# Talk:Somari

Well, for some information, could i say that Spring Yard Zone is named 'Spring Yand' in level select screen, and in Sonic 3D Blast 5/6, level select just has errors?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.178.69.45 (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 

Unless someone puts some content here, this page should be deleted... and I know my previous prod was wrong. Then Masky blanked the page.
--wj32 talk | contribs 23:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yo wj32, I'm sorry for blanking the page. I was just very mad how they couldn't accept my contribution for this article. I want to make Wikipedia better by adding articles that wasn't mentioned, and that there are request articles that I wanted to make in the Computer and Video Games WikiProject request articles section. Next time I edit this article, I will provide more information to the subject and get as much information as possible about it.
-Masky :)

Things are now cleared up :) --wj32 talk | contribs 08:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't exactly know when it was released, but I've played it in 2002 (possible even in 2001). Now we atleast knoe it was release between 1994 and 2002.

I remember playing it around 1996. BrunoX 01:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

dude, thats soooo cheap! they ripped mario and sonic off! they should be ashamed...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.130.19 (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC) 

You're right! I was trying so hard to put my finger on it, glad somebody go it! Boredom Swells (talk) 06:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Should the brokenness of the features such as the rising platforms in Labyrinth Zone be added?
I have been working on a Tool Assisted Speedrun of Somari along with a man called True and have found some absolutely baffling flaws, the best example being the afforminated platforms.
This video is an example of what happens with the platforms: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbqyki (Note: The Lua scripts shown are simply speed and time indicators, they do not modify the game in any way)
I'm not much of a Wikipedian (And do not many of the formatting rules and tags as such), but I have noticed this page is particularly lacking in content.
This information along with the possible unimplementation of some items such as speed shoes (I do hack ROMs you know, never actually bothered to look far into Somari though) could very well be interesting. Flygon (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The lack of attention disappoints me regarding this page, I figured that at least someone else would have attempted to fix some badly written up I did. Anyway. A Tool Assisted Speedrun of the game has been made, it greatly emphasises this games glitchiness. It can be viewed below:
http://www.archive.org/download/somaritasbytruereallyfastwhyareyoureadingthisurlitisverypointless/somari-tas-true.mp4 (I am aware the URL is ridiculous, just... don't ask)
My question is, should the games brokenness be emphasised in the article? Or not. Flygon (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be mentioned since being unfinished/broken matters for a game. I am not sure it deserves emphasis since it's pretty standard for unlicensed games.
Please mention level design too, it is a huge part of a game. --Musaran (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

http://torp.110mb.com/gamesomari.html
Is this a reputable source? Can this be added to external links or no? -Denatured Alcohol ░ ▒ ▓  —Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC). 

AFD #Whatever it actually was (2nd nomination):
"Delete, possible Speedy - Somari only returns 225 000 hits on Google[1]. --Kuroki Mio 2006 19:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)"
Stealth Keep vote or just WTF? 225k hits? Anarchangel (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
(4th nomination): Nominator:
"Lets say I wanted to transfer a Genesis game to NES the same way Somari did, and I changed the characters to whatever I wanted and retitled the game and gave it to the video game pirating people, would that mean that my game deserves an article?"
(5th nomination): "Delete - No evidence of notability. I found two good sources, but..."

Please don't confuse 'sources that prove notability' with 'sources that are allowed' in the article.  You can use primary sources, secondary, etc. within the article.  There is no reason to remove references that are informative unless they are violating spam, linkfarm, etc. types of guidelines.  Dennis Brown (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There are so many reasons other than those to remove sources. I'm guessing that Atari HQ is the source in contention. For one, it is not listed on the Video Game project's list of reliable sources. It is listed on their list of all video game sources, which also includes unreliable ones. It has not been verified reliable, and the fact that they have no editorial policy and the author's validity or fact checking is completely non existent as far as we can tell tells us that the source is not good for use. Wikipedia is built on reliable sources, not "sources that aren't spam, linkfarms, etc." - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree. You can use primary and secondary sources in the article, but Atari HQ is neither. It can't be used to source content. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by that, Blake. As far as I can see Atari HQ exactly matches the definition for a secondary source. Are you saying that you think it is unreliable? -Thibbs (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I am not sure what I meant. Sorry. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Atari HQ may not generally be usable in Wikipedia. As NARH points out, it hasn't been verified as either reliable or unreliable so at this point we don't know if it's an RS. But this particular AHQ article seems to work because it is itself cited by GameSpy (a website listed under "General" RSes at WP:VG/RS.) If this particular AHQ article is good enough for GameSpy (a third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy), then isn't the presumption that it is reliable in isolation (separate and apart from any RS judgment of the rest of the website)? At least shouldn't the burden rest on editors here who claim that it isn't reliable to demonstrate that it isn't? -Thibbs (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
It'd be one thingto be used for consideration for making the site a reliable source. However, it is only one element. Without an editorial policy or a history of fact-checking, we do not use it as a reliable source. For example, I've seen several reliable sources cite forums and Bulbapedia, but neither is reliable as a source. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's as simple as that. Imagine if it was the New York Times quoting a random Libyan citizen that "Khaddafi's forces killed every student in the schoolhouse." In a WP article on the topic I could imagine that the quote would survive based on NYTimes' reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Even though the random citizen is completely non-RS, the fact that he was quoted by a definite RS would be good enough for WP. While the random citizen's later quotes might not be usable if he started blogging after the interview to continue sharing his thoughts, his quote that was included in NYTimes would still be reliable.As I see it that's quite analogous to what we see here where GameSpy quotes a potentially non-RS. Is there any WP policy that covers this area of RSes quoting non-RSes? -Thibbs (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Again, a single source citing an article does not make that article a reliable source. What is the difference between a reliable source citing a forum and a reliable source citing an article? Since we don't know who the author is, he is as trustworthy as a forum member. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
So I take it that there's no policy covering this area then? Hmm.. Maybe we should post the question at WT:RS. At the very least they may be able to help us determine whether there's any actual policy covering this kind of thing. -Thibbs (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be posed anywhere; it's not up for dispute. Being referenced in a reliable source has never and will never be enough by itself to make the cited source reliable. WP:RS specifically states that a reliable source is one that is known for fact checking and editorial oversight, which we have nothing to indicate that this site does either. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
OK I understand your interpretation of it. Would you mind if I did post a question at WT:RS? -Thibbs (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but I want to make it clear - it is not interpretation, but what the policy actually says. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I've posted an inquiry here. -Thibbs (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Well it seems that there isn't any policy on this issue. The folks at WT:RS basically said that it depends on the particular case. Sometimes it's acceptable to use an RS's source despite the source's lack of specific reliability and other times not. Unfortunately, WT:RS isn't the place to discuss the suitability of specific sources, so I don't think we can get an answer on this specific case from them. From thinking the matter over in my own mind I'm now a lot less certain that the citing RS's reputation in this case has any substantial bearing on the underlying source, so I've removed the Atari HQ citations from the article pending a discussion on Atari HQ's usability as a ref. Thanks for being so vigilant about this matter, NARH. -Thibbs (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Since restoring NARH's deletion of the Atari HQ refs I have filed a question with WP:RSN to determine once and for all (or at least to provide a first discussion regarding) whether or not Atari HQ is an RS. The discussion can be found here. I've presented the "Atari HQ is an RS" side of the of the discussion, but if possible it would be good to have the input of the editors who have championed the "Atari HQ is not an RS" side so that we can get a well-balanced view. Thanks for everyone's help so far. This'll be GA-class in no time! -Thibbs (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Make sure you bring this up at WT:VG/RS. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Good point. I've listed it here. I look forward to a well-balanced discussion. -Thibbs (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Well the RS discussion has now been archived and so it is effectively complete for the time being. The consensus that emerged seemed to favor the characterization of Atari HQ as a reliable source. As such I have once again restored these sources to the article. -Thibbs (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I tried to find a Tag with which to mark a particular sentence in the Gameplay section, but nothing seemed quite appropriate, so I'm making a post here instead. The problematic sentence is:  "Other notable differences include the fact that whereas Sonic would lose all his collected rings after being injured by an enemy, Somari always loses a maximum of 3 rings even when carrying a single ring.[6] " Just in case it's not obvious to you what's wrong--my friend didn't see anything wrong at first--let me explain:  
1. If Somari loses a maximum of three rings, the part that says "even when carrying a single ring" should be removed. 
2. If Somari always loses three rings, the part that says "a maximum of" should be removed. 
There's another problem, however. According to my friend, Somari actually loses all rings, regardless of how many were collected, but three appear. In which case I'm wondering if that sentence should be removed entirely. Please look into this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.200.105 (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC) 

So for reference, the magazine source for this line states the following:
"Так что постоянно держите при себе колечка три. Если вас задели, и кольца из вас вылетели, поймайте, если сможете, хотя бы одно, и прите дальше на пролом. Здесь есть еще одна «мелочь»: сколько бы колец не собрали, при ударе из вас вылетают только три."
This seems to back up what your friend is saying (that three rings always appear even when Somari only has a single ring). In other words, Somari would seem to have a glitch that allows more rings to come out of Somari in some cases than Somari had collected in total. If that's true, then it doesn't seem to me that the first issue you identified (#1) is actually a problem. If I understand properly, although it looks like the sentence contains a logic problem, the sentence is actually accurate and the flaw originates in the game's code. Does that sound correct?
The second issue (#2) also doesn't necessarily embody a logical flaw. If Somari always loses rings but the number of rings that come out of him range between 1 and 3 (irrespective of how many he has collected) then it's accurate to say that he "always loses a maximum of 3." Whether or not this is accurate to the way the game plays I don't know. The magazine source doesn't seem to cover this aspect of it so it's really a question of what is accurate to the way the game plays. Even if the sentences are factually correct, however, if you or your friend can think of a good way to reword the sentence so it's less confusing then please edit the page. -Thibbs (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool,you think you could add A:DR a page?!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.52.26 (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC) 

Where did the plot in the article come from? It seems like somebody made it up based on the typical Mario and Sonic plots. FlashingYoshiEgg (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The plot comes from the Roman Eremin's article entitled "ХИТ-ПАРАД - 8 бит: SOMARI". It was published in the October 10, 1995 edition (Issue 20) of the Russian magazine, Great Drakon on pages 26-29. As you can see in the Somari article here at Wikipedia this is the source that is listed as a footnote (see here and here). The last sentence about the Chaos Emeralds and the "I will be back" does not appear in Eremin's article so it is currently unsupported by sources. Hope that helps. -Thibbs (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Somari was actually developed by a company knows as Hummer Team. The alias Somari Team was created only for Somari, possibly like how the original developers of the first Sonic game was credited as Sonic Team. Superjustinbros. (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

How do you know it is an alias of Hummer Team instead of a subdivision or a completely different group? Are there any reliable sources you know of that can back this claim up? -Thibbs (talk) 04:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This page should be deleted because... no pirated games --86.173.60.6 (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"No pirated games"? On what grounds? It isn't as though we're distributing it. - furrykef (Talk at me) 06:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Somari/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jd22292 (talk · contribs) 18:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
The only concerning reference is the first reference, which cites "Someri Team", a primary source in this case.
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
The image of Green Hill Zone in the game, though its rationale is clear, needs a {{Non-free image rationale}} template with more information.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
2b can be addressed as per WP:LEADCITE, the lead and infobox are supposed to provide an accurate summary of the prose, and thus no citations are needed here. However, 6a is a red flag here. This needs to be addressed in a week or the review will fail. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jd22292: Done! Thanks for the review (and for pointing out the image; I had no idea it was up for deletion). ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you also for responding quickly to the concerns. This article has passed and is now a Good Article.  Congratulations! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)