Talk:Resistance (video game series)

Article hurts my eyes

The article is fine but the organization looks messy. Portillo (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is too long, too messy, and doesn't even have one legitimate reference. Please clean up. TekBoi [Ali Kilinc] (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Nathan Hale merge

I know the recent AFD on the character closed in no consensus, but I think part of the problem was that there was no good place to merge the character into. The article still doesn't show strong notability and likely will be challanged again, and right now, is simply repetition of the games' plots. As there are now at least 3 games in the series, possibly more, it makes sense to have a series page and then to bring all the setting details (like I've done already for the alternate history and the chimera bits) into this series article; Nathan would be very appropriate here. --MASEM 16:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that Nathan Hale deserves his own article, since he has been ranked by many as one of the top 10 icons of Playstation. It would be very appropriate to mention Hale here but it would be best if he also had his own article. Surely the article about Nathan Hale needs a complete rewrite, but that does not mean that it has to be removed/merged into this article. /Poxnar (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If anything is important enough to merge, then merge it. Otherwise, just redirect it. TTN (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nathan Hale is no less important then Rachel Parker or Master Chief. /Poxnar (talk) 12:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Master Chief has significant out-of-universe impact, more than just what the character is in Halo. Nathan's as well as Rachel's pages only currently serve to reiterate the plots of the work which should never be done. --MASEM 13:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Against merge - the article is developed enough, even if it needs work, and the series is popular enough to warrant separate pages. Kuralyov (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge. This is a retelling of the plot and nothing to keep the character heavily relevant as a stand alone at this time. If something comes up at a later time (a lot of something's honestly), then revive. Otherwise this isn't a notable subject for an encyclopedic article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't {{Cleanup-rewrite}} meant for articles like this one? Insert this template instead of a merge. /Poxnar (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If I felt that the Nathan article could stand on its own but presently was in bad shape, yes. But I don't believe it warrents a separate article regardless of how much it can be cleaned up, so merging is the appropriate tag. --MASEM 15:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have now added this template anyway. /Poxnar (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose the merge as I just added additional out of universe information from a reliable secondary source. I keep coming across articles in published magazines that contain such information and I reckon more is probably out there as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

"three-star general of the British Army"

As per description of Rachel Parker's father. Not being picky, but where does this information come from, since it is not a term used in the British Army! Nick Cooper (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Resistance 3?

Is it true, are they making Resistance 3? Please tell me if they are because that would be awesome, that would be the best game ever!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.157.212.2 (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

File:ResistanceLogo.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ResistanceLogo.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)