanfiction in the interests of personal desires. The problem here is that those who don't want the trivia included don't have ample reasoning to support their position; it's apparently just a matter of whim.

I will now state a case for why the trivia should stay. First of all, the report happens to be factual. A simple Google search for "Ryu Chun-Li" will prove that this is a popular subject among fandom. Secondly, this particular bit of trivia, as stated in another article, is not fueled entirely by "fan speculation." While not all are canon (which is beside the point), there are at least four officially licenced or created works that also support this concept (and it's interesting to note that the citations to those were deleted from the Chun-Li article by Marcg106 -- further suggesting that this is more of a personal matter than anything else). Those works are the Tokuma Comics Street Fighter II manga, the Malibu Comics Street Fighter series, the Street Fighter Alpha/Zero OVA, and the game SVC Chaos -- all of which, again, are officially created works, not fan works, that either hint at or include romance between the characters Ryu and Chun-Li. Therefore, this is not a matter of baseless fan speculation; it is something that fans have been given ample reason to speculate over.

Also, as it is a part of the trivia section -- not the main body of the article itself -- and as I've already detailed, not a piece of fancruft, there is no reason left for it to not be included... save for it apparently rubbing someone the wrong way. Sorry, but that's not a good enough reason to go editing something out. Wikipedia is not about unilateral decisions, and given what I've presented, I think it's clear that this appears to be a pretty rash one based mainly on personal preference. --Respectfully, James26 22:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Look. If you can give me some credible source from Capcom that states Ryu and Chun Li were meant to be together, or were a possible coupling or something, then yeah, sure, leave it in. But until then it doesn't pass the WP:V test, and ergo, it's out. It's funny too, to note that this seems to be an ongoing problem on other sites as well. [1] Until you provide a credible Capcom source or a consensus of editors disagrees, I'll be reverting this change on sight. Also, please see WP:CITE. -Locke Cole 04:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Taken from the Chun-Li article. "The two are acquainted, however. In SVC Chaos: SNK vs. Capcom, their pre-fight dialogue hints that of all her opponents, Ryu is her favorite, since she was very happy to see him again. He enjoys fighting her as well, and considers her to be a good friend and ally." That's where the "possible coupling or something" comes in. If that doesn't satisfy you personally, then I can't help you, but whether or not it's to your personal satisfaction shouldn't decide this. I've provided the citation you asked for -- an official source that implys it. I also have cited my sources regarding the fan matter in mentioning the stories that have contained this. It seems to me that you're attempting to apply the WP:V policy to your personal whim, now dictating that it has to come directly by Capcom and not by the stories that they've allowed to be created. How does one person get to decide this? In any case, I've changed the entry to not include the word speculation but instead include the fact that certain officially liscenced stories have featured this concept. Perhaps this should indeed be put to debate among moderators. However, if a mere mentioning of fandom is not appropriate for a trivia section in this article, then you be sure to go and weed out fandom referrences in every single other Wikipedia article as well if your whim is approved here. No bias, right? --James26 23:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that doesn't satisfy me personally. She says she's happy to see him. He says they're friends and she's his ally, not that they want to get "coupled". That's original research on your part (or rather, fans in general), and clearly disallowed by WP:NOR. Moreover, the consensus (that'd be myself and Marcg106) seem to believe it's fancruft. -Locke Cole 05:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"Moreover, the consensus (that'd be myself and Marcg106) seem to believe it's fancruft."

A consensus is not necessarily right, especially when you've yet to adequately rebuke my earlier points that cite the article on fancruft and detail the inaccuracy of your claim.

In any case, the new edit should satisfy all but the most stubborn parties. Please note that I have cited what I mention above. Also, why was it that the matter with Chun-Li was considered un-cited "fancruft," while the following line -- at the very top of the trivia section -- was not?

". . . Some fans refer to him as a "one-dimensional character." Some assume he does not care about winning or losing, just the moment of the fight and the opportunity for spiritual advancement."

Where is the citation/link that proves that "some fans" feel this way about the character? Why is this not being equally picked on? It seems the fancruft claims were selective and, as I'd mentioned, really a matter of a personal nature. Hopefully it's resolved now. -- James26 00:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Now, now.. don't get in a hurry. We can tackle that bit of potential fancruft next if you're eager about it. I just think that, since this is the subject at hand, we should deal with it. Not try to tackle rewriting the whole article. -Locke Cole 05:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this really worth all this crazy war? I mean, what importance does this have? I advise you both to stop reverting the article like you're doing. You both are almost breaking the 3RR rule, and that grants blocking. Please consider that before doing anything from now on.--Kaonashi 05:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Fine. My point is that certain parties were obviously upset about what they deemed speculation. I've now changed the article to no longer include said speculation but instead the fact that certain official stories, canon or not, have implied the Ryu/Chun-Li thing. If my fellow users continue to revert even that fact, then that proves that their real problem is not with the previous speculation (which I've suspected all along), but with the Ryu/Chun-Li thing. I say let it go with what I've included, which is clearly cited and true.

If not, then I agree that this really isn't worth it. Either way, both of the edits I've supported (the first of which I didn't even originally include) are facts. -- James26 00:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

This is the problem with you: now you claim to have cited something, and you haven't. All you say is "some officially created works" say it, but you fail to cite a screen shot or anything that says, explicitly, what you assert as "true". Instead you read that she says "of all her opponents, Ryu is her favorite" and run with it. That's original research, and that's disallowed on Wikipedia per WP:NOR. I made a good-faith edit to your last contribution changing it to state what your "source" actually stated (per your own words): that they are friends and allies. Wikipedia is not a place for ridiculous fan-fiction/fancruft. -Locke Cole 06:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

No, Locke, the problem is that you apparently haven't read my upper posting in which I did cite those officially created works. I'll re-post what's above.

"While not all are canon (which is beside the point), there are at least four officially licenced or created works that also support this concept (and it's interesting to note that the citations to those were deleted from the Chun-Li article by Marcg106 -- further suggesting that this is more of a personal matter than anything else). Those works are the Tokuma Comics Street Fighter II manga, the Malibu Comics Street Fighter series, the Street Fighter Alpha/Zero OVA, and the game SVC Chaos -- all of which, again, are officially created works, not fan works, that either hint at or include romance between the characters Ryu and Chun-Li."

It seems you're now attempting to redefine the issue. What I've "assert[ed] as true" is that these official works either feature or imply romance between them. I have not "assert[ed] as true" that Ryu and Chun-Li are an official couple; that was never even stated in the article in the first place. Some of these official works do include romance between the characters (mainly the comics), and that is fact. I appreciate your good-faith edit, but what you label as "ridiculous fan-fiction/fancruft" is really the result of your lack of actually reading the citations when included. If that doesn't support my assertions that your insistence in this matter has been rash, then I don't know what does. And you still haven't actually responded to my counter for your "fancruft" assertion, in which I've cited that the article defines it as detailed info, which renders your claim invalid.

I'm sorry this has turned so ugly, but I find the rashness of those on the opposing side both immature and annoying. -- James26 17:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

No, what's immature and annoying is the "OMGWTFBBQ, Chun Li and Ryu are meant to be, LOLZ!!!1!" attitude you're displaying. I don't know if I'd necessarily consider the comics to be canon, if possible, I'd rather stick to stuff from the games. And besides, so far the only quote you've provided is from the game where it says they're friends and allies, or that Ryu is her favorite opponent. If you're going to quote comics, quote passage and verse at least (issue, page, and a snippet of the dialogue indicating they are or could be in a relationship). It's not really asking that much that you prove it before we let fancruft in.. --Locke Cole 05:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not displaying that attitude. Let me clarify (again) that I never said they were "meant to be" or that they're a couple. Neither did the person who originally wrote what was in the article. The only one who's suggested that that's what's being debated is you actually. You keep speaking for your opposition so that you can then declare that your opposition is wrong, doing original research, including fancruft, or including fanfiction, when none of that is true. It would be if the original claim was "Ryu and Chun-Li are a couple." Too bad it wasn't.

The Original Claim:

Some fans believe that he and Chun-Li would make a good couple

Taken from the WP:V policy/WP:NOR policy:

Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research . . . the only way to verify that you are not doing original research is to cite sources

A few sources that verify the original claim ("Some fans believe that he and Chun-Li would make a good couple") are here, here and here.

Once again, the claim has never been that they are a couple.

"I don't know if I'd necessarily consider the comics to be canon"

Let me clarify (again) that neither do I... as I've restated once already.

"It's not really asking that much that you prove it"

Just so we get it completely straight this time and there's no clever dodging or redefining... Prove what? -- James26 01:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

My problem with this is, why is it such a big deal that it be included? Why is it important to someone who's never heard of Ryu or Chun Li? There's already two people here who think this should be out altogether, then there's you who says it should be in. That's 2 to 1. I'd rather get some additional opinions before trying to claim consensus on this, but c'mon, why the revert war over taking it out? --Locke Cole 12:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Trivia is not necessarily supposed to be overly important or unimportant. The main body of the article is there for the important part. Trivia, in any work, is simply a collection of little facts that some may find interesting and are thus included. You can make the claim that it may not be interesting to someone who's never heard of either character, but it works both ways: at the same time, there exists the possibility that it may be interesting to someone who has. Therefore, what's the big deal about insisting that it be taken out? Why not just leave it alone? While there may be people, as you've said, who think it should be taken out, you've yet to provide an actual Wikipedia policy that says the same, and that is why I oppose this idea. It is not fancruft (as explained by the very first line of the definition), it is not fanfiction (the line doesn't read, "Ryu and Chun-Li are a copule"), and it is not original research (as the sources have been verified above). There's no clear reason it should be taken out other than certain people simply wanting it to be, and that is why it should stay. -- James26 22:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm done justifying my position with you. It was a mistake to even engage in this ridiculous discussion. I'll state it as simple as possible: so far 2 people want this out, with you as the only one wanting it in. If you don't like that, well, there's not a whole lot I can do. I've explained why I believe it should be out, and whether you believe that meshes with policy or guidelines is really irrelevant to me, because as far as I'm concerned it does. --Locke Cole 04:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, according to policy, there's more to it than where you stand. Now you're being immature with the "I don't care what you or the guidelines say; all that matters is what I want." You're right, if that's your final attitude and you're not mature enough to simply acknowledge being incorrect when you can't prove otherwise, it was a mistake to engage in this. -- James26 22:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Going to administrators if this keeps up. What you're doing now -- stubbornly reverting without substantial enough reason (a consensus that you can't support with policy) -- borders on vandalism (the very thing you claim to fight). Please, get over it and move on. -- James26 23:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe history will record that you are the one stubbornly reverting here against consensus. If you don't like this, make reasonable proposals that will gain consensus instead of pushing your POV on the rest of us. --Locke Cole 06:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the "consensus" you keep referring to was for THE ORIGINAL CLAIM ("Some fans believe that he and Chun-Li would make a good couple"); it does not apply to the current edit.

And dude, I'm not stubbornly pushing a POV on you. I'm merely requesting, as I believe is reasonable to do, that you present a valid reason within Wikipedia policy to support your edit. You haven't, and therefore this consensus that you keep blindly clinging to is invalid; it's an excuse you use to support editing a page based on your own personal desires and not on policy. You've even admitted as much by claiming that you don't care that your edit isn't supported by any guideline, because "as far as I'm concerned," it is. Whenever I attempt to inform you that your claims of "fancruft," "O.R," etc don't add up, you...

1. Ignore me

2. Attempt to change the trivia's meaning to something you can apply your argument to (which hasn't worked)

3. Say, "Well, there's a consensus, so..." (which currently isn't true, and would be irrelevant anyway without validity)

Also, the current version is something you yourself were willing to deal with at one point, but now you suddenly change your mind? Why don't you just admit that your motivation here really revolves around personal feelings (a dislike for the subject)? You've more than proven it. And even if you succeed in removing the fact that some fans and official works like the idea of a Ryu/Chun-Li relationship from this encyclopedia, that isn't going to "hide it from the world," if that's what you're after. It's been well known for years (the image I linked to was made in '97; the first site I linked to was just updated this month). This debate should not be motivated by whether any of us like it or not.

Look, the sources that verify the current claim are clearly cited in the article and you haven't provided anything in policy that says it should be gone. Therefore, your constant edits revolve strictly around your own whim and qualify as vandalism. Let it go, or I report that to administrators. Someone with your skill at writing shouldn't let this wreak or hinder a Wikipedia career. Is it really that worth it? -- James26 03:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not the one at fault here, so by all means, get an admin to intervene. Meanwhile, I'll continue to edit with the view of the consensus. --Locke Cole 09:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I have already proven that you don't have consensus, just as I've proven the inaccuracy of several of your other arguments. Now you won't admit to being at fault. You have to be the most immature and utterly stubborn Wikipedian I've come across. Even when proven incorrect, you deny it and refuse to yield, and that is clearly on display here for anyone intervening to see. So yes, I will get an admin. Sorry it has to come to this. Then again, no, I'm not. -- James26 04:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, just because you disagree with me doesn't give you the authority to usurp my vote. That's not the way it works. All I did was try to explain why I believed it should be out, and instead of accepting my decision you've chosen to attack it. We are all peers here, you don't get to act as referee and decide whose opinion matters and whose doesn't. If that was the way Wikipedia worked, nothing would ever get done. Now you can accept that you're in the minority or you can act juvenile and try to report my edits as vandalism (which they most certainly are not). I really couldn't care less. But if you think threatening me is going to get your "OMG Chun-Li and Ryu are meant to beeeeeee!" crap in, you're out of your God forsaken skull. --Locke Cole 09:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, just because you disagree with me doesn't give you the authority to usurp my vote.

Nor you mine.

instead of accepting my decision you've chosen to attack it

You're the one who started this without talking first and then declared you'd continue to edit "on sight."

you don't get to act as referee and decide whose opinion matters and whose doesn't.

I haven't been concerned with opinions; my edits revolve around facts and they've been cited. And I never declared or inferred the "meant to be" stuff that you've posted, nor am I "in the minority," as I've already proven (though you seem you have a difficult time accepting truth when it proves you wrong, so you tend to ignore it and repeat the same thing over and over). And yeah you've tried to explain why it should be out, and you were proven wrong. That pretty much clarifys the difference between us on this matter, as does the insult in your immature post. Actually you've done nothing but constantly put your immaturity on display here every time, and I'm so, so glad. -- James26 05:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't tried to usurp your vote, I've merely pointed out that you're in the minority with your single vote. 2v1 in this article, 3v1 in the Chun-Li article (both about the same thing, so effectively 3v1 in both). I declared I'd edit "on sight" when it became clear that you were disregarding the consensus and were instead trying to impose your POV on the article in your edits. I believe I'm well within my rights to do that once you show a disinterest in accepting the consensus (and definitely more "in the right" than you are to unilaterally decide to go against the consensus). As for "proving me wrong"-- again, this is your opinion. IMHO I believe you've only twisted what I've said, proof positive to me that I should never have engaged in this discussion with you because it seems all you've wanted is to find a way to attack my decision (rather than trying to understand it). And how can I be immature if you're the one making threats of getting admins to try and enforce your minority position against the will of the consensus? THAT's immature. I have a better idea: why don't you take your ball and go home? It's clear you can't play well with others. --Locke Cole 10:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Locke, I will repeat once again that you do not have a consensus. Do you even READ what's here? The consensus you refer to was for the original claim; no such consesnus exists for the modified one I tried to create to satisfy you. However, while you accepted it at first, you then changed your mind and

1. Have ignored every counterpoint that disproves your claim

2. Have now launched a personal insult (God-forsaken mind)

That is why you're immature. Again, you have NO consensus, and even if you did, policy declares you wrong... but you never want to talk about that. -- James26 05:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I accepted a revision I made, which was later edited by you. You trying to reword it ever so slightly to slip it in is immature IMO, and just smells of desperation. I'll say it one last time: you are in the minority, you do not have consensus with these edits, merely changing the wording slightly doesn't automatically make everything OK. If you'd like to discuss potential changes and see if a consensus agrees with your changes, that would be a lot better (and a lot more mature) than revert warring/ignoring peoples opinions/threatening to try and get an admin to back your POV. --Locke Cole 10:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I only edited back my revision after you'd edited it first, because what I'd said originally was and is true. I'm through with the mud-slinging; you just seem to apply what's said to you and throw it back anyway. And I'll say it again, you do not have a consensus with the current edit. And your original "consensus" was incorrect -- NOT according to me, but according to the fancruft definition. Nothing gets through to you; you just ignore everything that directly proves you wrong (such as the fact that you don't have consensus here, and the fact that you can't prove the original claim was fancruft). -- James26 05:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Nah, I just choose not to get into a justification match with you about why I believe it shouldn't be in (I already tried that, and you don't seem interested at all in what I have to say). All I'll say about this matter is that it reeks of fancruft, and that's it. If you want you can propose edits here to see if they gain consensus, that's cool. But unilaterally adding it back in (just slightly reworded to include your supposed sources) is not, to me, a valid way to resolve this. It's just another example of you ignoring consensus. --Locke Cole 10:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't have been ignoring consensus when you don't have one for the current edit (why don't you stop ignoring that when I point it out). -- James26 05:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The current edit (that is, the omission of any mention of Ryu and Chun-Li (potentially) being in any kind of relationship) is what originally got consensus. Since then you've made a marked effort to try and push your POV into the article via revert wars rather than getting consensus for an edit a majority can agree to. --Locke Cole 11:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Nah, I just choose not to get into a justification match with you about why I believe it shouldn't be in (I already tried that, and you don't seem interested at all in what I have to say).

Not true. Okay then, tell me why you think it shouldn't be in. -- James26 05:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Because I believe it to be fancruft, and I believe it's inclusion violates WP:NOR and WP:V. --Locke Cole 10:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

How exactly is the current edit fancruft (you can't just say "I believe")? And how does it violate the "no original research" thing when the sources are cited? -- James26 06:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I can just say "I believe", actually, and that's all I'll be saying. I won't be drawn into some lengthy debate where the only goal for you is to say my opinion doesn't matter. As for your "sources", as I said some time ago, those aren't sources, those are examples. The non-canon comics aren't even source-worthy, if that's what you're talking about. --Locke Cole 11:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I tried.

So you refuse to explain why you feel the way you do. That's where the problem comes in. You have a position that you won't support; you're just basically saying "because I said so." That just hurts your credibility. And don't try to blame me for your lack of supporting your argument. If you won't support it, it's because you can't find substance to it, which just backs my claims.

What I meant by "the current edit":

"*Some officially created works, such as the 1993 Malibu Comics' Street Fighter series, and Masaomi Kanzaki's Street Fighter II manga, suggest that he and Chun-Li would make a good couple—a concept that has been a point of contention among fans."

This is what you DO NOT have a consensus on. This is not fancruft (it isn't detailed). And those "examples" are citations. Whether they're canon or not wasn't the point; the claim was that they were "officially created works." And you don't get to decide whether they're source worthy. However, if you want more to the citation just let me know what exactly, as I'd offered before.

And the original edit -- Some fans believe that he and Chun-Li would make a good couple -- was verified and therefore was not orginal research. It was not detailed and therefore was not fancruft (how many times must I repeat all this?).

Verification of the original edit:

Taken from the WP:V policy/WP:NOR policy:

Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research . . . the only way to verify that you are not doing original research is to cite sources

A few sources that verify the original claim ("Some fans believe that he and Chun-Li would make a good couple") are here, here and here.

Whenever your claims have been disproven, Locke, be they the fancruft ones or the O.R. ones (see above) you either ignore or try to discredit what disproves them. When asked to explain your position, you refuse to (moderators will tell you that that hurts your side of the argument; common sense should tell you that). The former is stubborn, the latter is immature. I can tell I'm not going to get anywhere with you, but I have tried, so again, it's time for intervention. Your claims are disproven (whether you'll admit it or not) so your edits are vandalism. -- James26 06:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

No claims have been disproven. No consensus has been reached to support your edits. Really, go on and on all you like, you're definitely not changing my mind after all this. --Locke Cole 11:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You've claimed fancruft. I've proven that they aren't, by definition, because they were not detailed info. You've claimed original research. I've disproven that by citing the sources of the first entry (here, here and here) and the second. You've claimed consensus for the second entry (which was a peace offering), when you don't have it.

Anyone reading this can see your claims have been disproven. Anyone except you of course.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter whether you agree or not now. -- James26 07:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Actually, it does really matter whether I agree or not because I'm part of the consensus that doesn't want Chun-Li fancruft here. Despite your evidence I remain unconvinced. Despite your assertions you don't get to decide whose opinion matters and whose doesn't. Get over yourself and get over this. --Locke Cole 12:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right that I don't get to decide about opinions. It's just too bad the only one who's presented opinions is you; while I've presented, cited, and linked to facts. Wonder which looks better. Never mind, I already know. ;) -- James26 07:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not a contest you know, you can't "beat" me just because I disagree with you and your conclusions. Get help. --Locke Cole 12:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right, dear Locke, it's no contest at all, because the facts remain that you have neither consensus or policy on your side when it comes to the edit you've most recently removed. Your policy claim is, "It's fancruft." The definition to that page you always link to (try reading it yourself) says you're incorrect. You've also launched how many personal attacks now? So, in conclusion, you're in the wrong no matter what. Not my opinion, but the verified facts. -- James26 07:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Eh... I wonder if what I said up there, a million years ago, sounded like Greek to you. Why are you still talking about this? How come this is still going on? I see you both left messages at my talk page, and I suppose you both expect me to take an action. The thing is, sysops don't exist to jump inside content disputes and say "you're right and you're wrong, the article stays this way, etc". Unfortunately, that's not how it works. I can't take part on this because admins don't solve disputes.

The best thing that can be done to solve this is to start a votation. It makes no sense to say there is already a consensus based on what some other people said they think. It's clear that didn't work. Start a votation to set things right. Also, attract other people to this article and this talk page. Post messages at other places and expose the situation to other users. You might think that Wikipedia:Third opinion could be useless now, since other people already said what they think, but I say it's usefull, since it'll call more people into this. They'll show their opinion and they'll do what they think is the best thing. As soon as you notice there are more people agreeing with one version of the article than the other, you'll know there is a consensus, but stick with the votation. It'll make everything clearer and it'll probably decide things once and for all. You can also try Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Doing both might increase your chances of getting the necessary attention you need. In any case, reading Wikipedia:Resolving disputes is always a good idea.

But please, use common sense. When you start thinking things went way too far, they probably did. I see you both started reverting the article like mad again. None of you have broke 3RR yet, but if you do, you will be blocked from editing, and nothing will prevent that, so take care. Also, if all this fails and the article keeps being reverted, the page will have to be protected... again. It will probably happen if things keep going bad. I know I have already given my opinion on this matter, so I might not be able to protect the page myself if someone says I'm already involved. Wikipedia forbids admins to protect pages in case they're already "involved" in a dispute, though I don't see myself involved in this. Anyway, this is what I can do for now. Talk. Sorry if it's not enough, but please listen to what I said. Try following those steps. It'll help.--Kaonashi 02:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

At leat, the White Wolf RPG hints that Ryu and Chun-li are attracted. User:Kage Tenshi 15:10 13 February 2007

[edit] Alter Ego

Why isn't there any stuff about Evil Ryu in this page? Or would it make sense to have a separate Evil Ryu profile on wikipedia? He is after all a separate character in some Capcom games. Doom jester 13:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Say, that's something I hadn't thought about when I had come across this page so many times...but I don't know about making a whole seperate article- the fact of Ryu almost sucuming to Sadatu no hoi pretty much explains dark Ryu's "origins", so I don't really think it needs much explanation. However, perhaps you could make a section for Evil Ryu somwhere in the article ; similar to Shin Akuma in Akuma's article. -Zero^Talk 03:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I have merged said "alter ego" into the article. -Zero^Talk 03:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Also there is no mention of the meaning of the Symbol(kanji) on "Evil Ryus" back after a win. Akumas symbol was translated on his page in the trivia section (but not Shin Akumas?) so it seems strange that it is not posted for Evil Ryu as well...

• It means destruction. But that's about all I know of it. Danny Lilithborne 00:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryu/Chun-Li fancruft vote

[edit] ...Canon?

I was just curious - are the mangas that claim they have a relationship canon, notable? If they are canon and notable, their relationship is not trivia. If only notable, then it must be mentioned that a notable manga makes the claim. I mean, Mario mentions the events of the movie (if it doesn't, it should), despite not being canon. The reason being is that the movie was notable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'd have to say no. Judging from concensus alone, inserting that tidbit of info just might set off another edit war. Best to leave well-off to itself, my friend. :)-MegamanZero 11:31 5,November 2005 (UTC)

Since there was such controversy about its content being mentioned here, I'll probably just create a separate article about the manga soon to go along with all the other Street Fighter story entries, but I'm glad that the fact that a friendship does indeed exist between the characters ended up in the article anyway. --James26 03:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I also never mentioned that a less heated resolution to this argument was reached elsewhere. -- James26 07:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vitals/proportions

This page's vital stats differs from the Japanese version's... is it possible that one set is his SFA proportions, and one is his SFII proportions? 222.2.137.193 05:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryu vs. Ken's speed

Ryu attacks faster than Ken. This has always been their main difference. Suggesting that Ken is faster than Ryu because he does more hits or because he "bounces faster" is extremely misleading. Of course, no one can dispute that Ryu does more damage with single hits in his special attacks, but this does not make him stronger. It just means he does damage in single hits. Please make this clear. Nawara Ven 04:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid this just won't do. Since an failure to reach an neutral point of view is conveyed in thae article, I'm afraid removing it altogether is the best course of action. We don't do power scaling in wikipedia. -Zero^Talk 12:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I fully understand you here, Megaman Zero, pardon my ignorance. I don't know what you mean by "power scaling", or how we're doing it. All I'm concerned with is accurately reporting which character executes the same manuver in less time. There's not really any opinion involved with that. Nawara Ven 14:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You're not ignorant. Please don't insult yourself like that, I think you are clearly editting in good faith. I did not mean to sound oppressive. Regarding this, I've already removed the information, I was referring to. Upon furthur inspection, I think we may have been talking about different lines of text. :) -Zero^Talk 14:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ooooooh okay, there it is, I saw your edit, we were "arguing" about different lines entirely. Ha. I've just been edgy that an anonymous user keeps switching Ken & Ryu's info around, hence I made a point about it on the talk page. Keep up the good work, MM0. Nawara Ven 15:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop mentioning Alpha Generations

• Capcom officially sanctioning an anime does not make it canon, they've said so explicitly. Check Tiamat's Street Fighter plot FAQ. It's irrelevant. Danny Lilithborne 20:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where does it say that Ryu used Kyokushin?

Having everything related to SF, I've read Ryu's page and I am surprised to read that he was supposed to be using Kyoukushin in SF1. Unless someone proves it with certifiable sources, namely pictures and/or text that I don't have (doubtful), I think it is utter BS (IMHO) and a vandal act. Capcom Japan never intended to have him (or Ken) to be followers of a certain school, but universal characters instead. --Kim Kusanagi 19:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Kim Kusanagi

[edit] Storyline sections...

...are needlessly confusing. Please keep the canon storyline to one unified section, please. And BushinGuy, stop reverting the pages because you like your way better. There should at least be a discussion before a major overhaul in format. Danny Lilithborne 00:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who broke it up into sections, because it seemed the best way to explain where these various pieces of story were coming from. Please don't remove the headers without somehow indicating that such-and-such story is from SFII, such and such story is from SFA, and so on. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, then, A Man In Black, the reason it's confusing is that one story can and often does retcon another. Capcom's released various guides relating to what the storyline is, canonwise, so splitting it into sections is not necessary and can actually cause confusion in a reader. I'll leave the headers alone while this is in discussion. Danny Lilithborne 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping to move out of the universe and handle it in a chronological-by-real-world-games order, mentioning the retcons along with the games in which they are introduced. That said, I'm not attached to that order, but I want to make sure every version of the fights is described and label retcons as such. A good example of what I'd like to do is Justice Society of America, a long-running comic that has been retconned and retconned and retconned again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryu Pic

Why is the normal Ryu pic removed? T-1000 21:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What makes you presume we require it..? -Zero^Talk 21:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It shows how Ryu looks in game. As it will not prevent people from buying the game. It falls under fairuse. T-1000 02:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a decorative fair use image, which is a (mild) no-no, plus we already have another Ryu sprite. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In that case, the more recent pic should be used, and the SF II sprite should be removed instead. T-1000 02:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gotcha Force

Rather than drag out a revert war over this, I want to take it to a vote here, because maybe I'm wrong. The way I see it, even if a game is made by Capcom, the fact that a character has a fireball, hurricane kick and super fireball is insufficient to make the whole character an "homage" to Ryu. I think comparing the two is fancruft and doesn't belong on the page. What do you think? Danny Lilithborne 19:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you're missing out the concept of "gameplay" in fighting games. In earlier games what defined a character were mostly his special techniques, so a character who has 3 specials that look just like the same as the signature-moves of Ryu IS somehow, a spin-off. I mean, one could have a hadouken-ish move but not a shoryuken-ish one and a tatsumakisenpuukyaku-ish one, but come on, if it's got all three of them, it's a spinoff, accept it.--151.41.0.81 21:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Not only does Cyber Hero use Ryu's moves, but he also has the same victory pose as Ryu's where he crosses his arms.--DynamoDT 22:12, 19 June 2006. (UTC)

Anyone have any images? Pardon my skepticism, but Ryu's become such an archetype that I'd have to see it for myself before I accept that it's a clear reference. Danny Lilithborne 01:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You know what to do, buddy-boy. [nods at Dynamo] Also, Cyber Hero also has the same Hadouken two-palms-out thrust when delivering the Hero Shot and Hero Beam, and the exact same Zankuu Hadouken one-handed thrust that Evil Ryu/Akuma uses when shooting the Hero Shot it in the air. His bio also states "A wandering [fighter] who travels the globe in search of new opponents to test his strength", just like everyone's favorite shoto. Then again, those may be minor points. Also, Dynamo, doesn't Cyber Hero do a Shoryuken at the end of his ground combo? It's been forever since I last played as him.--TerminusEst13

You mean take crappy quality pictures with my camera? :p Anyways, while I'll try to get them, here are some from the official Gotcha Force site. http://www3.capcom.co.jp/gotchaforce/images/gotcha/borg123.jpg http://www3.capcom.co.jp/gotchaforce/images/gotcha/borg123ssx.jpg --DynamoDT

[edit] Infobox

• I like this infobox. It doesn't have height or weight. Those items of information have become disputed, and I really am sick of it. I propose using the CVG general infobox for all the Street Fighter characters. Danny Lilithborne 11:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

In the info of character design and voice actor(english and japanese)someone has just scribbled "Some guy" as i dont know what his voice actor´s or character designer is i hope someone can fix this!Also someone has changed Ryu´s name to Gordo and give faulty information of how he look!

[edit] SF1 Retcon

Where exactly does it elaborate on Sagat vs. Ryu in the Alpha series? I beat each game with both chars.

Agreed! I never seen anyone cite a reliable source for this. The in-game dialogue between Evil Ryu and Sagat in Alpha 3 seems to suggest the opposite: that it was regular Ryu who gave Sagat his scar and not Evil Ryu. 09:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What does Ruy do for a living

I am curious about this. If Ryu just keeps traveling all over the world, focusing solely on self-improvement, where does he get the money for his normal life ( and travel fee as well) ? Anyone knows?

Well, according to the non-canon movie and tv series, he is a con-man. DeathGodDragon EDGE 01:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No! You don't mean he cheats on people to get money? A man of such calibre and dignity? What about his desire for perfection? I can't believe such a great man who considers fighting his lifetime goal can be a con-man? --S--

• He's not; as DGD EDGE said, it's not canon. No one is sure how Ryu makes a living. Danny Lilithborne 09:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so that's how it is! But I don't understand what canon means here. Can you explain to me? Thanks!--S--

• In this context, it means what officially happened according to Capcom of Japan. Danny Lilithborne 09:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)