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).

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)

abe's oddyssey and abe's exoddus both redirect to oddworld article, which barely mentiones them Tani unit 06:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * anyone cares to explain where the individual game articles are?


 * 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). 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)

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 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, Sarah Kerrigan, Soma Cruz, and Arbiter (Halo) 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)