Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super transformation

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. Discussion of a possible merge/redirect is a separate editorial decision that can be undertaken at the talk page. Shimeru 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super transformation

Super transformation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Blatant original synthesis. See the talk page, where it comes out that this is based entirely on playing the games in question and drawing conclusions. As a result, this article is a constant source of edit warring over whose interpretation is correct, with no possible end in sight because there aren't any sources from which to build this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that I've added a whole bunch of references to the super forms and their abilities as mentioned in various guides from down in my parents' basement. Yes Virginia, I've been playing Sonic games since the Genesis days. The dusty library down fhsds reflects this. Sadly, not all the guides had useful information - thanks for nothing, BradyGames, on your 'SuperSONIC Tips' guide. Anyway, this should help quell the "original research" issue by and large, although I still don't have anything to cite for Blaze's section. --Bishop2 18:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ...you can't even put a damn AfD up properly >_>. Anywho, there's a keep vote from me, because it was decided in the past not to delete the Super form articles, or to merge them with their regular counterparts as it only inflates the article. Also, there's a second super article which appears to be untouched. Deleting the game article and leaving the comic article is sure to start massive chaos. Also, all of the Sonic articles suffer the same "problem" so the only real way to solve it is to delete them all.GrandMasterGalvatron 18:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - It seems to be covered in enough detail in Sonic the Hedgehog (series). It really isn't a large enough of a gameplay mechanic to warrent an article(only final boss battles in the most recent games). The separate character section can easily be trimmed, and merged with the actual characters. Nemu 19:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  That was actually decided against in the past for the sole reason that it inflated the articles..mainly Sonic's. Also note that there's a second article which remains untouched.GrandMasterGalvatron 19:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  Well, if those articles are inflated with original research, we could lose the original research (which is the entirety of this article). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  By your definition, it's the entirety of all of the articles.GrandMasterGalvatron 20:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge both super transformation and super transformation (other media) to power-up. This is really, really fancrufty and how-to-ey. -- Dhartung | Talk 20:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  You know..I actually went there and asked about it and nothing was said :/GrandMasterGalvatron 20:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep-Why delete? To inflate other articles? No, it's excelent where it is.

• Keep, not original research. It is sourced to both reliable primary sources (the games) and reliable secondary sources (creator confirmation external to the games), albeit minimally in the latter case. --tjstrf talk 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  It's an original synthesis of the games, and the "reliable secondary sources" are not only primary (interviews of the designers of the games performed by sites run by the publishers of the games are not in any sense secondary) but also selectively quoted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  In the case of fictional subjects, the creators are indeed a wikt:reliable wikt:source of information, and because they are interpreting the information rather than being the information, they are also secondary. --tjstrf talk 01:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  Selectively quoting primary sources is not how we write articles on Wikipedia. Additionally, the author of a work is not a separate source from the work itself. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  I disagree, the author of the work is definitely a separate source. We consider each publication in a series of novels a separate source, so the same should follow if the author of a particular work states something in, say, an interview or on a webpage. It is information that is not encapsulated within the game, hence it is from an additional source. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  Never mind the fact that said interviews of the creators of the games performed by the publishers of the games neither establish notability nor do they make the claims advanced in this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  That's a red herring. Questions of notability are not part of this AfD, and more to the point there was no assertion that these sources established notability. These are merely additional, secondary sources which help establish verifiability. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 08:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I fail to understand how "original synthesis" is a reason for deletion as applied to this article. By definition all Wikipedia articles are synthesis, "a putting together" of information from multiple sources. It is only when that information advances a position that it runs afoul of WP:NOR. So far all the information I can see is either directly attributed to a specific game or source, or is an uncontroversial notation of difference between two games. (With the exception of some of the Trivia section) Both of these are clearly allowed under WP:NOR. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 01:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  This article takes scraps of personal observation of many different games, and puts them together to form original conclusions that have been published nowhere. That's original research by definition. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  Again, I see no original conclusions that are not uncontroversial or straightforward statements of difference. (With a few exceptions in the Trivia section) These kinds of comparisons are permissable under WP:NOR, so long as they don't advance a position. (e.g. that Sonic 3 is the best Sonic game for being Super Sonic, etc.) It's no different than having a basic mathematical conversion for numerical facts: it's a basic, logical deduction that can be easily verified. As far as it being combined from personal observations, with video games, books, or any other works of fiction, personal observations are merely the conduit for information from the primary source. Nothing wrong with that at all. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  Well, I did link the talk page for examples, but, hey, I can always provide more.

  1. According to whom is flight a defining trait?
  2. "The air can become a "virtual ground" as shown in Sonic Heroes, enabling the player to jump and use the same abilities as if in a regular level." How is that sourced to anything but experimenting and examining the results?
  3. The player can ... break open an Item box with an "S" on it." - The source for this is entering an unspecified cheat code and, again, reproducing the personal observation of the author of this article.
  4. "It takes 50 Rings to enable the transformation and one Ring is lost per second." Also sourced to personal observation and analysis, and it isn't even always true.
  5. "When the character runs out of Rings, the transformation will be undone and can not be re-enabled unless 50 additional Rings are collected." Likewise.

  There's five examples of original research in the first section. Cheese isn't sourced to a trip to the store, bird isn't sourced to examining birds in flight, but this article is sourced to examining the works in question, and even its strongest proponent admits that there are no sources other than personal observation to support the claims made in this article. I would hope that the closing admin could see such problems for what they are, instead of bowing to the pressure of Sonic fans who want their fanpage kept. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  Some replies:

  1. No idea what you're talking about.
  2. It's sourced to the game, though the "virtual ground" line is a bit far. It could be rephrased simply to state that the player can jump and perform other moves as though they were on the ground.
  3. Probably a little game-guide-ish, but again, it's sourced to the game.
  4. Again, sourcable to the game. Also sourcable to any innumerable FAQs, guides, reviews, or other such secondary sources.
  5. Same as the above.

  I still fail to understand what your problem is with using primary sources on this one. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  Sourcing this article to the games is exactly as bad as sourcing cat to your cat Mittens. It's original research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  You're comparing apples and oranges. You're applying a standard crafted for real-life information to works of fiction. For realms of fiction, each publication within that fiction is a primary source. Such is the case here: each game is a primary source. Each piece of information need only be cited or sourced to an individual game or other in-fiction source. Saying that it's original research because it "is sourced to examining the works in question" is like saying articles on TV shows are all original research because they're based on "watching the work in question", or that articles on books are original research because they're sourced to "reading the work in question". Regardless of who watched or examined it, the information can be directly attributed to a work of fiction in the series. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 08:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Homes it's one thing not to allow fansites as a source, and that I agree with, but you won't even allow the freakin creators as a source. Who better than the people who made the game can tell us what's what? You're saying some dude that published info about the games is more reliable than the people who make the games. But lo and behold....that's the personal observation of said publisher. Meaning, I could get a job with IGN, and re write the information in this article word for word, and I'd then be a more reliable source than Sega and Sonic Team, because I'd then be a published source independent of the games. You know what, I think the absurdity of that logic speaks for itself. Oh and your failure to read completely has been made evident again by this line:

"It takes 50 Rings to enable the transformation and one Ring is lost per second." Also sourced to personal observation and analysis, and it isn't even always true."

If you followed the footnote you would have noticed that it does mention the exceptions to that rule...O SNAP BURN! Also:

"bird isn't sourced to examining birds in flight"

In essence, yes it is, because the scientist and whoever published information had to observe the birds for study and research.

Now I don't mind you and Nemu forcibly whipping these articles into shape, because honestly, it needed to be done. But you dudes have some of the worst logic I've even seen, and yet you think other articles such as Knuckles the Echidna and Shadow the Hedgehog which are at least 10 times more fancrufty and filled with original research can be saved? That right there is a major violation of NPOV if I've ever seen it because it shows an apparent bias against super forms and the like.GrandMasterGalvatron 02:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the need to reply to the bulk of this, but...

"the scientist and whoever published information had to observe the birds for study and research."

Right. We are not scientists. We are encyclopedists. We summarize and cite the research of others. We don't perform our own experimentation and observation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What's that? My hypocrite senses are tingling. "We allow the research of others", but you won't even allow the research of Sega, who knows more about the subject then anyone possibly could! How could any secondary source hold more weight than the creators of said fiction?GrandMasterGalvatron 10:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless we are contributing to articles on works of fiction based on primary sources. In that case personal observation is the only way an editor can ensure the contributed content is verifiable. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 08:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Deriving conclusions from personal observation is original research. That's exactly what original research is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok guy...what are these conclusions you're blathering about. I'm getting the impression you haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about to make all these claims. Original research is used to advance a point of view amirite? I don't see any point of viiew being advanced other than what's present in the games. Also, the only way to get information about a game is personal observation, be it from it's players or game critics. Even the creators have their own observations about the thing they have made. You want someone to verify the article, but guess what they've gotta do: play the game. There's no way around it except for the makers. You need to stop beating around the bush and come out and say these "novel conclusions" that irk you so much.GrandMasterGalvatron 19:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If the entire argument for the original deletion is "original synethesis," that argument should be fairly well moot by now. Hard citations have been added throughout, individual conclusions have been removed. What remains at this stage after a series of edits is pretty much solid fact rife with published sources. At this point, I'm not sure why we're still talking about this, unless a new reason for deleting the article is going to be proposed. --Bishop2 19:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, deriving conclusions is bad. Good thing the article doesn't do that. The majority of the article content is verifiable information obtained via personal observation. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The games are citable resources of information, same as printed material or anything else. Maybe we should add specific citations to exactly where the proof is pulled from, or even cite printed game guides if that makes you feel better, but the fact remains that it can easily be verified. --Bishop2 07:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - This article provides a good deal of information about Sonic the Hedgehog, certainly a notable series, in a single, decent page. If this page is deleted, readers of the articles where super transformations are mentioned will be confused. Wikipedia should be expanded, not diminished. Paul Haymon 09:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  WP:ILIKEIT and WP:INTERESTING don't overcome the original research, attribution, and in-universe problems of this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  I'll give you that the article occasionally suffers from some in-universe writing, but most of the text specifically refers to "this game" or "that game", which can hardly be considered in-universe. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 02:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This kinda cherry-picks from various plot points and basic citable facts to create this article. Where does the term "Super transformation" even originate from? Is it used in the games themselves? Wickethewok 04:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  Yes...yes it does. The article is obviously still being worked on.GrandMasterGalvatron 04:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  Has any publication ever used the term? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  From personal experience, the Prima strategy guide from Sonic Adventure 2 Battle (the GameCube conversion) uses it. However, that's not nearly as valuable as the original game using it, obviously. I mean, what's more valuable - if some critic says something happens in a movie, like the notoriously inaccurate (yet well-read and well-written) reviews of Roger Ebert, or if it ACTUALLY HAPPENS? Obviously the latter is the resource to be cited. --Bishop2 05:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  The best is both, to show that it's not only used in the work but in commentary on the work. For example, Darth Vader is called Lord Vader many times in the Star Wars films, but we have the article at Darth Vader by looking at the commentary on the film. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  Yeah..but then we have the issue that 9 times out of ten these strategy guides and gaming websites publish inaccurate data in comparison to the games themselves. I mean come on..."Gold Sonic"? Nothing short of sheer ignorance of the subject would make one think that Sonic turns into "Gold Sonic". Yet, the latter is apparently a better source than in game screenshots, and commentary by the creators calling it "Super Sonic". You know...this is about the same level as those two dudes who insist on the whole "Rouge is 17" thing, even though that has been clearly shown to be a typo XD. That's the problem with these "secondary sources". They're fine and all, but they often don't know what the hell they're talking about. Need I bring up "Dark Sonic"? (Shadow)GrandMasterGalvatron 05:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  I'm not understanding how your argument is justification for deletion. If the article cherry-picks facts then the issue is with WP:NPOV, and insofar as I can tell there is no obvious POV-pushing going on here. In fact, I don't even know what facts are supposedly omitted from this article, and unless someone can point out a few specific points that have been deliberately omitted I'm calling this a jingoistic non-argument. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 08:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Good lord. GameFAQs? Over there. --Calton | Talk 06:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Why do we even need a separate article? Can't this all be scattered to their respective bios? Hbdragon88 23:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply - It's a large part of most Sonic games that can no longer be confined to a single character. The fact is that it has now become a mechanism which is effectively distributed to almost every playable character that shows up in the Sonic fiction. Spreading this out to each individual bio would mean that readers would have to look at (and search) 8+ separate articles to get the same information that is presented here. It is more efficient and effective to present this information in a unified fashion in one article. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm still not seeing it any more than just a powerup. I counter-example with Mario. Super Mario has been a big part in each Mario game, but it just redirects to Mario, and the other game articles describe his powerup abilities. Also, if I understand correctly, they aren't that big - in my first Sonic game, Sonic Rush, I don't ever remember needing to transform. The level of description on some of them strikes me as being crufty and one that could be compressed. Hbdragon88 23:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
      • No super forms in Sonic Rush? Apparently you never actually beat the game. You transform for the final boss fight after beating both story paths. We would explain that in the article, but then certain people would say it was game-guide content and want it deleted. --tjstrf talk 23:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
        • You got me there. I was too frustrated at trying to beating Eggman (something along the lines of trying to climb up the frickin' robot within ten seconds, something not possible for me). Hbdragon88 00:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • The difference is that Super Mario is just a simple, ordinary powerup in the Mario series, whereas the Super [Sonic/Knuckles/Tails/etc.] powerup is often times a significant plot element. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 01:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Indeed. From an out of universe standpoint, super transformation has become a staple deus ex machina in the series. It's rare to not see some character go super in some way. In fact, it's only happened in two releases since Sonic R way back in 1997.GrandMasterGalvatron 01:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - This article has gone from cherrypicking the games themselves to cherrypicking strategy guides, to describe the game a way works with no possibility for any analysis of or insight on same, with any conclusions made or implied not present in the original works. Shifting from drawing original conclusions from the games to concluding that this is a subject unto itself based on works that mention this subject in passing; this isn't really improvement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  You're really going to need to explain your current problem with the article. All concerns have been addressed. No longer are there any original conclusions drawn - everything is purely factual info. Game guides are used solely to provide an outside, non-primary source for the appearances and abilities gained by the super forms, which is all that the article currently described. Anything that resembles gameplay tips have been removed because this isn't GameFAQs. We are now simply describing what a super transformation is and how the various forms function. Originally, you said that if the article was given hard non-primary citations and didn't have any original research, you wouldn't put it up for AfD. Well, that's now the case. This is now a pure, factual, fully cited article about a consistent phenomenon occurring within the Sonic the Hedgehog universe, and its existence is still based around keeping length down on other articles that are already running long - it would take some time to explain the full nature of super transformations and how they affect each character in each of the individual character articles, after all. So really, what specifically is the problem you currently have? --Bishop2 21:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  Cherry picking? Original conclusions? Cite some specific examples now, because I just looked at the article, and it sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.GrandMasterGalvatron 21:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - It's good where it is. Adding it to other articles would make it complicated. 172.189.4.116 21:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - There has been ample arguement in this article's defense already, any further insistance on its' termination is nothing more than a deletionist-fueled witch-hunt. Orca1 9904 07:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Orca1_9904

• Keep RememberMe? 08:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep + Comment The page does need a tidy up, but deletion is not the answer. --Zikar 20:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Dhartung. - Aagtbdfoua 02:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.