The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix[edit]

Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is just another update to Street Fighter II. Are we going to write articles on Street Fighter II' Champion Edition and Super Street Fighter II Turbo just because they had new sprites and some gameplay changes ? Also, all the notable info on this game is already covered in the Street Fighter II article. Master Bigode (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep, this game definitely fits the notability guidelines, and is enough of a change over the previous incarnations that it ought to have it's own article. Trying to force everything in to Street Fighter II (as some editors have tried to do lately) just doesn't work. You'll note there was a proposed merge up for over a month that resulted in no consensus (and yet a few editors opted to try and merge it anyways). This deletion seems like an attempt to force the merge on the editors who disagreed with it. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Hadoukeep (sorry, couldn't resist) Very notable update to Street Fighter II, previews of the game and interviews with the producer of the game ([1]) verify that there are enough significant changes in both presentation and gameplay that this would warrant a separate article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per everyone, particularly Locke Cole. JuJube (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Notable and too many variants on SF2 to lump them altogether in a usable entry. Blunted (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC) — Blunted (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 00:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Shoryukeep (blame NeoChaos), notability is not an issue and there is legitimate opposition to a merge. The differences go far beyond nip-and-tuck in gameplay, sound and visuals. The game is a retooled version of one of the most iconic video games of all time, distributed online for online play. In terms of access, distribution, competitive play and historical significance this is more important than the other versions put together. It's 2008, the gaming press are getting twitchy about this one and SF mania is about to go nuclear, sources will be popping up discussing this in far more detail than a subsection in an existing article can cater to. Let it become a stable, growing article on its own, deal with the other versions in a separate 'Street Fighter II variants' article if necessary and let the main SF2 article be an unmbrella covering the guts of the games. Someoneanother 01:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This interview is the kind of source which will be creeping out, note that it's just a couple of days old, there is no way you can cover these details as an afterthought in an already crowded article. Forget gameplay tweaks and graphical updates, the information available will be reception, development and the impact of introducing a player-versus-player juggernaut onto a worldwide network of players. The information in SF2 is a couple of bullet points, that doesn't represent the subject at all. The previous games were released before the internet revolution, with sources having to be dug out of magazines, that isn't the case here. Someoneanother 16:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Street Fighter II has no development section and no reception section - it's 32kb long already and nowhere near complete. More sources: Kotaku has a wodge of them, Shacknews preview Destructoid Interview, Games Radar preview (details on how controls have been changed), and in-depth developer blog discussing changes (part 1). So you're going to cover all this, all the reviews, development etc. within Street Fighter II, in addition to a development and reception section covering the other games? The ultimate state of all the SF2 games within WP is going to be tricky to implement properly, but one thing that is obvious is that SF2 as a merge destination is not appropriate at this point in time, regardless of how the information is divided in the future. Let this one build up and see how the land lies when the other games are sorted out. Someoneanother 18:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge all the info and redirect (no gimmicky puns for me) to Street Fighter II. The game isn't really that unique enough to warrant a stand-alone article. All the information about the changes made in the game could be added to the Street Fighter II, which they are. Jonny2x4 (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Street Fighter II has turned into a mess: this is now one article that talks about seven different games. Each of these games easily meets notability criteria, so why are we insisting on shoveling them all into one article when they could exist on their own (even if only stubs until more information is available about each game)? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Read my suggestions for improving the Street Fighter II article at Talk:Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge/Redirect We aren't insisting on shovelling all the games into one article but there is no point in even having the article, all the information covered in the original article Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix is covered into the merged article Street Fighter II. Also if you decided to split Street Fighter II article into seven separate ones you will end up restating duplicate information over and over again. --Sin Harvest (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment The SF2 article's listing for this game looks like this:

Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix

Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix is an upcoming title on the PlayStation Store and Xbox Live Arcade download services. The game is based on Super Turbo, but with sprites and backgrounds replaced by high-resolution artwork drawn by UDON Comics, and remixed music is also in development.[5] HD Remix is currently planned to include two game modes: an arcade accurate version of Super Street Fighter II Turbo and an upgraded version of the same game with over 100 changes from the original Super Turbo. Other features will include[6]:

• Online and offline multiplayer
• A training mode
• Voice chat
• A 'Quarter Match' mode which allows players to spectate and jump into online matches
• Worldwide rankings and leaderboards arranged by character and country
• Indepth statistics tracking
• A display mode that fits the game into a 16:9 aspect ratio without impacting gameplay
• HD 1080p display for HDTV's

Now compare that to a single 3 page interview about this particular game. Representative? In this interview a member of Capcom's online doohicky says "We’ve been reading our forums a lot, of course, and one of the overwhelming request is, “We want an HD Street Fighter.” There are obviously some costs associated with the art in creating such a thing—it’s not a cheap project—but it’s a project that’s worth pursuing to bring Street Fighter at least a bit more current than it has been. I think Hyper Fighting,” when you look at it, as good as a game as it is, when you play it on an HDTV, it does look like an arcade game from the ’90s. It’s not a bad thing…but we wanted to see what an arcade game…what a 21st Century Street Fighter would look like. This is a step toward that." That's just two sources, never mind the inevitable deluge of reception information that's going to be coming. A little list of a few changes is not going to cover this subject. Someoneanother 16:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The SF2 article listing is exactly the same as the article being nominated, if the article was expanded with information from the interview (and doesn't just redundantly repeat what is already been said) then yes I would keep but as it doesn't contain any information that isn't already covered in the SF2 article than I don't see why it shouldn't be redirected. Also I would like to point out that the excerpt of the interview that you have given doesn't contain any new information anyway, everything that was said in the excerpt has already been covered by the SF2 article.--Sin Harvest (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You're missing the point: we don't delete notable articles because they're too small, we either tag them as stubs or we expand them. Imagine if Abraham Lincoln were on AFD because it were too short: would you really vote to redirect/merge that into something else "just because" even though the subject is clearly notable on it's own? The game isn't even out yet and we're already trying to force this into an article it doesn't even belong in.. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The current state of an article is of much less relevance than potential when it comes to AFDs or merging. Subjects shown to be notable aren't flushed down the crapper if sources appear showing that the subject is in fact notable. By the same token, if sources demonstrate that enough information is available to stand an article on its own two feet, why merge it and restrict the amount of room available for expansion, or to be undone again when it is expanded? That big interview came out 2 days ago, but was predictable enough. Enough development info is out there already to enable the article to hit GA or A standard, once reception information is available. What's gained by merging? Except for losing the infobox? Expansion happens, referencing happens, let it happen. Someoneanother 01:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: If you guys think that the SF2 article is too big, why not move the ports section into a new article or delete it altogether ? Doesn't look as big now, hum ? Master Bigode (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That's a fine suggestion but a separate issue, IMO, from whether or not this game is notable enough to warrant it's own article (again noting that we do not merge/redirect simply because an article is too short). As to information being duplicated in Street Fighter II, really Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix info has little reason to be included in that article at all. There ought to be a link at the end to spinoffs/updates where individual articles can better explain what's new/different, as well as how those changes were made and why (not to mention anything else). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "noting that we do not merge/redirect simply because an article is too short" actually Wikipedia:merge says "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there." of course I agree it is contentious to say if the article is not expandable within a reasonable amount of time. --Sin Harvest (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Of course it's unreasonable to expect the article to be very long considering the title hasn't even been released yet. There's opportunity for expansion even now, but once released, there's even more opportunity. Merging this would likely inhibit expansion (because the parent article is already large and unwieldy, adding more won't make the situation better). You'll also note I didn't say anything about the likelihood of expansion in my original comment (I personally believe it is very likely this article will be expanded, especially as the game is released and immediately thereafter). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge - This information is better presented in the parent article for clarity, avoiding fragments, and reading ease. User:Krator (t c) 08:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge - This is not to say that the XBLA version is not notable, but that merging will help improve the quality of both this and the SF2 article. The amount of "new" stuff in the HD version is sufficient to include as one or two paragraphs on the main SF2 page. This approach is done with very good results (eg avoid repetition of information and a more concise read for the viewer) for other XBLA games that are HD remixes (see Rez, for example). --MASEM 15:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The one thing that won't happen is improvement of this game's coverage, merging doesn't react to the volume of sources available and which are going to be available, it ignores them completely and relegates it to being a footnote. Most releases via virtual console or XBLA will indeed require nothing more than a few additional lines, in Rez there's a quote that it is "100% the same game". Rez was released on CD formats and is a relatively recent title, this is a re-jigged game which was seen originally on cartridge formats, before the idea of competitive play via the internet was around. Repetition of information is not what an expanded article on this game would focus on, it's what's changed which is garnering interest and the subject of all these sources. It's more comparable to The Orange Box and the individual articles for games featured on it. Street Fighter II should be a series article, the developer of this one referred to it as the sixth SF2 game, that's what's wrong with the current arrangement. A main article covering all the basics along with a few sub-articles to slot the different games into would allow all the articles to actually improve. In short, WP's coverage of this should not be skewered for the sake of following through a broken article arrangement, if readers don't want the extra details they can look elsewhere. Someoneanother 02:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Sorry but the Street Fighter 2 series is not comparable to The Orange Box which contains five different games, three of the two games concern the Half-Life series with the other two games completely unrelated, as such a simple list and/or short summary cannot describe the differences between the games. Street Fighter 2 series of games however are similar to each other with (descriptively) minor changes between each incarnations which can and has been displayed in short list and descriptions. I once again repeat that the information provided in the article Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix is already in the article Street Fighter 2 almost word for word yet the article has not blown into an unmanageable mess.--Sin Harvest (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Street Fighter 2 is a mess, end of story. It's a mess because so much loosely related content is forced into one article. There's simply no need to merge all those articles together, let alone this one (which is as different from any of the titles preceding it as you're going to get). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • It is a mess based on what? The article has an overview section detailing the original game, next is a character table and after that each subsequent version is listed with its differences as its body. Also the article is not overly long the Street Fighter II is roughly only 4600 words in comparison the Mathematics article is 4394 words long, the Final Fantasy article is 4747 words long and Rome: Total War is roughly 6600 words long. As well as this it has been discussed in a previous merger proposal (it is recent) that the Street Fighter II article is about to undergo a rewrite.--Sin Harvest (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the central issue here is whether or not this is a new game or a port. Ports should be merged in a single page while a new game should have it's own page. Consider whether the relations between the original and the HD remix are closer to that of Puzzle Fighter and it's update, or closer to LOZ: Four Swords for GBA and it's Gamecube version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonglove (talk • contribs) 05:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC) — Dragonglove (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]

I would say neither it is a remake with new content similar to Counter-Strike Source and Counter-Strike. --Sin Harvest (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep: The potential of the article reaching a larger size due to expanded information on the development process has me feeling this should be a separate article. - Liontamer (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.