Talk:List of Metal Gear series characters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:

This is going to be a merge target for nearly everyone in Category:Metal Gear Solid characters, save for Solid Snake. I realize it's bloated and redundant and ugly at the moment, but along with merging it, I'm going to be doing some major cleaning up and reworking, deleting plot summary and focusing on salient points for the individual characters.

Any advice on how to order this rather than alphabetically by name would be appreciated. Potential suggestions for a split would also be appreciated. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

This list is going to need some See Also entries, at least for Solid Snake and Big Boss. (A See Also entry is a short one-para description of the character, with a {{main}} reference back to that character's article). Right now, I don't see anyone else who needs a See Also listing, but feel free to point out any that I might've missed. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 19:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

What on God's green Earth inspired you to do this? Great job convoluting the entire idea behind wikipedia, ass.

WP:FICT and Wikipedia:Fancruft. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Adamska

Isn't it common belief that Adamska is NOT Ocelot's real name? I'm pretty sure its a female name, is it not? And he was merely lying, showing the side of his older self who constantly lies, no matter the situation.

So..should it be changed? Like remove the "real name" bit and just add Adamska as another one of his many alias?

[edit] Ask?

Did you ask anyone or get any opinions before doing this?

I'm not entirely against it, but something this big should at least wait for a second vote. Having all the characters smushed into one page kind of discourages information growth for any character. We don't need to compress all themed articles into a "List of Objects" or "List of Things That Rhyme With Grape" fiasco.

If this is to be a breeding ground where characters can sprout off into full articles once they get enough information, that's fine, but to me it just seems like needless defragmenting. At the least, all the redirects should point directly to the person the searcher was looking for, not to the top of the article -- that's just needless hinderance.

-Asriel 16:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I was bold. In my experience, nobody talks about this sort of thing until someone butts in and just does it. Absolute worst case, consensus is totally against me, and I just go back and revert myself. Best case, someone gets mad at how I'm doing it and comes in and does a better job, saving me the work. ;D
All of these articles were turgid with plot summary. By merging these entries, there doesn't need to be three paragraphs reiterating the plot of each game each character appears in in each character's description, and there's no problem with describing only one character's half of a relationship. The entries on Otacon and Emma Emmerich margely duped each other, because, while they had to stand alone, they had to; the reader needed sufficient context. By putting these together, you don't have to duplicate the background context.
If it turns out that there are entries that can be fleshed out and spun off into full articles, go for it, but I'm unhappy with the tendency of articles on fictional people and objects in video games to become lists of trivial factoids or bloated, duplicated plot summary, in the hopes of "justifying" the subject's article. A half-dozen paragraphs (or worse, a lengthy bulleted list) of text about, say, Raiden is no accomplishment. But is it really possible, without degenerating into a list of trivia, to make an article about Raiden that isn't actually an article about MGS2? I realize it's not a video game, but John Galt doesn't have an article separate from Atlas Shrugged, because any detailed treatment on John Galt is inherently an article about Atlas Shrugged. Why is Raiden different?
I didn't bother with anchor links in the redirects because anchor links in redirects don't work. If you want to go through and add them in the hope anchor redirects are someday implemented, be my guest, but last time I saw the issue on Bugzilla, it was labeled "We have no intention to fix," so don't be too hopeful. I was going to go through Whatlinkshere and bypass the redirects when I was done cleaning up this list, which does send you right to the right list entry, though. If you want to have links go straight to the list entries, that's what you've got to fix, not the redirects.


All that said, I'm not sure this one list is the way to handle all the characters, but I don't know where to split. Any thoughts? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


Maybe the list could be divided into the groups listed on the main Metal Gear article?Sir Ilpalazzo 05:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand A Man In Black's reasoning for doing this, but the way he did it without asking for anyone's opinion on the subject was completely RUDE and UNNECCESARY. I personally prefer having individual articles for major or recurring characters (Snake, Fox, Meryl and all the boss characters) and minor characters (like Ames, Johnson and Granin) to be featured on lists, instead of lumping everyone together into one huge and confusing article.

The Atlas Shrugged/John Galt anology doesn't work here, since we're talking about a video game franchise that is comprised of three games (five if you count the MSX games) , not a single novel. Some of the major characters have backstories established outside the games, so the articles weren't exactly rehashing the events of the games either. At the very least, he could've made character lists for each individual game, rather than putting everyone together.

If no one has any objection during the next few hours, then I'm changing things back to the way they were. Jonny2x4 18:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


Who would I have asked? Half the authors were fled users or anons, and the only relevant Wikiproject (WP:CVG) seemed to be wholly indifferent to those articles. This sort of thing is why WP:BOLD exists; if I had waited to round up everyone with even a passing interest, it would have taken forever to make any difference. Now, people are all in one place and actually talking about this. (Coming in and fixing things isn't really rude, either; I saw a way things could be improved in the long run, and set about implementing that. That's what everyone on this Wiki is doing, in lesser or greater degrees.)
I haven't merged Solid Snake, Grey Fox, Meryl, Big Boss, or Raiden, because they're main characters appearing in multiple games (and because Meryl's article is about two separate characters, one of which is only related to Metal Gear by its shared name and other similarities to MGS's Meryl). Who else would you have in a standalone article?
The reason I combined them into one list is because indeed many of the characters spanned several games, and I wasn't comfortable splitting it by, say, first appearance, when you have characters who are as important or more important in their later appearances than in their first appearance.
Right now, this list is wholly unstructured, which is not good. How do you propose structuring it? Splitting it by unit? Game? Nationality? Role? I'm open to suggestions. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


Oh, right, feel free to construe this as an objection. I'm willing to be convinced to not merge this or that character, or split this list, but the vast majority of these characters belong on a list, a fact I don't believe is in dispute. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


I whole heartily agree with you on this, Jonny2x4, the only characters that could maybe need to collected together on a "List of ... Characters" are the one or two shot characters (e.g. Jim Houseman, Ivan Raidenovitch Raikov), while other entire game (or multi-game) characters deserve to have their own pages; or (as mentioned before) collected together with the idea of moving them to their own pages once they've recieved enough information to not be a stub. At the very least this page should be organised better. Currently the page isn't organised at all, with characters thrown everywhere as if the authors had just added new characters to the bottom. --FDIS 23:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Listed alphabetically by first name/code name. I said above this isn't a very good order, and welcomed input. I still do; how best could this be organized? If it needs to be split, along what lines? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


WP:BOLD also states that "be bold in updating pages does not mean that you should make large changes". Regardless of whether we would've replied or not, you still should notify us (preferably in the main Metal Gear's disccusion page) before doing such a drastic action. If you would've presented such a proposal there and nobody objected, at least you would've a good justification for doing so.
Regardless, here's how I would do things. Have individual articles for primary/secondary characters and for all the minor characters who are only for a scene or two in the game be listed in a List article. Here's a list of characters that don't exactly need their own individual article and could be put on a List of minor Metal Gear Solid characters instead: Decoy Octopus, Kenneth Baker, Donald Anderson, Jim Houseman, Johnny Sazaki, Scott Dolph, Sergei Gurlukovich, James Johnson, Richard Ames, Peter Stillman, Aleksandr Leonovitch Granin, Ivan Raidenovitch Raikov Jonny2x4 02:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


"But please note: be bold in updating pages does not mean that you should make large changes or deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Abortion." (Emphasis mine.)
What about the FOX/FOXHOUND/Dead Cell, who are one-time personality gimmicks, and the comlink/radio-only characters, who have little screen time and generally have little backstory? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


I still think there's a huge difference between being BOLD and being RUDE. While your move doesn't technically constitute vandalism, I think it should in my view. BTW, no offense, but I find the fact that you consider Meryl to be a "Snatcher" character (instead of a "Policenauts" character) and the Cobras to be FOX operatives doesn't really give you a lot of credibility on the subject here.
With that said, I think all the major characters who are given large screen presence (Volgin, Liquid Snake and The Boss to name a few) could use individual articles, especially Revolver Ocelot (who's been in three games in a row as a major player). The boss characters from each game (FOXHOUND, Dead Cell and the Cobra unit) could be put to separate lists (outside of the Minor Characters list). The only boss characters with very minimal backstory are the Cobras from MGS3. Some of the radio-only characters do have some extensive backstory, especially those from MGS1+2. FOX operatives from MGS3 though (Zero, Sigint and Para-Medic) don't have much and could be put on a list too. Jonny2x4 06:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


Having not played Policenauts or Snatcher, I admit my memory of either is nonexistent. (Funny that I mixed up FOX's name and Cobra's name; I just finished MGS3 again last night. Ah well, chalk it up to scatterbrainedness.) Can we make separate discussion threads for haranguing me for merging these and actually getting work done? It's obvious something needed to be done (after all, at least a half-dozen and as many as a dozen of these characters needed to be merged, you said so yourself), I did something, and now we're working on this. I went through the exact same process more than once, and, in the end, the articles ended up a lot better in the end. Assume good faith, here; we all want to make things better, and accusing me of vandalism(!) doesn't serve to improve the articles. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


Why do we need standalone articles for each character with significant screen presence? The FF Wikiproject doesn't do that, the Pokémon Wikiproject doesn't do that, the LOTR Wikiproject certainly doesn't do that; I could go on, if you'd like. Splitting these articles encourages them to become bloated with trivia (Shadow (Final Fantasy VI), for example), or worse yet, fanfiction to fill gaps in the canon (Decoy Octopus before the merge was almost entirely fanfiction). Moreover, they encourage editors to rehash the plot of the relevant games in each character's article, over and over again. Olga's listing ended up being half the length of her article, after I cut out all the plot summary of portion of MGS2 where she was unconscious and not present.
I don't think the standard should be based on importance, but on expandablility without resorting to trivia (e.g. I've cut out lists of "stats," like height and weight and blood type and nonsense like that), redundant/irrelevant plot summary, or unnecessary game mechanic detail (admittedly not a big issue for most of these characters). - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


Like I said, it's not the fact that you did it that bothered me, but rather HOW you did it. Big difference there. Burying the hatchet for a moment, you're completely right in a sense. Sometime it's hard to keep each of these non-canonical/fanonical crap away from the articles when dealing with them individually.
Take for example the Cobras profiles. For some reason or another, some anon user decided to post the alleged real names for each of the Cobra members without citing any specific source other than some "exclusive Famitsu interview with Kojima". However, (s)he doesn't even bother mentioned the actual issue date or number, nor even the actual version of Famitsu in which the interview is posted (as you might know, Famitsu actually has five different magazines in publication; Weekly, PS2, GameCube, Xbox and Wave). In this case, a list would be preferrable since it cuts out all of the needless "fat" from the article and it easier to revert it back afterwards when the anon editor strikes again. Jonny2x4 08:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. That's one of the handy side-effects of such lists. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


Getting down to the nitty-gritty of who goes where, does anyone have a proposal on how to structure this? Right now, it's in a rather arbitrary alphabetical by first-word-in-the-name-or-codename order. Here's my (scratch) idea for a structure:

  • Good guys (placeholder name)
    • Main characters
      • Solid Snake, Raiden, etc. Most of these would be short summaries with {{main}} links
      • A short description of Big Boss as Snake/Naked Snake
    • Supporting characters
      • Otacon, Emma, EVA, Grey Fox, Olga, etc.
      • The comlink helpers (which may merit a separate section)
  • Antagonists
    • Villainous masterminds (placeholder name)
      • Liquid Snake, Solidus, Volgin, etc.
    • Boss teams (placeholder name)
      • Cobra, FOXHOUND, Dead Cell
    • Miscellaneous villains
      • Johnny Sasaki, Raikov, etc.
  • Bystanders (placeholder name)
    • Miscellanous characters; whoever needs to go here

What do you do with Revolver Ocelot, who has a different role in each game he appears in? Big Boss won't be hard; he can be mentioned with a {{main}} role for both main characters and villainous masterminds.

Anyone want to make a better proposal, or refine mine? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's another suggestion. Have individual articles for major characters appearing in more than one game (Snake, Big Boss, Fox, Meryl, Ocelot and possibly Naomi and Raiden) and then a list of the following -
  • List of supporting characters in (insert game here)
  • List of rogue FOXHOUND members (Liquid, Wolf, Mantis, Raven, Octopus)
  • List of Dead Cell members (Solidus, Fortune, Vamp, Fatman)
  • List of Cobra members (The Boss, The Pain, The Fury, The End, The Sorrow, The Fear)

Jonny2x4 16:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we could combine the FOXHOUND/Dead Cell/Cobra list? I'm not sure what the title would be, though.
Maybe we could split it into two lists, one for supporting characters and one for villains. Then we could trim this down to way-short descriptions (like in List of Pokémon characters, which isn't the main resource but is instead a reference to other articles and lists) which would allow a quick-reference list for those who just want to to see that, say, Raiden is the protagonist of MGS2, and not that he's widely riduculed and a product of the S3 project etc. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 20:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


As the story continues, it is evident that Revolver Ocelot has a bigger role in the continuum than anyone could imagine, so he should have his own article. -Asriel 19:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
My argument isn't necessarily importance, but instead expandability. Solidius and Liquid, for example, are very important to the story, but there's not much you can say about them other than just recapping the plot of the games in which they appear. That said, Revolver Ocelot may have enough non-trivial info to merit a standalone article; the only reason I haven't broken him out already myself is because I haven't had a chance to rewrite and decruft the entry.
Implied but not necessarily implicit in your statement is that he's going to be important in MGS4. I don't think it's a good idea to operate on assumptions of what MGS4 is going to be; it's still a year-plus away from release, and, well, knowing Kojima it could just as likely be a rhythm/dancing game starring Mei Ling and Raiden. I think it's best to stick with what we've got in front of us and not speculate. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 20:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


The FOXHOUND/Dead Cell/Cobra members could put on a List of boss characters in Metal Gear (although, technically Octopus isn't a true boss, but I disgress), but I prefer to cover them individually based on games instead, rather than have everyone together in one article. Ocelot definitely could use a stand-alone alone out of all the recurring characters (Raiden included, who only had one major canonical appearance). Jonny2x4 04:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Why not do the treatment on them in the games' articles, then? You're already talking about the plot (eliminating the need to duplicate the same description of their betrayal/defection), and once the plot summary is reduced to a saner length, those articles won't be bloated by such additions at all. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


I agree, there should be seperate articles for each team of superpowered killing freaks. It avoids the prolem of characters who were members but not bosses (Octopus, and to a degree Fortune and the Sorrow) or bosses but not members (Olga, Volgin, Petrovich).


Um...hmm...this certainly isn't beautiful as it stands. I agree 100% with some of the others here that I would much more prefer standalone articles, and maybe keep a list that will link to them, by game. Minor characters can be put together (Raikov, Sasaki, Houseman, etc). At the very least, I would split them by game. But... I dunno, these character articles are long as is, especially considering their "background" information. This mashed convolution really discourages me from reading any of it, and there is still wiki-linking between each other and to other MGS-related things that aren't characters anyway (places, Metal Gears, weapons, etc), which can make things even more confusing. Some of the spoilers have been removed as well, I notice. - Shadowolf 10:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Current status of the debate

I'm making a quick checklist, to keep track of the state of the debate. If you disagree with someone's status, just move them to the "disputed" list (and feel free to add any characters I've omitted), but don't move someone out of disputed unless you're sure there's no debate. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Definite standalone:

  • Solid Snake
  • Big Boss
  • Raiden
  • Meryl Silverburgh (due to the Policenauts info)

[edit] Definite merge:

  • Decoy Octopus
  • Kenneth Baker
  • Donald Anderson
  • Jim Houseman
  • Johnny Sazaki
  • Scott Dolph
  • Sergei Gurlukovich
  • James Johnson
  • Richard Ames
  • Peter Stillman
  • Aleksandr Leonovitch Granin
  • Ivan Raidenovitch Raikov


[edit] In dispute:

  • Misc. onscreen characters
    • Emma Emmerich
    • EVA
    • Liquid Snake
    • Nikolai Stephanovich Sokolov
    • Olga Gurlukovich
    • Otacon
    • Revolver Ocelot
    • Sergei Gurlukovich
    • Solidus Snake
    • Yevgeny Borisovitch Volgin
    • Gray Fox
    • The Boss
    • Drago Petrovich Madnar
    • Kyle Schneider / Black Color (Black Ninja)
    • Holly White
    • Natasha Markova (Gustava Heffner)
    • Elen Madnar
    • Kio Marv


  • Offscreen, mostly radio-support characters
    • Major Zero
    • Master Miller
    • Mei Ling
    • Naomi Hunter
    • Nastasha Romanenko
    • Para-Medic
    • Rosemary
    • Roy Campbell
    • Sigint
    • Diane
    • Jennifer
    • George Kessler
    • Yozef Norden (Johan Jacobsen)


  • FOXHOUND/Dead Cell/Cobra unit/Dogs of War members
    • Psycho Mantis
    • Sniper Wolf
    • Vulcan Raven
    • Fatman
    • Fortune
    • Vamp
    • The End
    • The Fear
    • The Fury
    • The Pain
    • The Sorrow
    • Shoot Gunner (Shotmaker)
    • Machinegun Kid
    • Fire Trooper
    • Arnold (Bloody Brad)
    • Coward Duck (Dirty Duck)
    • Running Man
    • Red Blaster
    • Ultra Box (Four Horsemen)
    • Predator
    • Night Sight (Night Fright)


  • Gray Fox - I consider him the disputed character that most warrents maintaining a seperate article. He has a significant backstory that isn't part of the main Metal Gear plot, as well as a legacy of Ninja-inspired material in other games.
  • Revolver Ocelot - He's done more than Fox in the series, but pretty much all of it is right there in the main plot. Aside from his parentage and a few enigmatic phone calls, all of his actions are already recounted in detail in the respective games' articles. Next to nothing is know about what he was doing before, between, and after the games. I therefore say merged, though he's right on the cusp.
I would place everyone else squarely in the merged category. Oh, and I've added the characters from MG and MG2:SS to the list (under "in dispute" until others chime in). Respect the classics, guys. ;)
The main characters from the classic MSX2 games are already listed in the Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake articles, whereas the boss characters from the respective games are listed in the Outer Heaven and Zanzibar Land articles. Some of the classic characters are named differently in the Mobile Phone ports (presumably in the upcoming PS2 ports too) and the MGS3: Countdown book refers to those characters by their newer names (except Natasha oddly enough). Should we refer to them mainly by their new names or their old names? Jonny2x4 07:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
It's probably because she was referred to by name in the "Previous Missions" briefings in MGS & MGS2. Anyway, those articles look good as-is, and I'd say we should keep using the original names.
True, but then again, they could use her new name for Subsistence edition of the game (we'll see). I think Dr. Petrovich and Elen should at least use their newer full names, since they're more realistic in terms of how actual Russian names are arranged and more consistent too (the original MG1 stated that Petrovich was Elen's last name and then contradicted that in MG2 by giving Dr. Petrovich the full name of "Petrovich Madnar"). The rest of the characters could use thier older names out of historical respect for the moment.

Anyway, I think most of the radio support characters could definitely be merged with the minor characters list or be featured List of supporting characters in Metal Gear. I'm thinking it's time to start splitting this article into separate lists for the moment. Jonny2x4 04:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MGS3 Shinkawa artwork vs. Character models.

I know this isn't really that big of a deal, but I'm tempted to use the official character illustrations Shinkawa did for the MGS3 characters instead of the polygonal models currently in use. On one hand, it brings a bit of uniformity to the profiles. On the other hand, the illustrations he did for the game lacked color and the in-game renders are much better for this very reason.Jonny2x4 04:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The whole page is a mess sould have left it the way it was


Bold textI Agree with using the artwork.


[edit] The Boss?

I suppose this is more of a request, but, why isn't there an entry for The Boss? Comic 06:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What the hell happened?!

Everything's smushed together! Put it back! --Dangerous-Boy 11:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting this list

Okay, if noone objects, I'm going to split this list into List of recurring Metal Gear Solid characters, List of Metal Gear Solid characters, List of Metal Gear Solid 2 characters, and List of Metal Gear Solid 3 characters. Solid Snake, Big Boss, Meryl Silverburgh, and maybe Revolver Ocelot and an article on The Boss will be standalones.

This article will be replaced with a terse, comprehensive list, similar to List of Pokémon characters.

Any objections? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally I was finding the page as it was too unwielding to maintain and updated. So I went ahead and splitted some of the contents my way.
I gave Solidus Snake and Liquid Snake their own articles since I personally founded them a bit too long, even after cutting out all the redundant info (at least long enough to get their own pages). As I see it, I think all the minor "one-scene only" characters (such as Anderson, Johnson and Granin) should stay on one page covering the whole series, while all the major bosses (and support characters) should get their own page. I think it's rather weird to have a very long profile on The End next to a short description of Major Zero. Jonny2x4 03:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not...

  • List of recurring
    • Major
    • Minor
  • List of MGS
    • Major
    • FOXHOUND
    • Minor
  • List of MGS2
    • Major
    • Dead Cell
    • Minor
  • List of MGS3
    • Major
    • Cobra
    • Minor

I don't much like having all of the series's minor characters segregated off in a separate list, when the majors are grouped by game. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a bit overboard and I'm not sure if you're being serious or not. There's only ten plus characters per game and a majority of them are boss characters (affiliated or otherwise). If we do a "minor MGS3 characters" list, it would consist only of Raikov, Johnny and Granin. Likewise for MGS1. Having them by affiliation is a bit more flexible, especially with FOXHOUND, since the list could be changed to have charas from MG1+2 (Miller, Campbell and Kessler) as well. Jonny2x4 04:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Completely series, just unclear. I'm proposing four lists, with the second-level bullet points as subheaders on those lists. How do you feel about that? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
By the by, I don't think there's any pressing need to include Metal Gear 1/2 characters in these lists. There aren't that many, most of them aren't terribly well-developed, and by and large they're already handled in the articles for those games. Likewise the Ghost Babel and Acid characters; the game articles can cover those. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree on both counts. Most of the MG1+2 characters are either: too obscure or too shallow to be worth mentioning. I was mainly referring to Miller and Campbell though (who are returning characters from MG2 to MGS1). I don't really care much for MGGB or Acid, since they don't contribute much to the canon.
Anyway, now I see where you're going, but instead of having a recurring character list, why not simply give each of the recurring character their own page (provided they're a major character like Otacon and Campbell)? Jonny2x4 05:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Same reasons I had before for merging these characers into lists, frankly. Context, ease of patrol, most of the articles are swelled with speculation or plot summary.
I'm gonna go ahead and start making the lists by game, by retooling the team lists, assuming there are no objections. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 20:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
When ahead did the split myself, because you were too lazy and only did the MGS1 list. Jonny2x4 08:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Problem?

Is anyone else having problem with the character boxes and the words in them? (The Bread 08:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Big Boss isn't named "John/Jack Doe"

See this article for info about the name. Naked Snake (Big Boss) uses it as an answer to Para Medic's "Jane Doe", when he asks her name and she says that one, which is the female version of John Doe.

The only info that we know for sure about Big Boss's name is that it's either Jack or John. He tells Ocelot that his name is John, but the characters who knew him well before the mission (like The Boss) call him "Jack" - also, Solidus Snake named Raiden after Big Boss, and Raiden's name is Jack.

So, it will stay as "John/Jack".

[edit] Grey Fox

Why doesn't he have his own article? He's in four out of seven canonical games and characters based on his ninja self are in two others. - The 4th Snake 21:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Theres not that much information on him. Plus, his backstory keeps changing. You could try to sort something out, may be a mess though. SuperBorisOnAPlane 11:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (deceased)

Is this really necessary? And besides, at since this is an on-going series, arn't they all going to und up as "deceased". I'll be removing these if there is no objection.happypal (Talk | contribs) 16:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Just the same, what is up with some of the character names being bold? Is it just their "latest names"? Completely useless too, if you ask me.happypal (Talk | contribs) 16:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Necessity of this article?

Is there still a necessity for this article? Specifically why do we have this list and list for all the individual games (as well as the recurring character list)? Strongsauce (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. This is really more of a gateway article than anything else. We might as well just link the game-specific character lists in the recurring list. Jonny2x4 (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)