Talk:Somari

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some info here? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  speedy deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Just to clear a few things up 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Release date? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  somari 

message: 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)
thread_title:  the obscure research project 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Oh, I am not sure what I meant. Sorry. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Thanks. I've posted an inquiry here. -Thibbs (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Good point. I've listed it here. I look forward to a well-balanced discussion. -Thibbs (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Atari HQ discussion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Exact Publishers 

message: This page should be deleted because... no pirated games --86.173.60.6 (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  Contested deletion