Talk:Street Fighter V/Archive 1

Yoshinori Ono has confirmed the 6 Datamined characters
Ono-san confirmed Alex, Guile, Balrog, Ibuki, Juri and Urien at the PS Experience keynote. The article is currently developing. 

Edit: At the end of F.A.N.G.'s trailer, Capcom confirms what the silhouettes meant.  UltraDark  :) 2 CHAT  19:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources and user reviews
Just a note, since many IP addresses keep on adding content in about the game's user reviews.

Please see WP:USERG - in short Wikipedia doesn't use user reviews because it doesn't meet the requirements of being a reliable source. You're free to cite professional reviewers (see WP:VG/S for a list of usuable/unusable sources) but not user reviews/user review aggregates, or make generalizations about the fanbase based off your own observations.

The only exception to this is if reliable sources write an article about low the user reviews were, which is what happened, for example, with the poor reception of Mass Effect 3 and its ending. It was such a big deal that it made headlines. So, if some IGN, GameSpot Polygon (website), Eurogamer website writes an article about the low user reviews, then its mention-able in the context that the website covers it. Otherwise, it doesn't belong in the article. Sergecross73  msg me  16:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Beyond a joke
Can we quit with the locking. it's the end of the first week of sales, there are plenty of chart positions to be added, and people would have done this if they could... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.226.49.227 (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add proposed content and sources on the talk page, and it will be added if there are no objections. Sergecross73   msg me  13:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Street Fighter V. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160302000356/http://www.gamestm.co.uk/reviews/street-fighter-5-review/ to http://www.gamestm.co.uk/reviews/street-fighter-5-review/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160302000356/http://www.gamestm.co.uk/reviews/street-fighter-5-review/ to http://www.gamestm.co.uk/reviews/street-fighter-5-review/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding characters to the page
Don't add new characters to the page unless you have a source to back up the addition, such as an article verifying the character or an official video showing the characters. So far, the only confirmed characters are Charlie, Chun-Li, and Ryu, all of whom can be seen in this YouTube video that was published by Capcom. Additions to the article that don't have a valid source are subject to removal. Amducker (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If anyone reads this I would also recommend adding them by date. Launch characters > March 2016 Characters > June 2016 Characters. Just so we know when came who. I think that would be helpful. Right now the article says it launched with 16 but I don't know which 16 were launch characters.Cube b3 (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

PC PowerPlay review
Issue#249, p.52, Apr 7, 2016, gave it 60% and said "At its core, Street Fighter V is a great game, but the lack of meaningful content makes us want to wait for updates." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.147.204 (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, Edge Magazine, April 2016, p.98, Apr 10, 2016, 70%, "Mechanically, it's fantastic. Structurally, it's a mess and a missed opportunity, designed in direct contradiction to its developer's stated ambition". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.147.204 (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Or do these two not count as RS since they are not Amurican? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.147.204 (talk) 13:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Your sarcasm aside, while these sources are reliable, I'm slightly hesitant to add them personally, as several IP addresses have been adding content that was either inaccurate or taken out of context. I'd feel better if you proposed some online reviews where the content could be checked and verified for accuracy.  Sergecross73   msg me  16:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what exact contradiction its referring to in particular in the part that says designed in direct contradiction to its developer's stated ambition? When I asked for clarification in an edit summary, I was told it was explained in the article, but I don't have access to the Edge magazine, so I can't tell whether or not it was referring to the same things the Wikipedia article mentions. What does it say in the source? Sergecross73   msg me  12:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Reception section content and rewording
Discussion needs to start happening about the reception section. Per WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN, the IP addresses need to get consensus to make their changes. Please discuss and explain your edits here. Sergecross73  msg me  14:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I am mistaken but, as standard practice, we do not list user reviews scores? If this is to change, we should first run the proposal past WikiProject Video games. — TPX 16:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * User reviews are only allowed if they are documented by a reliable source. Which in this case, it actually is. But the commentary should be limited to only what is documented in the reliable source, nothing more. The reasons the IP edits keep being done is because they keep on quoting things out of context and/or putting the most negative spin possible in their text additions. Sergecross73   msg me  17:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the overwhelming negative user reviews have been documented by a RS. Likewise, the glitches have received large amounts of coverage in several RSs. Most of them have said it shows laziness on Capcom's part, because they were known to be there months ago in the betas. Furthermore, approx 50% of all reviews mention this game has been rushed out to meet a tournament deadline, and a consequence of this is that there are bugs and glitches. If any more sources were added for this it would be attacked as undue weight.
 * As for the unexplained removal of the bit about input lag - it's highly significant for a game with record numbers of Evo registrations and a huge CPT following. If not reception, where in the article should it be placed?
 * It's as though having a neutral point of view has gone out of the window. All the negative stuff is quietly deleted without explaantion, while all the positive stuff remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.27.148 (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please propose the content, and sources that back them up, here, and people can add them for you if it's appropriate. The problem is that unreliable sources keep being used, (for example, only destructoid staff writers are usable, for example. Not any random person who has an account there) or the sourcing poorly supports the statements being made. Time and time again, things are written taking the sources out of context. You've refused to discuss as we go, so the article is locked again. Also please note that there is still a lot of negative reception in the article.  Sergecross73   msg me  20:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Essentially, the stuff removed at 18:33 on the 14th. Was the problem the sourcing, the context, or what? It was a piece from Jed Whitaker of Destructoid, and Anne Ellis on redbull.com, one of the sponsors of the tournaments. Both are professionals and explained what causes the lag and why it is important. It's labelled as a news piece, rather than a review, but that makes no difference. This is still reception, for any game marketed as a tournament title. Maybe this should be added to the part about Evo registrations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.27.148 (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about this, then yes, there were a number of issues:
 * You added the date "May 2010"
 * You wrote the word "doscovered"
 * The Destructoid source you used is not usable. Destructoid, and websites in general, are only considered reliable/usable on Wikipedia if they are written by staff members. Like journalists and actual writers. It can't be written by any ol' anybody that can sign up for an account and start writing. Usually, the distinction is made by the person's name. While a usable writer would have something like "Staff Writer/Editor/Contributor", and usually have a section about themselves on the websites "about us" page. The article you tried to use has no such status on the writer, who instead has the title of ""Dr. Dinosexual" (???). His only authority on video games is "being a real hero" and "obsessed with VR". Not looking good for being much of a reliable source here.
 * "Implications for eSports" is rather vague and confusing. You'd be better off stating what said implications are (according to the source). If Redbull is the only reliable source saying this, then the statement should be attributed to them. (ie "According to Redbull Games, Input lag was...")
 * That being said, the RedBull source would be considered usable. So, like many of these IP additions, there's probably something worth saying there, but its covered up with errors, bad sources, and weird wording. Feel free to propose a rewritten version on the talk page, and if there's no objections, it can be added to the article. Sergecross73   msg me  16:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Eventhub is not a reliable source
It does not meet WP:RS. The writers aren't journalist with credentials. There's no editorial oversight. It violates WP:USERG, and should not be used in the article. Input? Sergecross73  msg me  01:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You should understand that most game reviewers with an editor have less credibility then someone who plays the game constantly every day or someone who has a degree that can verify a lot of the glitches, bugs, etc ...
 * Because a reviewer works at a big company, it doesn't mean that the reviewer has any knowledge about fighting games in general. It really looks like you got paid for doing these edits. If you have played the game, you will certainly understand much of the text that is "unsourced". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2C89:1A00:B0CA:B113:CCF:72BC (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is written according to verified by reliable sources. On Wikipedia, reliable source means journalists with credentials from known publications. If information can't be documented by sources like this, then it falls outside of the scope of what Wikipedia documents. Your stance is fine for a conversation among friends or message board arguments, but not for an encyclopedia. Also, I am not paid by Capcom, or any video game company, or any video game publication, nor do I have any connections to any of them. Sergecross73   msg me  03:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Capcom apologises for lack of communication
Suggestion for the bit after Tsujimoto:

In June 2016, Capcom emplyoee Haunts apologised to players for a lack of communication surrounding the delay of downloadable character Ibuki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.25.109 (talk • contribs)
 * That in itself, would be kind of random, when the article doesn't mention Ibuki or poor communication anywhere yet. You might want to propose a little more background information for this to make sense. Sergecross73   msg me  18:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not random, I've put it after the two previous apologies so they all link together. Ok, how about preceding it with "Capcom had initially promised monthly DLC characters, however the third character, Ibuki, initially scheduled for May, was delayed to June, with the announcement only coming on May 31st." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.25.109 (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant that it'd be random to mention a reaction to something not previously discussed in the article. I mean, you need to define the actual issue before you start addressing responses to said issue, right? Anyways, while this all seems trivial, and your wording, as per usual, sounds more like a forum-goer with a bone to pick with Capcom than the neutral and formal writing of an encyclopedia, but I suppose there's a core idea in there somewhere if you persist, and no one else opposes. Something more along the lines of
 * Despite the initial plan of monthly DLC, Ibuki, the character download for May, was delayed to June on May 31, something Capcom later apologized for.
 * It doesn't have to be that, but something more along those lines. And even all that sounds more like something that belongs in a "Development and release" type section rather than "Reception" really... Sergecross73   msg me  19:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The controversy regarding how it was released
Street Fighter V has failed to catch on with both newbies and veterans alike, and for obvious reasons. First of all, they(CAPCOM) decided to release the game in an unstable state, and fan reaction wasn't pretty. Plenty of people are complaining about that, and it's time for you, dear editor, to not overlook these issues and put them on the main page. That is, if you got the facts right. 189.124.168.175 (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Street_Fighter_V#Reliable_sources_and_user_reviews regarding "fan reaction". The rest would be up to you, or whoever else, to find reliable sources to back up such claims. Sergecross73   msg me  17:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Source is here, it actually sums up everything that is wrong with SF5. http://gamerant.com/street-fighter-5-unfinished-opinion/. I quote: "After charging $60 for the title, plus $30 for the season pass, what owners are presented with is still an unfinished product. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2C30:C100:7923:90F9:65F6:E15B (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2016
The last edit has a source of Eventhub, which is unreliable. Although, nobody seems to care. While negative aspects of the game with Eventhub as a source get removed immediately. I really feel this whole wiki page is biased and I will make sure I will find out who is responsible for this. I will certainly use the media to make my point clear.

Cabreak1 (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Edit requests are for making specific changes, not idle threats. Please make specific suggestions on this talk page. Sergecross73   msg me  00:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, the Eventhub source has been removed. It was not supposed to be used. Sergecross73   msg me  18:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Pruning down Plot section
Erm, not only is the UNDUE, it also contains spoilers and fancruft. I'd shorten it to less than half the current size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.56.41.216 (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's too long, though spoilers are acceptable per WP:SPOILERS. If you propose a new version on the talk page, and there's no opposition, it can be subbed in. Sergecross73   msg me  04:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Articles for other SF games either ignore the plot altogether (because it's an afterthought that has no impact on the game), or else they have literally 5 lines. i'd simplify it to a line or two about Bison, and then something like "The plot starts when Rashid infiltrates the Shadaloo main base looking for a friend who was kidnapped by them but is discovered and defeated by F.A.N.G.". Ends — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.26.91 (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but this game does have a bit more of a story mode than most entries in the series though, correct? I'm all for trimming it down drastically, but that seems a awfully heavy-handed cut... Sergecross73   msg me  13:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2016
Would like to request that Juri be removed from Upcoming Characters section and placed in the Characters section. This is due to Juri being officially released on all platforms at this time.

SmurfyD (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done AdrianGamer (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

'A Shadow Falls' release
Plot section should be expanded to say the update was released on 1st July, and was 16 gb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.56.41.216 (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That doesn't sound like plot summary information... Sergecross73   msg me  00:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * So you don' think the release date is important? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.56.41.216 (talk • contribs)
 * Sure, but it would probably go in the development/release section. The plot section is for plot. Sergecross73   msg me  15:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Proposal: new subsection on reception for A Shadow Falls.

The update was not well received by Destructoid, who summarised it as "The blemishes are raw and sore, the flaws impossible not to gawk at. This is what took another five months? It’s a damned shame that only adds to the increasingly sad story of Street Fighter V". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.56.41.216 (talk • contribs)
 * Was this written by a staff writer, or is it a user-blog? Sergecross73   msg me  15:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "After toiling away in the Cblog mines and Recap Team workhouse for years, he made the jump and became a staff member in 2014." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.56.41.216 (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Alright, so you've got a reliable source from a staff writer, and the information seems to be accurate and in the correct context, so I've added it on your behalf. While doing that, I also noticed that at some point, its release date was added to the development section too, so that's also taken care of. Sergecross73   msg me  18:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We just need some more reviews now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.56.41.216 (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * We need the review box back: Gamerankings has added a score of 54% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.101.153 (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Aggregate scores should not be used when only 2 reviews are listed. Averages are not useful for such a small sample size. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "despite the fact that this is single player content that’s more involved than the “Character Story Mode” or Survival Mode, it only lasts a certain amount of time. Mortal Kombat occasionally threw in multi-round matches, culminating in a final boss of some sort, but Street Fighter V Story Mode doesn’t vary, and that feels like a misstep. As such, what could have been a true epic, ends with a whimper.


 * Still, to quote the mistranslation of a former Capcom employee, “It’s better than nothing”. There’s a lot of lore to unpack, some unique battles, and even some difficulty for those who feel that the standard settings are wimpy at best. It’s a free download too, though one you’ll need to grab from the PlayStation Store separately, so it’s probably worth a go. For me though, it was hyped up a tad too much with very little payoff." (TheSixthAxis)


 * Financial Post scored it 6/10, stating "everything surrounding it has been a dismal failure. The Story Mode is barely a narrative and the tutorials fail to teach." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.101.153 (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The deputy editor of Kotaku said it was "ridiculous and silly" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.101.153 (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

So basically, if you can alter your quote a bit from the Financial Post, that'd be usable at least. (Perhaps something from the paragraph before or after what you decide to direct quote?) You have to say where you want it placed too, since this seems to be more about the game in general than the DLC... Sergecross73  msg me  14:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm double checking, but I don't think "TheSixAxis" is considered a reliable source.
 * 2) Financial Post seems like a reliable source, though I'm not sure exactly that your direct quote very accurately the reviews 6/10 score, or the overall message of the review.
 * 3) Kotaku is a reliable source, but that quote is so vague its not even usable. There's not context. Looking at the ref itself, it looks like the "article" is only about 2 complete sentences anyways, so I'm not sure how to rectify that...  Sergecross73   msg me  14:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Giant bomb score
GB reviewed it at 60. Can somebody add that to the infoobox? And Eurogamer 70. Also Metacritic went down to 79 (PS4) and 76 (PC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.144.234 (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * A review is not just a number. The current reception section is useless. Who the fuck removed the section that said "with praise going towards the gameplay and graphics, while it was heavily criticized by both critics and fans for it's lack of content."?! At least that was a start. Thi needs some serious work, I have no idea why it's locked. Capcom pressure?
 * I locked the page. I'm an Admin on Wikipedia, but no affiliation or contact with Capcom. I don't think I've played Street Fighter since I bought 2 for the Sega Genesis in the 90s. I locked the page due to continued inclusion of unsourced information, and continued inclusion of "user reviews", which Wikipedia does not document (see section above.) You're free to propose information to be added on the talk page, but you need to include sources that back the proposed content. See WP:VG/S for some examples of acceptable sources. Sergecross73   msg me  19:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A lot of people keep going on about religiously following a template. What about "Ignore all rules"?? Also, people keep going on about RS - this stuff is verifiable and from a RS. Right now, the PC version is sitting on Metacritic was a user score of 2.6 out of 10 (based on nearly 200 ratings). Compare to the 76% critic score, and THAT's the most notable thing about he game so far. It's unanimous. We're not talking broad agreement, we're not talking a slight disagreement, we're not talking a major disagreement. These are on completely different planets. People are not adding this information just as trivia to pad out the article with crap. They are adding it because it is notable and significant. It's not one or two people saying it. For any other game, there isn't such a wide gulf, and it therefore shouldn't be added. But in this special case, it simply cannot be ignored. Again, we're not copying word-for-word from one disgruntled teenager - it's a summary of complete consensus. It's worthy of a news item. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.144.234 (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. Feel free to propose your additions on the talk page. They will be added if they're appropriate. Sergecross73   msg me  23:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 79.65.144.234, could you at least make an attempt to learn what a reliable source is before spouting off?  There are absolutely zero things reliable about Metacritic user reviews.   There is no oversight to them, we don't know if these reviewers are making an honest attempt to review the game, rather than just stacking the vote, we don't know whether they've even played the game.  We don't know if people are submitting multiple reviews, which there is no prevention of.  And on and on and on.  --SubSeven (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Nobody added Eurogamer after all this time? Also GameSpot 70. Polygon 6.5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.144.234 (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, much like yourself, no one bothered to suggest or add any sources, so it hasn't happened. Sergecross73   msg me  00:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion
New text: "Many users were dissatisfied with the minimal feature set, bugs and a host of server connection issues, which were so severe that Capcom's Yoshinori Ono issued apology to people who bought the game. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.144.234 (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Like, quickly? It's the first week of release, this is a crucial time for the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.144.234 (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The 'many fans' business is WP:WEASEL language and doesn't resemble anything in the source given. --SubSeven (talk) 07:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * True, though if it was reworded to be attributed to PCGamer, then it'd be a valid statement. (And if more sources were found, either we could list out the sources, or attribute it more into "reviewers" or "video game journalists".) Sergecross73   msg me  20:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

A better quote for in the Reception section: "It launched with an underwhelming feature set and a host of frustrating server issues, which were so bad as to prompt an apology from Capcom's Yoshinori Ono." Same source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CAA:B100:ED96:1576:665C:5464 (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the reception section. It already covers sever issues and apologies from the dev staff. Sergecross73   msg me  18:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

DELAY
Producer Koichi Sugiyama stated that the game's 8 frames of input delay was an intentional design choice.

No wonder this article sucks, it ignores all the major issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.102.214 (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you would like to propose certain content and respective reliable sources here on the talk page, I will add it for you. Unfortunately, most anonymous editors are having a hard with with either proper wording or sourcing, so that why the page is currently protected. Sergecross73   msg me  19:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Source is here. http://shoryuken.com/2016/05/09/street-fighter-v-players-express-concern-over-playstation-4s-offline-input-latency/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabreak1 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please propose a specific sentence to add, and where to add it. Sergecross73   msg me  00:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

"Producer Koichi Sugiyama stated that the game's 8 frames of input delay was an intentional design choice." in the development section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CAA:B100:ED96:1576:665C:5464 (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Shoryuken is not a reliable source. See WP:VG/S. You'll need a source to add this. Sergecross73   msg me  18:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Input latency
"Street Fighter 5 has one of the largest input latency (8 frames on PS4) in the current generation fighting games." Reference: http://shoryuken.com/2016/05/09/street-fighter-v-players-express-concern-over-playstation-4s-offline-input-latency/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2C7C:4800:31ED:3274:67FC:768C (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ - A number of concerns.
 * I don't see how "shoryuken" meets the requirements of being a reliable source per Wikipedia's standards. I couldn't even find an "about us" page other than a small blurb at the bottom of the page stating its a community of game enthusiasts. Not a good sign - we need actual writers and journalists, not just "fans".
 * Similarly, I don't see any credentials for writer "Waveflame".
 * The source doesn't especially seem to represent the claim made either. It doesn't seem to assert 8 frames as a certainty, nor does it anywhere explicitly state that its the current worst number for this gen of fighting games.
 * Sloppy work like this is precisely why the article continues to be locked from anonymous editing. Sergecross73   msg me  13:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Shoryuken is a well known fighting game website. How can this not be a reliable source ? Is this a joke ? Really, how can you admin this page if you think that Shoruyken is not reliable for Street Fighter ? To prove your ignorance, here are some other sources: http://www.redbull.com/us/en/esports/stories/1331793876499/input-latency-is-affecting-street-fighter-v https://www.destructoid.com/street-fighter-v-has-eight-frames-of-input-lag-on-ps4-360212.phtml http://n4g.com/news/1913570/street-fighter-vs-eight-frames-input-lag-is-four-frames-too-many etc ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2C7C:4800:EC85:EA38:932E:A619 (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you know how Wikipedia defines a reliable source? Does "Shoryuken" employ actual journalists? Do they have credentials? (Real ones, besides "liking video games"?) Do they have editorial staff? Do editors proofread articles? Editorial policy? Ethics policy? Sergecross73   msg me  02:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The same questions apply to some of your others sources. As mentioned before, the Destructoid source is written by a man who has given himself the title "Dr Dinosexual". Does that sound like a legit journalist? (Hint: No, he's a random person on the Internet. He fails WP:USERG.) Sergecross73   msg me  02:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Ignorance again, why do you ignore n4g and Redbull ? Journalists are people who are good at writing clean English (and often get paid to write in favor of the game publishers, see gamergate). Shoruyken is a place where experts of fighting games gather together. I don't know if you understand this, but which one is the most reliable of the 2 when we talk about fighting games ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2C7C:4800:D9BB:8352:AB51:FDDA (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia, not "FightingGamePedia". We go by Wikipedia standards when it comes to deeming what sources are reliable. It doesn't matter if Shoryuken has "street cred" with fighting game fans, if you can't answer the questions above about credentials, editorial set up, etc, then its not going to be considered a reliable source here. Sergecross73   msg me  12:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

By the way, where can I report people for adding bias to an article ? Other sources: http://www.vg247.com/2016/06/03/street-fighter-5-dev-team-investigating-input-lag-will-communicate-more/ http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/06/03/street-fighter-5-facing-issues-on-ps4-capcom-apologizes-for-silence http://gamemoir.com/featured/street-fighter-vs-8-frames-input-lag-4-frames-many/ http://www.displaylag.com/video-game-input-lag-database/  (Known for accurately measuring input lag) But hey, don't bother to add those sources. Those are all fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2C7C:4800:D9BB:8352:AB51:FDDA (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Redbull, IGN, and VG247 are all reliable sources, yes. Now please write your proposed text according to what one of those sources, and say where it should be placed. Sergecross73   msg me  12:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed text: "Street Fighter V has a 8 frame input latency." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CE5:9E00:9173:EADC:F4E5:6394 (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Plus one
A few people have pointed this out, reliable sources given on this talk page. It's a BIG deal. If the page wasn't locked then people could collaborate and find the best solution. Instead, this article continues to be inaccurate, misleading and out of date.

It doesn't even refer to the fact that the tournament finals were covered on ESPN (a first for a fighting game). Like, that's literally the whole point of this game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.25.250 (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The page being locked isn't preventing "collaboration" or "finding solutions". Quite the opposite, every time the page isn't locked, all discussion halts to a stop, and people just add unreliable sources or content not supported by sources. That's why we're proposing content and sourcing on the talk page. Feel free to provide a better source and content, and if its appropriate, it'll be added. Sergecross73   msg me  17:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If sourcing is what you're getting annoyed about, somebody's done that on 2 different topics above. None of that made it onto the page. If you're content for such an important article to remain shit, then so be it.
 * Hard to tell exactly what you're referring to, but feel free to re-propose the combination of sources and content here. Sergecross73   msg me  22:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't need to beg. I'm not gonna be writing stuff on here for you to approve or reject. If you don't want people freely to improve this article, then it can continue to wallow. When/If it gets unlocked, we might see an improvement. If not, it's wikipedia's loss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.25.250 (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether the page is locked or not, you anonymous IPs are going to need to learn what a reliable source is, and how to write content that accurately reflects said reliable sources, or your content additions aren't going to stick. It's up to you if you want to start that now, later, or never, but the standards and policies won't change. Sergecross73   msg me  15:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In the last 8 years, I've made literally over 10,000 edits, of which 99% stick. I know all about neutrality, tone, sourcing, etc. if that's not good enough, then fuck you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.25.250 (talk • contribs)
 * I don't even know where to begin on how ridiculous that response is. What's most ridiculous? That after 8 years/10,000 edits, you'd still be editing so poorly like this? That you're some sort of experienced editor that just throws away all experience/knowledge only when you editing Street Fighter 5? That I'm supposed to believe that you've been editing anonymously for 8 years? And that you've kept track manually of these 10,000 edits? That a long term editor would so brazenly breach WP:NPA? That after 8 years, you still don't know how to sign your name on talk page comments? Sergecross73   msg me  13:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I looked it up, and it's something like 5 edits per day since September 2003, so longer than I thought‎. Obviously some days there are no edits. So, hmm, yeah, probably more like 12,000 edits. Since I'm not doing it for personal glory, there's no point in me signing anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.101.153 (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is not signing your comments on talk pages also because you "don't do it for personal glory" then? Sergecross73   msg me  17:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You kinda need to sign your posts. 88.105.191.244 (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

September disputes
Welp, due to continued edit warring and disruption from IP addresses for the fourth time this year, the page is protected again. As long as you refuse to use the talk page to discuss, the page will keep getting protected, if you haven't noticed the trend yet.

Anyways, please discuss any disputed content, sources, and placement into the article, and it'll be added to the article if there is consensus to do so. Sergecross73  msg me  01:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yet again, some corrupted administrators try to hide negative aspects of the game by protecting the topic. Although, text about frame input lag was accepted as reliable in the talk page. However, another user tried to remove that text resulting in what you call "edit warring". Then you removed the previously reliable block of text about frame input lag. This is really really fishy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CF2:F100:91D1:FB51:417E:B1F8 (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, since people kept on edit warring rather than discussing on the talk page, the page was moved to the last stable version, and the page was locked to force discussion. However, even with this, no one chose to discuss anything here for these last 3 weeks, so no changes were made. All you have to do is propose the text, source, and placement of additions, and will be added if its appropriate. (As the sections above indicate, a review is necessary, due to continued issues with unreliable sources and poorly written additions not supposed by the sourcing.) Feel free to propose additions. Sergecross73   msg me  14:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

You are not reading anything I said. You accepted that the input frame lag sources were reliable in this talk page (look above). Then I inserted this information into the wiki page. Then, another user disputed this and said that the sources are not reliable. Then finally, you protect this page because of no reason whatsoever. You are essentially allowing people to clear out any negative aspects of the game (even if they have reliable sources). That makes you responsible too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CF2:F100:91D1:FB51:417E:B1F8 (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You're not documenting things very well. I said RedBull was a usable source on Wikipedia. That's it. I did not verify any particular wording or content addition - I asked for a proposal on this, but you or whatever other IP chose to wait for the protection to expire rather than discuss a particular addition. Anyways, after you added your preferred wording, another user disagreed with your addition. Right or wrong, at that point, you should have had a discussion with the user on the talk page over the specific wording. (WP:BRD) You chose to argue over edit summaries and reverts instead of the talk page, so the page was locked once again. To be fair, should have taken things to the talk page as well, but they didn't push for it any further once the page was protected, so between him dropping it, and no one responding to this request for discussion for 3 weeks, things stalled. But feel free to push forward with specific wording proposals.  Sergecross73   msg me  14:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

But obviously, in the end, the negative aspects of the game are cleared out. And isn't that we want to avoid on Wikipedia? It has no use if I'm going to propose something that will be added once and cleared out some time later. I'm going to gather all evidence and I'm afraid I have to make a post on the Administrator Incidents page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CF2:F100:91D1:FB51:417E:B1F8 (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's going to be a waste of your time. Any Admin looking into this are going to see the same things: Constant edit warring by IP addresses. Lots of talk page threads pointing out endless poorly written/sourced content additions. IPs that wait until the page protection ends to return to edit warring rather than discussing constructively. Me, constantly asking for proposals for content/sources/placement, only to receive vague whining and threats. It would make a lot more sense to propose a workable combination of content, source, and placement. Sergecross73   msg me  15:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen real "threats" in this talk page, but fine. We will see how this incident will work out. I personally believe you are a biased administrator who for some reason doesn't want any negative facts about this game. I'm pretty sure many people (by just reading the talk page) will have similar thoughts. Protecting this page because a user tries to hide negative facts about a game (which you call "edit warring") is unacceptable and does certainly make Wikipedia an unreliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CF2:F100:91D1:FB51:417E:B1F8 (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm literally asking you what to be put in the article, and you're not telling me. How in the world is it going to be perceived that I'm not allowing info in the article? Half these discussions end with me asking for content/sources to be provided only to receive nothing or getting zero response after pointing out the glaring errors in the proposed text. The problem isn't me, its your massive lack of follow-through (and excess of complaining.) Sergecross73   msg me  16:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Nah, there are at least 4 or 5 well-worded, and adequately-sourced blocks of text above. I agree that negative points regarding this game are being excluded under the name of edit warring, thus breaking NPOV. All it does it put people off editing this page. I simply can't be bothered any more, I'll let this article stagnate and remain shit, and use my effort elsewhere.

Maybe I should agree with the person above (which isn't me btw). It's useless to add anything to this page. I'm done with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CF2:F100:2CB1:A857:6FE5:B60C (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So, just to recap, the additions already exist on this talk page, and yet no one can be bothered to simply copy and paste them here again? You've got the energy to whine and complain about corruption and conspiracy theories, yet you can't be bothered to present already written content/source/placement additions? And you expect this blend of apathy, complaining and edit warring to somehow garner support from experienced Wikipedia editors? Wow. Sergecross73   msg me  19:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, it looks like you are talking about apathy and conspiracy theories while we are just talking about writing factual information on Wikipedia, but fine, that's your choice. Look, I asked on this page to add some information about the input lag that SF5 has. It's something unusual compared to other fighting games. It affects everyone and certainly should be noted. So I first tried to add some sources which were apparently not reliable enough for Wikipedia standards. So okay, that's fine. I provide some other sources, which you accepted as "reliable" yourself. Then, you asked to formulate text to be written on the Wiki page (because it was protected at that time because of another odd reason). I have only read that after the protection of the page was over. So since I knew that the source was reliable (you said yourself), I added some text about the input lag. But then, some other user tried to remove this addition (you can choose for yourself why) saying that the addition had an unreliable source. Which is a contradiction to what you said. Of course, I tried to undo his edit because I was sure the source was reliable. But obviously, the other user did it again and so forth. Then, you came and wanted to look like you have done something useful and you protect the page again AND you restored the page to a "stable state" which didn't had the factual information that I inserted. Well, this happened twice. This is no coincidence and if you can't see what you did wrong or what went wrong by removing negative information about the game, well, then, with all respect, you are not competent to be a Wikipedia administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CF2:F100:2CB1:A857:6FE5:B60C (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My comment was on "apathy" was in regards to you throwing a pity party with the "oh this isn't worth the effort" comments any time the page is protected and you're forced to discuss on the talk page instead of the reverting over and over again to get your way.
 * My comment on "conspiracy theories" is in reference to the silly accusations you/IPs try to pin on me when your content proposals are removed or rejected for being poorly done. All the "something fishy is going on" comments, that I've got some sort of "Pro-Capcom agenda", that I "work for Capcom", etc etc. I have no connection to Capcom, and have very interest in them as a company. I have no history of making any substantial edits to Capcom games or being active in moderating any other Street Fighter articles. I've created over 100 articles, and maintain 100s more, and I don't think a single one is Capcom related outside of this article. I literally have zero motive to defend Capcom or Street Fighter. I only stumbled upon this article when I was inspecting the work of an editor who was making poor edits elsewhere, and stuck around to moderate the constant edit warring and poor edits being made.
 * Stop pointing the finger. Yes, good job on finding a reliable source, that is more effort than usual from you IP editor(s) at this article. You stopped doing the right thing half way though. You went and edit warred to get your way when someone disagreed with your wording - something you knew was wrong, because the page had been protected multiple times because of this. Instead of hashing it out with the person on the talk page, you edit warred, and then dropped the issue for 3 weeks. Then we come today, where you again, refuse to work any further on any sort of addition. You've got to work with anyone who opposes your changes, and if you don't the changes aren't made. Its on you. Sergecross73   msg me  20:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Saying that 1+1 equals 2 doesn't mean that you said anything useful. You are still ignoring your responsibilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CF2:F100:2CB1:A857:6FE5:B60C (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Admin responsibilities include enforcing policies, like stopping by edit wars and making sure content additions are properly sourced and written in disputed areas. Writing the article itself is not an Admin responsibility. If you're unhappy with the article, fix it yourself. But do it within the confines of policy. Your failure to do this thus far is why I have to monitor your every addition like this. It's absolutely astounding how much time and energy you've put into trying to force your way through doing it the wrong way. If only you'd put that same effort into doing things the right way.  Sergecross73   msg me  22:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm almost finished with gathering evidence for the Administrator Incident page (proofread, obviously). Am I the only one who thinks that this is really fishy ? No, there are plenty of people. My failure of edits is because some "administrator" is trying to remove all negative aspects (yes, I repeat myself) of this game. People already gave up editing this page because of useless protections and an "administrator" who doesn't want to admit anything. And sooner or later, someone is going to see this. You keep ignoring the real issue here (= you protecting this topic because someone wanted to have reliable sources on Wikipedia and then remove those sources yourself). You are either a very biased editor or a incompetent administrator. And say whatever you want, for me, this is over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CF2:F100:2CB1:A857:6FE5:B60C (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the reception section - it still reads very negatively, so any claims of "removing everything negative" is going to be seen as obviously false. Same goes for any empty claims of "fishiness" without a scrap of motive or prior history. I can already see how this is going to end. Your case is going to be thrown out almost instantly, and then you'll have crazy theories to rationalize what happened. Surely something like "all Admin are corrupt and Wikipedia is doomed" or maybe "Capcom infiltrated the Admin Corps four years ago just so they could defend SF5 on Wikipedia." Sergecross73   msg me  23:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Had you read the article, you would see there are lots of 'negative aspects' in there.  Serge himself has added some, when proper sourcing has been supplied.   Maybe if you actually read the article, you'd be in a better position to contribute to it.    --SubSeven (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Broken game
I would like to add the quote of Jason Evangehlo in the Reception section: "Street Fighter V is utterly broken on its day of release." http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2016/02/16/video-games-are-broken-reviews-are-broken-and-things-have-to-change/#426a53f858d2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CAA:B100:ED96:1576:665C:5464 (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Forbes contributors are not usable sources on Wikipedia. Sergecross73   msg me  22:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CAA:B100:ED96:1576:665C:5464 (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Forbes itself is a fine establishment, but their "contributors" are merely amateur bloggers using the website as a medium for their blogging. Their articles have contained massive glaring issues on the past, so the consensus is to avoid using their work. Sergecross73   msg me  20:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Time to remove the Linux category
Only add the cat back if/when the game actually comes out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.100.220 (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If the game was officially announced for Linux, then info about it really shouldn't be removed unless there's some sort of announcement that the version has been cancelled... Sergecross73   msg me  14:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm running out of patience here. The Linux category should not be included until the game actually comes out, otherwise it's crystal ball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.102.145 (talk • contribs)
 * Its not a WP:CRYSTAL issue if the platform for the upcoming game has been officially announced. Games not released yet are still tagged with categories for their future platforms if they've been officially announced platforms. Plenty of well-maintained, active articles show this - The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Final Fantasy XV, Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare, etc. If anything, it'd be more of a crystal-violation to remove it. It would be speculative to assume it would be cancelled. Sergecross73   msg me  19:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Being locked is harming this article.
Um, there's no other way to put it - this article sucks. Much information is late or simply lacking because people can't get it in. As an example, the game has been confirmed as coming to arcades, but there's no mention. For such an important game, this is just terrible.

Carry on guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.27.177 (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're free to propose content/source/placement suggestions, and if they're appropriate and there's consensus to add them, it'll be added to the article. Thanks! Sergecross73   msg me  21:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Says the guy who won't even follow the basic instructions of signing his own posts. I wouldn't be so snarky if I were you. 79.74.203.83 (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Arcade version confirmed
https://www.eventhubs.com/news/2016/oct/16/street-fighter-5-and-king-fighters-14-both-headed-arcades-kof14-getting-full-arcade-version-sf5-will-be-pc-version/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.194.96.208 (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Eventhubs is not what Wikipedia considers to be a usable source. There's no editorial oversight or history of being professional journalists. It appears to be based off a tip from a random user from the website too. Anyways, it can be added to the article if a better sources can confirm the information. See WP:VG/S for some generally acceptable/unacceptable websites. Thanks. Sergecross73   msg me  17:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

From what I heard, the "arcade version" is apparently just stations running the PC version of the game that will be placed in arcades.5.150.244.20 (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This was already mentioned. See above. Clearly nobody cares about this game enough to open it up for public editing from neutral editors. Shame.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.25.180 (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You talk like you know everything yet you don't even know how to sign your own posts. What a hypocrite. It's ~ four times, by the way. 79.74.213.3 (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No one provided a reliable source, so it was never added. I'm not sure why you seem to be inferring that whether or not the game has an arcade release would be an issue of "neutrality", but the problem isn't "neutral" editors, its editors who can't seem to supply both content and a source for their additions. Sergecross73   msg me  19:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Report Failed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive936#Apparent_bias_of_administrator_Sergecross73_at_Street_Fighter_V - So, now that this is sorted out and everybody understands that there is no biasey, how about we get back to discussing what can and can't be added to the page in a normal manner. 79.74.211.120 (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * There's plenty of discussion above. IPs need to digest and understand that information then propose viable text and reliable sourcing. — TPX 20:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * yeah, they have. THAT'S THE PROBLEM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.25.180 (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was said prior. And weeks ago, I responded. "Okay, then please re-propose it". And no one has bothered to do so, choosing to argue and bicker instead. So I'll say it again - propose content/source/placement additions, and they will be reviewed. If there's is consensus to add it in, it will be added in. Sergecross73   msg me  19:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Akuma listed in wrong section
Akuma is not yet added to the game, so he should not be labelled as a playable character. he should be moved to the "Upcoming characters" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.205.6.161 (talk • contribs)
 * I don't see him listed under "playable characters", nor do I see a "upcoming characters" section to move him into. Are you proposing reorganizing? Or maybe just putting a note next to Akuma, since he'll likely be out very soon? Sergecross73   msg me  14:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Ono's second Apology
In November 2016, Ono said "we all know that we didn’t put out a complete product, in a way that is a learning experience" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.205.6.161 (talk • contribs)


 * Nowhere in the source does it call this an "apology", its just a statement. And it's not even his whole statement, you've left out a lot of content/context both before and after the quote, and gave no indication that you did so. It's not even the entire sentence he said. This needs to be reworked before its ready for inclusion. Sergecross73   msg me  14:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Bias, bias .. administrators have to remove garbage talk of him in this topic. It's getting worse ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CE5:9E00:3D74:5E33:38A7:5EE3 (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not about bias, it's about bad writing. Fact: Words like "apology" or "sorry" are not used. Fact: Your "quote" is ripped from the middle third of a sentence, and lacks proper context. It's sloppy writing that needs to be fixed before it's included. Sergecross73   msg me  00:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Watch out what you say, or your post will be removed by the Counter-Vandalism unit, again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CE5:9E00:B0CB:3D52:ACBD:E358 (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, as per anywhere on Wikipedia talk pages, comments that aren't constructive or aren't about actually improving/changing the article are commonly removed, and comments like that are moving the discussion in that direction again, yes. Sergecross73   msg me  14:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Bias
Is anyone going to fix this article ? It's inaccurate and unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CAA:B100:ED96:1576:665C:5464 (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're free to propose content/source/placement suggestions, and if they're appropriate and there's consensus to add them, it'll be added to the article for you. Unless you're responding to particular conversations though, you're going to want to add new sections of discussions at the bottom of the talk page. (I.e. like your comment above.) New sections go at the bottom per guidelines, and are going to be where people are going to be more likely to notice it too.) Sergecross73   msg me  05:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I did, but nobody adds this. Why is it protected ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CAA:B100:95B:975E:4643:82BE (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Where? I don't see any new discussions at the bottom. Or here. Sergecross73   msg me  18:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * IP user who won't even sign his posts, the only biased person on this wiki is you. If you want Sergecross73 to actually listen to you, then stop bashing him. It only makes you look like a hypocrite. 79.74.209.80 (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Bias 2
Due to the broken launch, Street Fighter V’s early sales are around half of what its predecessor pulled. Source: http://shoryuken.com/2016/02/24/street-fighter-vs-first-week-sales-fail-to-match-street-fighter-ivs-in-japan/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CE5:9E00:50B5:6267:E5EB:9078 (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:VG/S, "shoryuken" is not a usable source on Wikipedia. Even if you find a source, you'd need to reword it, as you've made no mention of it being Japanese only sales figures. Also, the article already notes that the game missed its sales forecast by quite a bit, so it's already made quite clear to the reader that it didn't do very well commercially. Sergecross73   msg me  21:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

We all know that you are biased. So please remove source 8,10 and 11 from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CE5:9E00:1CC5:A88E:9C32:9478 (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, this was yet another instance of poor sourcing coupled with poor writing. I did remove the other shoryuken sources you listed above, and replaced them with reliable sources. Thank you for your help with that. Sergecross73   msg me  03:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Bias 3
The Wikipedia page of this game is way too good in comparison with the game itself. So I quote from a reliable source: "After charging $60 for the title, plus $30 for the season pass, what owners are presented with is still an unfinished product." http://gamerant.com/street-fighter-5-unfinished-opinion/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CE5:9E00:50B5:6267:E5EB:9078 (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, is there anyone who is not selectively responding to this talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CE5:9E00:431:EE67:8862:C1EF (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe if editors didn't bog down the talk page with already previously rejected requests, it would have been gotten to quicker. I'm not familiar with the website. I'm not familiar with the website. I can look into it. Do you have anything in particular that vouches for the websites or writer's reliability or credentials? In the meantime, there is a massive list of usable sources at WP:VG/S. You'd probably have more luck trying to use some of them instead of going out of your way to use these obscure bloggers and fansites.  Sergecross73   msg me  15:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Bias 4
"Considering the game was seemingly rushed out to allow players time to prepare for EVO, the input lag of 8 frames is a large oversight by the developers. " in the Reception section. Source: https://www.destructoid.com/street-fighter-v-has-eight-frames-of-input-lag-on-ps4-360212.phtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CE5:9E00:50B5:6267:E5EB:9078 (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ As mentioned before, only Destructoid staff are usable. This is a random user who calls himself "Dr. Dinosexual". Not a reliable source. Sergecross73   msg me  22:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Bias 5
Please add: "The critics were general positive. However, the user reviews on Metacritic have an average of 3.4 out of 10, which is a big difference compared to the critics. The difference can be explained by the lack of content and software bugs at launch." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CE5:9E00:50B5:6267:E5EB:9078 (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No per WP:VG/USERREVIEW and because you've provided no reliable sources to support the addition of that information. Furthermore, the reception section and lead already cover criticism towards performance issues and lack of content at launch. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, those are only facts. 1. The critics were general positive which can be checked on Metacritic (which is reliable). 2. The user reviews on Metacritic have an average of 3.4 out of 10. Which is a fact. 3. There is a big difference between critics and user score. 7.7 out of 10 compared to 3.4/10. That's a fact. Why is there a big difference? You just read the user reviews, and you can see that more than half of the people are complaining about a lack of content and software bugs (which is true, because it's written on various reliable sources). So that's a fact too.

So my text is entirely correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CE5:9E00:50B5:6267:E5EB:9078 (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Read WP:VG/USERREVIEW. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Here WP:VG/USERREVIEW, they are talking about inserting user reviews directly. I merely explain to the readers that there is a big difference between critics and users of this game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CE5:9E00:50B5:6267:E5EB:9078 (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And your analysis about why the aggregate user score is different to the aggregate critic score is original research. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

❌ per WP:USERG. User reviews are only included if they're mentioned by journalists themselves in reliable sources. The only things that have been noted of user reviews by journalists are already in the article. Sergecross73  msg me  22:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Original research ? Wow, that's rocket science. Is that the average level of a Wikipedia writer ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CE5:9E00:1CC5:A88E:9C32:9478 (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow the question, but the point is, when it comes to user scores/reviews, their only discussed on Wikipedia in the context of what journalists write about them. If they don't, then we don't. Sergecross73   msg me  15:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Bias 6
In the article they are talking about the Capcom Tour. To give more information about the skills required to play this game, here is a quote from a reliable source PC Gamer (http://www.pcgamer.com/street-fighter-v-is-a-long-disappointing-way-from-being-finished/): "You can win every fight, with every character, by just jumping about like an idiot and pressing random buttons." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CE5:9E00:D25:93CC:232E:A4F8 (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * When/where/how would you propose working that into the article? Sergecross73   msg me  00:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

In the Reception section, right after 'Famitsu gave it a 35/40.[35]'. A suggestion would be like this: "PC Gamer concluded that 'You can win every fight, with every character, by just jumping about like an idiot and pressing random buttons.'" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CE5:9E00:D25:93CC:232E:A4F8 (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What does it have to do with the Capcom Tour though? Sergecross73   msg me  01:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's just a random statement pulled [very] out of context; it doesn't speak to their critical assessment of the game. --SubSeven (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

There we go again. Nobody seems to care about the bias in so many articles on Wikpedia. Any attempt do to something about these terrible articles is getting rejected with rules that pop up only when they please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CE5:9E00:D25:93CC:232E:A4F8 (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I didn't cite any rules you broke. It's an honest question. You yourself said the source was about Capcom Tour. Please explain how. Sergecross73   msg me  01:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It's linked with the Capcom Pro Tour because people that played in that tournament are literally jumping everywhere. I can't find a source saying that though. But I did found a source (which I mentioned above) that is saying exactly that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CE5:9E00:D25:93CC:232E:A4F8 (talk) 02:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So then, to be clear, your opening statement, stating the source was about the Capcom Tour, was a lie, correct? Sergecross73   msg me  02:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

No, it was not. I couldn't find a source saying that they "are all jumping like an idiot" AT the Capcom Pro Tour. I guess showing videos of that is subjective. However, I could find a reliable source that is saying that they are "jumping like an idiot" in this game in general (source mentioned above). My suggestion is still valid which is of course a literal quote that I took from the reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CE5:9E00:D25:93CC:232E:A4F8 (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I'm talking about your opening sentence. You said In the article they are talking about the Capcom Tour.. In what capacity was this true in the source you gave? Sergecross73   msg me  02:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Ahh, with the article I meant the Street Fighter V wiki page. I should have rephrased that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2CE5:9E00:B1D2:9AA5:93B2:413C (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you should have. Because it looks a lot like you flat out lied about the context of the source in your opening sentences.  Sergecross73   msg me  03:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Protecting the Talk Page
This is getting stupid now. We have the same guy continually vandalising the talk page, doing nothing but insulting people and calling everyone biased when he's the one who's being biased. Is it possible to protect the talk page? Because frankly, this is getting us nowhere. 79.74.209.80 (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is possible to protect the page, but I think you're only supposed to do it in extreme situations, and then it would keep people like yourself out of making suggestions, which would be unfortunate. Sometimes, IPs have very good suggestions to make for the articles. I don't mind maintaining this, so I'm fine doing it this way. Any further comments with insults will be deleted on the spot though, same with any with just baseless complaining. It'd probably be good to set up an archive sometime too, this page is getting awfully large, and most of the requests are bogus and redundant to other requests. Sergecross73   msg me  17:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I hardly contribute to Wikipedia anyway, and I don't even own Street Fighter 5. All I know is I'm sick of this juvenile behaviour from this one singular user who can't accept he's the only one here who's being biased. 79.74.209.80 (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could look at pending changes protection. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, I read that, and thought "Hey, that sounds like a good idea". However, then I looked it up, and according to WP:PENDINGCHANGES, in the FAQ section, it says it's not technically even possible. Too bad. Sergecross73   msg me  17:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Great, now we need to lock the page again because the IP still refuses to co-operate and insists on leaving rude comments. 88.105.187.38 (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Message to IP
Regardless of how many times you re-add unconstructive comments complaining about the article, it's not going to accomplish anything. You've posted it in the wrong area (top of the page), failed to sign your (anonymous) comment, and haven't made any constructive/actionable request. Best case scenario it's not taken seriously and ignored, worst case scenario it goes un-noticed entirely. You've been instructed on how to make changes to the article. Do that instead of just wasting your own time. Sergecross73  msg me  23:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm writing down how many times accurate information is being removed from this Wikipedia page. From you and some random IP's, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:6592:B3E0:FBE4:D45 (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ...Not sure why you'd do that... Sergecross73   msg me  05:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You don't even understand how to edit a talk page, failing to understand that you need to write new stuff at the bottom of the page and that you need to sign your posts. Your argument, as always, is invalid. Be mature and do these things and we'll listen to you...and then MAYBE Serge will unblock the page. 79.74.200.52 (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And since you fail to understand, that last thing was not me forgetting to sign my post, that last thing was SineBot signing the clump of text that I had to move from the top of the page to the bottom because you don't understand how to use Wikipedia. Do some research next time. 88.105.177.223 (talk) 08:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Review about story
I would like to add this quote: "This story mode is so riddled with awful anime clichés and nonsensical scenes that I was laughing my ass off from start to finish." by Matt Gerardi. http://www.avclub.com/article/street-fighter-vs-new-story-mode-best-kind-stupid-239217 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:6592:B3E0:FBE4:D45 (talk) 04:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's a start. But you can't just drop lengthy direct quotes mid article with no set up. What's your set up/context? You'd also need to say where you'd place it. Sergecross73   msg me  05:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It also may be worth noting that the reviewer seemed to have more of a "stupid but entertaining" stance overall on the story mode. Might be worth grabbing some more text to reflect that. Sergecross73   msg me  05:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

A far better quote is this, from the same article - "That formula (talking about the cutscenes mixed with interactive fights) worked great in Mortal Kombat, where the story stretches out to around five hours and gives you enough fights with different characters to provide a legitimate test bed for players looking for a new favorite. With its minimal fights and easy difficulty level, Street Fighter V’s story doesn’t have the same novice-friendly benefits." Basically, compared infavourably to the newer Mortal Kombat games. 79.74.200.52 (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * A proposal on what should be included is shown below.

The story mode was compared unfavorably to the story mode used in the Mortal Komat'' series. Matt Gerardi claimed that the mix of cutscenes and interactive fights "worked great in Mortal Kombat, where the story stretches out to around five hours and gives you enough fights with different characters to provide a legitimate test bed for players looking for a new favorite. With its minimal fights and easy difficulty level, Street Fighter V’s story doesn’t have the same novice-friendly benefits."''


 * Something like that? 88.105.177.23 (talk) 09:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

We are discussing an addition proposed by a blocked editor. An editor who has demonstrated again and again they are not WP:NPOV and WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. What more do they have to do before we stop humoring them? --SubSeven (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, we could just permanently protect the page to prevent them from ever editing it again, which I've suggested before. We can't block him because he's an IP-hopper. 88.105.190.255 (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not about blocking, I just mean why is anyone even responding to these requests like they are honest attempts at improving the article.   It's a waste of energy.   And even if these awful proposals are rewritten (from scratch) into encyclopedia-suitable passages, the article will still become woefully unbalanced because this editor only cherry-picks the most negative material.   Again, I don't see what can be more applicable here than WP:NOTHERE.  --SubSeven (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Its not really that big of deal - you guys need to see the big picture here. Their talk page antics, while stupid, doesn't ultimately matter much, as 99% of general readers don't ever read these things. It largely amounts to a child saying naughty things in an empty hallway - most don't notice and the rest shouldn't care. I have no problem rejecting their terrible edit requests, I really only require assistance if there's actually a rare good suggestion to be debated, or if he tries to file another bogus ANI report. Sergecross73   msg me  02:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Either way, I still think the description I made is relevant. It's certainly neutral enough. 79.74.199.12 (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I have no objection to you addition. Unless anyone else does, it'll be added. Where would you have it be placed in the article? Sergecross73   msg me  14:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Since the story was released with the Shadow Falls update, which is mentioned at the end of the Critical Reception heading, probably there. 79.74.199.12 (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable source
In the article, it says: "Street Fighter V broke the Evolution Championship Series's record for most entrants in a single game with over 5,000 registrations". The source that is given is linking to a Twitter update of someone who works at Evo. This is no official statement so it can't be considered reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:98BD:A5BF:A747:2881 (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Good call. It seems this source should cover it though - http://www.polygon.com/2016/7/1/12080396/evo-2016-breaks-records-total-number-players - correct? Sergecross73   msg me  17:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me. So, replace? 79.74.199.12 (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Not really, the Polygon source links to the same tweet. It's alarming that newspapers and game magazines are simply using tweets as a reliable source. The tweet is not even an official statement (remember the "all my opinions are views are my own" on the Twitter account). Even though, Polygon is a reliable source, the tweet is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:98BD:A5BF:A747:2881 (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We are allowed to cite third party reliable sources even if their sources are less than what we consider reliable. The concept is that the third party source (Polygon), which has formal staff including writers and editors with editorial oversight, verified the statement prior to publishing the story. Unless there is a separate third party reliable source disputing the figure, the polygon source is fine. Sergecross73   msg me  19:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * So Polygon writes an article based on 1 tweet and Wikipedia sees that as a reliable article? And you really think they have verified the statement? For them, the statement is probably verified by the tweet itself. If those are the rules here on Wikipedia, fine. But that's a terrible concept and it's probably the source of the many inaccuracies that Wikipedia has. By the way, if they had verified the statement, they would have certainly wrote that in the article, which they haven't. At the bottom of the article, they literally state: "SOURCE: Joey Cuellar on Twitter". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:98BD:A5BF:A747:2881 (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You're free to not like it, but yes, that's how it works. Polygon is a reliable source and found this person to be a good enough source for them, so it's good enough for us. Do you have a specific reason to doubt this claim? Wouldn't an EVO employee be in the place to make such a statement or know this information anyways?  Sergecross73   msg me  21:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Upon further research, this Twitter account is a verified account of one of the company's founders. Of course he would be qualified to make such a statement.  Sergecross73   msg me  21:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, no doubt that he is the co-founder of Evo. But that doesn't give him the ability to say things as if he represented the organization "Evo" itself. The Twitter account is verified to be from Joey Cuellar (personal account). I have made a post on the noticeboard of reliable sources to make absolutely sure that this is a reliable source. It would be better in this case to quote him instead of stating it as a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:98BD:A5BF:A747:2881 (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No. A co-founder of a company has every right and authority to make a claim about his own company's figures, especially when a third party source writes an article around it. Any attribution to him wouldn't change the understanding to the reader. There's no difference to "The figure was 5000" and "According to a company cofounder on Twitter, it was 5,000" because a company founder is an authority for that sort of thing. Sergecross73   msg me  22:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Like you said, it's a claim. A co-founder has that authority yes, but does that mean it's a fact? No, because it should be verified. Did Polygon verified it? No, it has other rules. For them, it's okay if a co-founder tweets about it. For Wikipedia, it isn't.2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:98BD:A5BF:A747:2881 (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * That's why we have sources, and if they can be verified, they are worth including. 88.105.182.254 (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Your argument could be valid if someone was citing the Tweet directly, but we're not, we're citing Polygon. They verified it. You accusing otherwise is pure speculation. Sergecross73   msg me  22:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

In the Polygon article, you can read: "Evo co-founder Joey Cuellar tweeted out the final registration numbers ...". So it obvious that the article is based on that single tweet. No additional verification is done. I will end this discussion here until we have more information available on the Reliable sources noticeboard. 2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:98BD:A5BF:A747:2881 (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that discussion isn't going well for you either. You really need to learn how the Wikipedia works before you start up all these arguments. If you would just learn the basics, you'd save yourself a lot of time and effort. Sergecross73   msg me  02:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

All these arguments? Wow, Wikipedia is such a bad place for newcomers. I try to start a discussion about an unreliable source and people are freaking out. Here you have it, the reason why Wikipedia has lost newcomers in the last few years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:5982:636E:94DF:9522 (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how me calmly and repeatedly explaining policy to you is somehow hurting editor retention, especially considering how you keep coming back. Sergecross73   msg me  05:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I quote you: "how the Wikipedia works before you start up all these arguments". I only started a discussion about a source that was unreliable in my eyes. But apparently it's not. So to proof your point, you start to throw out random talk. The words "all these" are misplaced for whatever reason. Also, there is an IP that keeps removing posts from this talk page. However, no action is taken. That's another reason why editor retention is hurt. You can also observe this when comparing the main article now with a couple of months ago. It's getting less and less editing. 2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:5982:636E:94DF:9522 (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't follow what you're saying at all, but it sounds more like off-topic complaining again. If you can't keep it on topic and constructive, the talk page is going to be locked again too. Final warning. Sergecross73   msg me  22:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Does it look like I care? 2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:5982:636E:94DF:9522 (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose not. Page protected. Constructive editors - feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have edit requests for the page. Thanks. Sergecross73   msg me  00:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice
Due to continued disruption from anonymous IP editors, the article has been locked from editing, and may even intermittently have this very talk page locked from anonymous editing.


 * 1) If you have a good-faith edit request to be made about the Street Fighter V article, but the talk page is locked, feel free to contact me on my talk page. I'll respond to you there.
 * 2) If any off-topic comments are left here, they will be removed per WP:NOTAFORUM, and if it happens continually, will likely lead to the talk page being locked again, in which case I direct you to point #1 above if you are an anonymous editor.

If you have any questions on the issues going on here, feel free to read over the Administrators Noticeboard case about it, which endorses my actions, and this, which shows that other Admin have endorsed locking the talk page. Thanks. Sergecross73  msg me  21:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Reception of DLc
The following needs to be covered. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-07-18-street-fighter-5s-20-capcom-pro-tour-dlc-isnt-going-down-well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.25.207 (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to propose actual content to be added, and placement within the article, as well. Sergecross73   msg me  00:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2017
Add Kolin, who has been newly confirmed, to the list of characters. 136.181.195.25 (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ by another editor.  Sergecross73   msg me  21:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Zenny
The section about DLC needs to be updated. "These characters, among other post-launch content, are able to be purchased via either of two in-game currency systems: "Zenny", purchased via real-world currency, or "Fight Money", earned through gameplay." The zenny system was scrapped before release and characters can only be purchased via fight money or bought with real money from PSN/steam stores. --81.111.119.137 (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)