Talk:Oddworld

Fangus not in OddWorld?

In the "Unreleased games" section, it mentions the "The Brutal Ballad of Fangus Klot" is not likley to be set in oddworld. Does anybody have proof or is this speculation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noxis12 (talk • contribs) 04:54:54, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Lorne Lanning, the creator of Oddworld and Fanugs, explained it to my friend Xavier and I when we had a sit down chat with him and Sherry McKenna in October 2006. I publicized the information on our fansite, OddBlog: http://oddworldlibrary.net/oddblog/specials/Meeting_Lorne_and_Sherry Wil (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Spring Cleaning

This article is in serious need of some re-amping, if nobody else is about to do it, I'll take it upon myself. - Nepharski 11:56 AM, 8th of January 2006

Pictures

These games are graphically very strong, and there's plenty of material available to add to this article. I think it would be great if some pictures were added.--Michiel Sikma 20:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I added a small bit about the inhabitants of the planet itself.

---

Splitting Up

Anyone else think we can make articles for the individual games and put some of this in there? --InShaneee 04:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That sounds a bonza idea! --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 19:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• anyone cares to explain where the individual game articles are?

abe's oddyssey and abe's exoddus both redirect to oddworld article, which barely mentiones them Tani unit 06:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

There is an Abe's Oddysee article, but the redirects and search pages are all screwed up. And for some reason, all the articles about Oddworld that I can find are really poorly written. Even this one. Nothing I can do about it, I'm a really bad editor Vimescarrot 20:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we should add a spoiler warning at the top of the article

I nearly read the stranger spoiler from my watchlist about why he needs 20000 moolah, but lucky i didn't read it fully, so can someone add a spoiler warning at the top?

Dumoren 06:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Links?

Some of the links under the species section (Ratz, Slogs, Slegs, Grubbs) lead to articles unrelated to the game rather than articles having to do with the Oddworld species. Fix? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.80.107.170 (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

• Fixed. --Mika1h 08:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Small doubt

Excuse me, English it is not my native laguage and there is something I didn't get to understand. When it says "Oddworld, as a planet, is measured as ten times the size of the Earth" it means ten times bigger or ten times smaller? thank you

It means 10 times bigger then earth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noxis12 (talk • contribs) 04:51:45, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Thank you noxis  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emanuel556 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC) 

Merger proposal

The article Mudos does not seem to have sufficient stand-alone notability to warrant an article. As the fiction guideline specifies, "fictional concepts are deemed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources." The only source cited in this article is a wiki, which is not within policy. However, since it is a plausible search term, I would prefer to propose merging the article rather than nominate it for deletion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I redirected it. It was just one of the ten or so randomly created articles for this series that asserted absolutely no notability. TTN (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Suits me. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

De-listify and de-cruft "Creatures" section

This section is a bit too crufty and unnecessary information, such as the notable characters that belong to the races, needs to be removed. All of the creatures that only serve as ammo in Stranger's Wrath probably need to be removed as well. And while I don't think it's a necessity, it would be really cool if it could be rewritten so that it doesn't look like a list as well. It would enhance the quality of the article as well. ♣ Bishop Tutu ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Think of Sevel Nord butchering most of the Citroen Jumpies from 1995 til 2006. You did the same, as you completely butchered the Creatures list. =¦ Tommy Vercetti 15:28, February 15, 2008. ¦= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.123.249 (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

External links

There’s disagreement over whether fansites should be included in this article’s external links, but the current method of discussing this is an unproductive series of back-and-forth reverts. So before anyone makes another revision, perhaps we can have a proper chat.

First: there is no ban on fansites. If there were, WP:EL would say so, but it doesn’t. The discussion page clarifies:

• “There is no blanket ban on fansites; WP:NOT#LINK suggests linking to a fansite may be appropriate in certain circumstances.”
• “"I keep getting told there is a blanket ban..." Just ignore anyone telling you that.”

As for copyright violations, Oddworld Inhabitants have given express permission to the fansite owners to use the content they have, and in a couple of cases this permission comes from face-to-face meetings with content owners Lorne Lanning and Sherry McKenna.

Now that the creatures section has, very rightly, been decrusted and the list of locations I remember has been removed entirely, there is room to provide links to sites that will provide more detailed information on Oddworld. On many important topics, especially the unreleased titles and unseen characters, the fansites will provide much more information than the official sites.

So what is the real objection? Wil (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally, questionable content or content at the heart of an edit war is removed until a consensus is reached. So I hope you forgive my removal of the links.

Regarding an objection to some of the external links; per WP:EL, "Links to social networking sites, discussion forums/groups, or USENET" and "links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" should be avoided. The Oddworld Forum, OddChat, and Oddworld Wiki fall under this.

Also per WP:EL, "any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." The reason most fansites do not qualify as external links is because they do not normally provide additional information that an FA provides. The "no blanket ban on fansites" is because there could be a fansite that is very professionally done and provides information beyond what a Featured article could. Because there could be that kind of fansite, WP:EL says "a fansite may be appropriate in certain circumstances."

However, because there are very few fansites of that quality, they are normally frowned upon. If a fansite does provide extra info beyond an FA, then proof should be provided as to why it "may be appropriate in certain circumstances." (Guyinblack25 ^talk 06:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

Continuing the debate on external links. All the fansites listed are officially sanctioned by Oddworld Inhabitants and contain substantially more information on Oddworld. At the moment, a person visiting this particular WP page is presented with very little content of worth, which I might add, is a result of certain users savagely dismantling the page. Some ignorant users have suggested that the external links are being used to optimise search engine results. Search engines should typically ignore links with the nofollow attribute specified (however it is a tricky subject, as the attribute isn't standard, and search engines would be within their ethical rights to ignore it), of which all links in WP are affixed with said attribute. Furthermore, all the fansites listed do not generate income. There are no advertisments. These are genuine fansites - of whom have troves of information that WP deems is acceptable to be linked to. By removing the external links you are crippling the chance for visitors to access more information. 217.150.112.45 (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you elaborate more on them being "officially sanctioned by Oddworld Inhabitants"? Does that mean they are official fansites owned and/or operated by Oddworld Inhabitants?

Another point, per WP:EL, "any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." You have mentioned that they offer "troves of information". What kind of information, can you please give some examples?

Also, there is no need to call another editor "ignorant". I'm sure their mentioning of optimizing search engine results was in good faith. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Being the very nature of fansites, they are operated by fans not employed by Oddworld Inhabitants. The official sanctions come in the form of:

• written / emailed consent directly from OWI
• OWI employees acting as representatives on the Oddworld Forums (Alf, Alf's Assistant, Michael Bross)
• are referenced with the highest rating on OWI's very own links page

It's obvious from your lack of knowledge of the mentioned fansites that you haven't even checked them. Which raises further questions and worries - why are you mindlessly deleting links without properly investigating? If you'd been able to spare a minute or two of your precious time, you'd see all the content. Oddworld-Web contains additional information on creatures/locations/games. Oddworld Universe provides information on all games (bar Fangus). The Oddworld Library provides information on a wide variety of topics to do with Oddworld, and is considered by the majority of Oddworld fans to be the definitive resource.

I'm re-including the original links, albeit I'll omit OddChat (I agree that chatrooms shouldn't be included). I can't be bothered explaining such trivial things to a group of pre-pubescent thirteen year-olds high on WP editing anymore. I believe the links are meaningful and provide further avenues of information relevant to Oddworld. As I've said before, I've been a fan of Oddworld since it was born, and I've been an active online Oddworld fan for over six years - I will continue to monitor and make sure the links are rightfully included for many more years to come.

As an aside, I hope you're also cleaning up other video game articles. I could mention at least five I've just quickly perused that could do with the same treatment. You wouldn't want us to think this is something ego-related or personal, now, would you? 217.150.112.45 (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I can't help but sense a bit of hostility in your comments. I apologize if I'm wrong, but while discussing here we have to abide by WP:CIVIL.

Regarding your edit to put them back in while a discussion is ongoing, that is the type of behavior that will lead to your IP being banned. Generally, questionable content (external links, images, and/or text) is removed from an article until a consensus has been reached. I ask that you please abide by this. If you also feel that you do not have the time or are not willing put worth the effort to discuss this issue with other editors, I suggest you not edit the article.

In regard to your last statement, I assume you're implying that I and other editors are singling out this specific page. If you must know, I do my best to clean up the articles that fall under the Video game Project. I was one of the main editors that started the Clean up department for the VG Project and I regularly edit articles to improve their quality and rating. In short, I try to edit articles to comply with the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. At this current moment, I am focused on understanding the reason why you want to include these links on the page and discuss the issue with you. Otherwise, other editors may think this is something ego-related or personal for you, wouldn't they.

Anyway, I have browsed the fansites, though briefly. But since you are the one that wants them to be included and I assumed you were familiar with them, I felt that you would be best at explaining them. I thank you for excluding the chatroom, but I would also like to point out that a forum falls under a similar category as a chatroom. The content is not normally monitored or edited to ensure accuracy and qualtity. And while the developers may participate in discussions, the average person may not be aware of that and not know which information is accurate and which is not. In regard to the content of the fansites, if Oddworld Library is really such a definitive resource, then why would the other links be needed. It appears to also give information regarding "creatures/locations/games". (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Considering the links were there well before any of you so called editors arrived, I believe the links should stay until a consensus has been reached. As for IP banning, please, I'm not an Internet amateur - I'm sure you're aware of how easy it is to get around such silly systems. So it's in everyone's best interests that we come to a common consensus.

That's fantastic to hear. But your word, isn't the final say on things. The WP guidelines are there to be interpreted relatively. And it's definitely personal. I feel some editors have vandalised what was functioning fine before they showed up, and I don't think believe they had the right.

When I say TOL is definitive, I mean that it is usually the final say on what is what in Oddworld. What I did not mean was that it contained every scrap of information. If you look through it, it doesn't have every game/creature/location, which are exceptions caught by OWW/OWU. As for the forums, I can assure you the content is well moderated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.133.228 (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it this is the same editor to the IP address above (217.150.112.45), but I also can't help but sense hostility in your comments as well. And if you feel that this is personal, I suggest you maybe take a step back from the situation before continuing.

I would like to point out that just because something was left on Wikipedia, does not mean that it should have been. This has apparently just come to some editors' attention. And while you feel that it worked just fine before, that does not mean that it was functioning in the way Wikipedia intended. I would also like to point out that per WP:OWN, neither you or I own these articles and their content. What that means is we have to go by the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia to determine what is suitable for articles. Yes, WP:EL allows room for exceptions, but you have to explain to others why the exception is valid.

As far as TOL, I do not expect an external link to contain "every scrap of information" regarding the series. However, if it provides the most comprehensive information out of all of them, then why should there be more fansites listed. In regard to the forums, what method of moderation is used to monitor the content and how can you assure that it is moderated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

The previous edits were also mine. I realise we do not own Wikipedia, once again, I'm not an internet amateur. I am well versed in internet lore. As for explaining exceptions, I have. Obviously I believe my opinion is correct, and vice versa. So it's a compromise we need to work towards. I've already given some lee-way with removing OddChat from the list of link - but I'm still waiting for others to show they're serious about compromising as well.

The links are there to provide further information, if TOL does not include what others do, then I can see a very valid reason for including them.

I can assure you the Oddworld Forums are moderated, because I happen to own them.82.5.133.228 (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

(un-indent) Forgive my comments, I do not assume you are an internet amateur. I simply assumed that you may not be fully aware of the various policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Even experienced editors are not always aware of them all.

I'll be honest with you, the fact that the developers have listed and rated them on a page on their own site, says to me that these are probably not your average, loosely-thrown-together fansites. That is the main reason I'm willing to try to compromise. However, I must point out that the statement of endorsement is almost three years old. While I'm sure the websites have tried to maintain and/or improve the level of quality, that time gap doesn't exactly help your case.

The other reason is that some people come to Wikipedia looking for content that is more akin to a game guide, rather than an encyclopedic video game article. External links can offer information more along the lines of what they are looking for. This way, the content remains encyclopedic, users can access the information they're looking for, and everybody is happy.

Another issue that has now come up is the ownership of the Oddworld Forums. Technically, I could claim that I own them too. But because identities are not linked to editor accounts or even IP address in way that is readily available to the general public, there is no way for us to prove that and thus no guarantee of moderation. Now I'm not calling you a liar, I'm sure you are the owner.

However, if that is case, then this falls under Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I'm sure you only want to allow fans to reach other fans, but this can easily be interpreted by others as promotion of your website. If you want to continue to reach a compromise, then I honestly suggest dropping the Forum issue. If you are willing to do that, then I'm more than willing to talk about the other sites. I'm already willing to support the inclusion of Oddworld Library, as it is arguable that it is an exception to WP:EL. Though I feel it fair to say that I can't really speak for other editors. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

As for the conflict of interest with ownership of the OWF, I can not see it being an issue as we are the only forum dedicated to the Oddworld franchise, we generate no income, and we already have a high placing in search engines. So, as you pointed out, this is a case of providing fans with other avenues of information and help. As for moderation, the forums will be celebrating their eighth birthday this coming May - they aren't a new upstart and I can assure you they are well maintained. If it were any different I wouldn't have a problem with them being removed, but this is honest work looking for honest recognition.

I'm sorry, but this is a sticky situation. Other than your word, there is technically no way for you to prove your ownership, nor is there a way to guarantee the level of quality of the content in the forum postings. I'm glad that your forum has enjoyed a successful eight years, but this still falls under a conflict of interest. It does not matter if you are the only Oddworld forum, it is still the owner of a website adding the respective link to a Wikipedia article. I understand you are well-intentioned, but this is not something that will help the inclusion of the other links. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

I also want to mention something: a fundamental thing that is forgotten in practically all disputes like this is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database to cover every nook and cranny of a subject. Plenty of other sites exist to do this, namely all of the fansites that need to be removed from the external links section. Every notable aspect of Oddworld needs to be touched on slightly, not completely covered. It's aggravating at times because people forget this, mainly because it's an online encyclopedia and the urge to fill it up with as much info as possible proves too great sometimes, especially for video games. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 01:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Klptyzm, you say that Wikipedia isn't supposed to "cover every nook and cranny of a subject" and that it is the fansites which make up for WP's brevity. Yet you want to remove the links. I'm confused. By removing the links, you prevent people from visiting the other sites where WP's shortcomings are addressed.

Guyinblack25, other than sending an email from the OWF server, there really isn't any other way to prove I own them. And if it can't be proven then the Conflict of Interest issue is a moot point. My argument is that the forums are well kept, there is no competition (so this isn't a means of gaining one-up over others), we aren't increasing pagerank, and we earn no income from the promotion of the sites (the money to pay for everything comes out of our own wallets). The Oddworld Forums are there to connect fans with other fans, provide a means to gathering more information, and offer help services for the series / games. In other words, it once again addresses the shortcomings of Wikipedia.217.150.112.45 (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

fansites and forums are discouraged on wikipedia; there is nothing special about these particular sites; this is not a place for a few fanboys to advertise their sites Bridies (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Discouraged, yes. But not outright forbidden. As for "nothing special", you've once again proved that you've merely skimmed through all the discussion here (which is terribly unbecoming of an editor). I realise this is not a place for fanboys or fangirls to advertise. Once again I'll refer you to the reasons stated in the discussion above as to why they're legimate entries. By the way, I took the liberty of formatting your response, as it wasn't exactly sticking to the flow. I'm sure you meant well.217.150.112.45 (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent) I'm sorry, but the Forum issue is a catch 22 for you. If you are not the owner, you cannot guarantee moderation and quality control of the content of a privately owned fan forum. That is one of the main reasons forums are not added as external links. If you are, it is a conflict of interest as it can easily be interpreted as promotion of your website, regardless of income, competition or otherwise.

If you seriously want to reach a compromise, I honestly suggest you drop the forum issue. For a few extra reasons, in addition to what I just mentioned. I have personally never been involved in a conflict of interest issue, and am not entirely sure how to proceed. Therefore, if the issue is pressed, I'll have to call in a more experienced editor that has dealt with it before. Here's what will probably happen. They will look at your edit history, which even in my opinion falls under WP:DISRUPT, and they will react accordingly. The edit warring will more than likely continue. As a result all the external links will probably be removed, your various IP addresses may end up getting blocked, and the page may end up getting semi-protected so that no anonymous IP address can edit it. And we will go all the way back to square one, which I don't want and I don't think you do either.

Forgive my tone in the following sentences, but I feel it necessary to get perspective on the issue. The reason they will think so is because you did not engage in discussion in a timely manner. You did not try to explain your position until pressed to do so. You're first responses were uncivil and included comments which could (and were) interpreted as rude, name-calling, judgmental, and condescending. You have also insisted to assert your point by continue to edit war with editors over the inclusion of the content while the discussion was on-going and even when you were asked to stop until a consensus was reached.

After saying all that, I poise a question, "regardless whether they were right or wrong, what would you do if you had a member on your forum that behaved that way?"

Now, I think an agreement can be reached, but not if things continue in this manner. You have stopped the uncivil comments with me and I greatly appreciate that, that is more than some IP's do. But before we continue, the edit warring needs to stop and the forum issue is best dropped. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

Regarding the forum issue, even if the direct link were to be dropped, the prescence of feature articles still remains. A lot of the threads on the forums act as official sources of information - information which is not replicated elsewhere. By providing direct links, we negate the need for amassing twenty or so links to individual threads. Which, I may add, would, if this were about promotion, only increase it. With the default inclusion of a forum-wide search function, I believed the best option was to default it to one link, as opposed to many.

I realise the position I've put myself in, but as I've made clear, it is a compromise I'd like to achieve. I'd be willing to drop OWW/OWU as they don't contain as definitive articles, but TOL and OWF are certainly well within their rights to be left alone. As for other editors / locking, do what you must, as I've said before I'll be around for many years to come - how many editors will remain for that long, or even devout their time to checking this page everyday? It's obviously best to reach a compromise. 217.150.112.45 (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

now you're just blatantly threating to continue vandalizing the article (in addition to admiting you're pushing your own agenda by including these links, not that it wasn't obvious anyway); the watchlist takes care of having to check the page. by the way, skim reading is all that's needed to determine the nature of the links. if there's reliable, relevant information (that can't be found elsewhere) in certain forum threads, put it in the article and cite the thread, as per the video gaming project's manual of style. 'twenty or so links' is fine as long as they are relevant; wikipedia is not paper. a general link to the forum/fansite is not: if someone wants forum discussion and fancruft they use google, not wikipedia. going on about my typos just demonstrates you don't have a leg to stand on btw. Bridies (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the willingness to drop the other two sites, but I still remain firm on my stance with the forum. Though others may disagree, I'd be more willing to include one of the other two sites rather than the forum.

As a side note, I suggest changing the focus of your edits. Instead of trying to include some external links, I'd use your passion for the games to improve the quality of the game articles. Though fansites are frowned upon for news, reviews, and game info, they have been deemed acceptable sources by the VG Project for transcripts of developer interviews. The OWW and OWU have an ample supply of such content which would greatly benefit the development sections of several articles. They could be cited as sources and the direct links would be in references section.

As I have pointed out, the very nature of forums exclude them as reliable sources except in very rare cases, normally officially owned and operated forums. This also coincides with why they are normally excluded in external links sections. As Bridies has pointed out, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to help fans connect with other fans.

This will be last time I post before I ask another editor for advice and/or to assist with the issue. I hope you reconsider your position. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

i agree that the forum link is unacceptable. One of the two fansites as a compromise is acceptable to me also, providing the advertorial language previously accompanying it is removed. Bridies (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Bridies, I have no idea what you're going on about. Not only are you not making sense, but where did I correct your spelling (that being said, yes, a little attention to grammar and spelling would go along way)? Furthermore, where is there advertorial material accompanying the links to OWW/OWU? Once again I'm left with the overwhelming sense that you aren't investigating any aspect of this issue - but merely intermittedly passing by to earn brownie points with other editors. How very childish.

Guyinblack25, as for improving the quality of the games article, I thought that was why you were here? I don't mean to be rude, but so far I haven't seen anything by way of improvement. As for using my passion, the idea has already been suggested to at least one other Administrator of the Oddworld Forums. We'll see where a combined effort leads us. However, cheers for actually delving somewhat into the actual fansites to investigate. 217.150.112.45 (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Assistance has been request, as by the tone and content of your comment, I assume your position has not altered. Regarding your comment to Bridies, I assume they were referring to your formatting edit of their comments. So there is no need to be uncivil.

As far as the improvement of this and related articles, I hope something comes out your efforts, as I'm not on this page to improve its content. I came here to help resolve an edit conflict. I see no need to make such improvements on a subject I am neither knowledgeable about nor interested in. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

Wow, man. This is ridiculous. The mere fact that this discussion has gone on so long shows a blatant conflict of interest, in my opinion. While, of course, you probably really do want to give users who view the page an outlet to more information, please explain to me how these users couldn't go find these sites on their own without them having to be posted on Wikipedia? I oppose the inclusion of the fansites because a policy says to exclude them. Why not include every single fansite of every single subject so that no info is missed? Why not go ahead and make things easier and just add every single piece of information on the subject in the Wikipedia article??? All you're doing is interpreting enough of WP:EL to keep sites in that you more than likely have personal ties to. This is growing to be the second most ridiculous incident I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Hell, this article itself probably shouldn't even exist: if you're so worried about improving the article quality, why haven't you attempted to actually improve the article? This has a very blatant in-universe bias, practically no sources, and hardly says anything about the development of the world or Oddworld Inhabitants itself. Like I said before, the article is already a travesty on its own. The blatant disregard of part of a policy makes this page worse. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 19:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oddworld feature film?

I remember coming to this page some time ago and seeing some info about an upcoming planned Oddworld animated feature. Whatever happened to that, and was there originally a source for that information? Esn (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove it personally, but I believe the source was unreliable (a wiki, if I remember correctly). Bridies (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Citizen Siege? What does this film have to do with Oddworld? The plot doesn't seem to be related at all. PubliusFL (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Editing

I edited the section on gamespeak a little, hope I did alright.

By the way, the section on future games should just be changed into a section about when the games were announced. And the info should be stripped down to the bare facts, such as, "This was said on that date by this person concerning that". That way it's not speculatory, it's recording events chronologically. :)

-Searchman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.196.11.183 (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge

The article has a bit of relevant real world information, so it can either go under a specific character section or development section. TTN (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hi again TTN :-) I oppose the merge of Abe (Oddworld) and Oddworld. There is more than "a bit" of relevant real world information in the Abe article, and I'm sure that much more real world information could be added (I only did a cursory Google search and I don't have any offline sources available). I see that the series has seven games plus future games and films and not all of these revolve around Abe, so why have information about him clogging up the main series article? Abe (Oddworld) is already more than 12kb with just one paragraph of plot per game in the biography section (the characteristics section needs more real world info and sourcing), which I think is allowable to describe the character's actions and development. If the article is merged, where will this information go? I think the Abe article has the potential to be like Kratos (God of War), but if it is merged there will not be room for both it and the main series article to develop. Bláthnaid ^talk 21:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The article currently has a few sentences of primary real world information. That kind does not establish any sort of notability. If you can create a reception section that amounts to more than a bunch of passing mentions of the character, that would actually do something. Series articles often have summaries of the games within them, so that would be fine here. One section titled "Characters" could cover a trimmed down version of the characteristics section, which is definitely bloated, and other characters of the series. The same character section could hold the real world information, or it could be placed into a development section. TTN (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What is "primary real world information"? I don't usually edit video game articles, so I don't know all the terms. The real world information I added to the article I found in just an hour's searching and editing. Don't you think that a more knowledgeable person with more resources could find much more? There are also WP:RSs used to source plot information. As to the character's notability, please look at books like this, (page 137 in particular) where the character is written about like he was a character in a novel or film. I'll look for more sources and information, but I have other articles on my to-do list so it might take me a few days. Bláthnaid ^talk 21:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Primary real world information is stuff like creation and development information. It allows for context, but it does not show that the topic is notable to the world. The kind that establishes notability is reception and real world impact. It has to show that the character is more than a part of the game series. TTN (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. However, the main notability guideline says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic."--this is in the article. The WP:FICT essay says it "should demonstrate real-world notability from reliable sources. Articles on of works of fiction should strive to include information on critical reception, viewings or sales figures, development and other information from reliable sources."--some of this is in the article. WP:FICT also says "For fictional elements, this will typically include the real-world context and analysis of the elements, and can [not should] include influence and other aspects of its development, critical reception of the elements, and popularity of the element through readership/viewership ratings and marketing." (my italics and inclusion)--There is information on real-world context, analysis, and information about popularity in the article. You seem to be asking for more than the basic notability guideline and fiction essay requires. Anyway the lead section now has information about how the character is more than a part of the series, and I will keep adding more information and sources. Bláthnaid ^talk 21:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about actual practice rather than A says B. Those can only go so far as guidelines, so they cannot specifically state everything that belongs in an article. Characters need reception to show notability. Creation helps, but primary information is not something that can show "This is notable in the real world." TTN (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree as the guidelines are supposed to describe the generally accepted standard for notability, and the article also meets the stricter WP:FICT essay. That being said, there was already some information about real world impact and reception in the article, and I have added more. Bláthnaid ^talk 17:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

My point is that they can't directly state what is necessary. Generally, two or more paragraphs are necessary for video game characters, but they can't really state something so specific. The information in the article is on the right track, but it really isn't enough. Cloud Strife#Cultural impact, Sarah Kerrigan#Reception, Soma Cruz#Reception, and Arbiter (Halo)#Cultural impact are some good examples of what is necessary. TTN (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

They are Good Articles. This is not a Good Article nomination. I am just establishing this article's basic notability, so that it can remain and be developed and improved in the future. The article meets WP:N, WP:FICT, and I have added information that shows the character has had real-world impact (by the way, it looks likely that Abe was featured in 2 songs by Music Instructor, not just one; however, I haven't found a WP:RS for this information yet.) Bláthnaid ^talk 18:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the Oddworld article should just be deleted. At most any relevant information could be merged, either with Abe or with the individual game articles. I think, Blathnaid, that it's Oddworld that needs to be merged with something else, rather than Abe. Abe's article may meet the various guidelines but this article doesn't. Bridies (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

While it is organized strangely, it is still a series article. Those are usually fine to have around. TTN (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the article isn't great. I have some WP:RS gathered that can be used in this article, so I will try to improve it a little. Bláthnaid ^talk 17:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a lot of support for merge at the recent AFD, and I'd throw in my support for a merge as well. Article fails a lot of guidelines and policies by itself (particularly WP:V and WP:N), but it might be a great addition to an existing article about the series. Randomran (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The article does meet WP:V. All the real-world information is sourced to reliable secondary sources, and it is acceptable to use the game itself as a source of basic plot information (WP:PRIMARY). I have also added quite a few secondary sources to support plot information (here, for example.) I also think it meets WP:N, as I explained above. Bláthnaid ^talk 22:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge reverted because most oppose. -- 92.1.230.129 (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Quintology, not Pentalogy

Please stop changing this. The title of the series is the Oddworld Quintology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.178.134 (talk) 09:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Abou

About this SligStorm game,isn't a Slig a big ugly beast that was in Oddworld:Stanger's Warth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.63.46 (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Article Title

I'm thinking the title and this page are out of sync with each other. The lead starts off talking about Oddworld, as in, a fictional planet, but then the body of the article talks about the games that have been produced by Oddworld Inhabitants as a real-world production company. So is this article about a fictional planet, or about the real life creators of the games that take place on this fictional planet? And furthermore, there is a separate article titled Oddworld Inhabitants that is very bare-bones. Hence, that and this article should be combined into one, under the title of Oddworld Inhabitants talking about the production company. Then, the lead in this article should be moved into the main body under a section titled Oddworld, which would concern the planet itself.

U2hmtmkmkm (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)