Talk:Characters of the Silent Hill series

Judge Holloway, Children killing parents, Alex's name

I just want to address my removing much of a recent edit. First, Judge Holloway, while having some similarities to Dahlia, is very different. For one, Holloway doesn't want to believe in the Order's religion at all. She said herself that it was all about family. All she wanted was for Sheperd's Glen to be spared from the Order, like her ancestors, which is why she wanted to work with them to get a hold of Alex. Yes, she's driven, much like Dahlia, but her motives are different.

I don't get where we have a "theme" of children killing parents. There's only the one example of Alessa killing Dahlia, and even then, whether or not it was actually the Incubator/Incubus who did it is uncertain. Furthermore, I'm unconvinced it was the children who killed the parents. Certainly, there are connections between the monsters and the sacrifices. Sepulcher came out of the earth. Scarlet was a doll. Asphyxia, in addition to the name itself, was choking itself with some of its hands. Still, Bartlett's claim to Sepulcher that he was "just trying to serve you" makes it more likely that it's the malevolence of Silent Hill that is killing the founders, and SH just has a lovely sense of irony.

Lastly, is it REALLY that important we note that Alex isn't short for anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CyricZ (talk • contribs) 01:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Characters of 4 and 5?

Why the articles of the characters of 4th and 5th games are removed? We had articles for Henry, Galvin and Walter, where are they? Ali Nazifpour (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Ali NazifpourAli Nazifpour (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess the people here still think that SH4 is non-canon despite no proof to that at all.-Control9000 (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason why the characters of SH4 do not have articles is that they are not notable, because there is no information on their design process; the same applies to the characters of all other installments, except SH1, SH2, and SH3's, whose design process is described in Lost Memories, a guide book published by Konami with the Japanese version of SH3. Hula Hup (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It sounds biased to me. Fanboys and girls. ~21stcenturyanon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.31.10 (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

the articles

damn it i don't understand some characters in here should have their own article why did you people erased it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.93.114 (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No real notability outside their games. The ones that remain are, for the most part, recurring characters integral to the series. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. You guys sure did the wrong thing. It thins Wikipedia down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.47.230.38 (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Silent Hill character page edits

Last night I made some edits to the page that I really felt were appropriate. For instance, I added a mini character synopsis for the characters on Silent Hill: The Arcade. I took them right from the wiki page. When I checked this morning, they were removed completely.

I made an edit to Alex Shepherd's mini bio and mentioned that he may be related to Mary Shepherd-Sunderland (James' dead wife) from Silent Hill 2, which is also found on the Silent Hill 2 wikipedia and that was removed. I believe this is important to point out because it bridges a connection between older and newer games in the series.

Lastly, I added an additional section for Silent Hill 8 with a character profile for the main protagonist and that was removed.

I can maybe understand SH 8 being removed because it is currently in development, but having the bios removed for Silent Hill: The Arcade, which again are all mentioned on their wiki, seems ridiculous when you consider that there are written acceptable bios for characters in Silent hill series that didn't even make an appearance in the games seems ridiculous.

Could you please tell me why they rejected and what I can do to make them approved?

Citrullonj81 (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi and welcome.

I don't know why your edits to the Arcade section were removed. Have you tried asking the editor who removed them?

The idea that Alex might be related to Mary is speculation. Possible, but speculation. If you can find a reliable source that says Mary is related to Alex, then you can add it back in. A list of reliable sources especially for video games can be found at the video games Wikiproject page. Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Change of page type

Since there seems to be no info on the design of most of the series' characters, with the exception of SH1, SH2, and SH3 characters, whose design is described in Lost Memories, and inadequate info on the characters' reception, maybe with the exception of SH2 characters, I propose the conversion of this page from a regular article to a list. Sections on the design and reception are essential in a regular article and should primarily refer to the characters as a whole, which cannot be accomplished due to the lack of info, so making this a list, as lists don't require such content, could be a solution. Hula Hup (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I could be hideously wrong, but I think it's already a list. Now I'm wondering why even have a list/article? All the character info (which seem to be a rehashing of the plot) could be put in the parent articles; it's not like there's enough real-world info out there to make them stand-alone articles. Shadow of the Colossus is a great example of an article that incorporates the character info rather than spin it off into another article. And lists do need design & reception sections too; take a look at this featured character list. Kaguya-chan (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I just realized that you're right about this already being a list. I thought it wasn't one because at the top of this talk page only WikiProject Fictional characters categorizes it as a list and not WikiProject Video games too. I had no idea that lists also require sections on design and reception, I thought they just list. I don't have much experience with lists. I hope what I said above hasn't been misunderstood; I didn't propose the creation of individual lists of characters from individual SH games (i.e. List of Silent Hill 3 characters, List of Silent Hill 4: The Room characters, List of Silent Hill: Origins characters etc.), besides that would be insane. If I misinterpreted what you just said as "Kaguya-chan perceived what I said above as a proposal to split this list into individual lists of characters from individual SH games", the reason is that I'm exhausted again and cannot work effectively. So, you suggest deletion of this list and move of its character info to the respective video game articles? If all this content is moved to the respective articles, then the plot sections will be filled with excessive trivia and will exceed the word limit by far. But neither can this list stay as it is, because there isn't enough design and reception info. Hula Hup (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries, and don't stress yourself over Wiki. Take a break if you need one. I'm suggesting a merge (not really fond of deletion, by the way) with proper attributation and the addition of brief, yet complete character outlines (1-3 sentences of occupation, age, and brief backstory) in a charactor subsection to the parent articles. As for trivia, I don't see too much of it. Having the character's ages and occupation can be helpful to the reader in understanding. Perhaps I'm overlooking something? I'm imagining a section similar to this. Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not stressing myself over the project, I was tired because of the time. :) According to WikiProject Video games, plot sections should not contain trivial details. You have mentioned in the past that occupations are inappropriate for the plot section. Since design info on the characters of SH4, Origins, Homecoming, and Shattered Memories doesn't seem to exist, what about (if enough reception info can be found, maybe a collage like the one I mentioned in the bottom of this; design info is available in Lost Memories, though I'm not completely sure if it's enough for SH1 [for SH2 we also have the making-of DVD, I think there's also a making-of DVD for SH3 or I'm wrong?]) changing this list's name into "List of Silent Hill, Silent Hill 2, and Silent Hill 3 characters", in the same fashion with List of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow characters? Hula Hup (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the SH3 making-of DVD, I was referring to this. I only recently encountered these videos. Hula Hup (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Good. Mental health is very important. ;) So I have written that. Hm, well I was wrong. Perhaps I should elucidate. For the charcters, I think listing occupations would be helpful, as a writer would react differently to being trapped in a scary, foggy world, than say a soldier, no? Plus, it gives some implicit insight into their personalities: Harry's a writer, not a soldier, doctor, fireman, clerk, etc. It seems to suggest that he has an introspective personality. But now I'm off-topic. Honestly, the comments on the monster list really made me reconsider the character lists, and I think that it would be best to merge the page, and add a brief character subsection to each of the articles (an example of which would be Shadow of the Colossus), instead of keeping the massive character list. SH1, SH3 & SH2 are only linked by setting: SH2 has no other connection to the other two games. If there should be a list, it would make more sense to me to have SH1&3 together as they share characters, plot arcs, & setting. Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

When the instict of survival activates, I believe everybody, whatever their job might be, reacts similarly, i.e. grab whatever can be used as a weapon and try to defend themeselves; a writer could probably be more introspective and, e.g., less brave than a soldier or policeman, but this is relative, there are also nursery school teachers who are very brave, if you come to think that they can handle situations where pupils are being naughty little devils who need to be tamed. :P So, I believe that passing subconscious messages like this to readers contravenes the neutral-point-of-view policy, which is one of the 5 core policies, because people of specific occupations indirectly get labeled as being "something". The inclusion of occupations in Shadow of the Colossus is a mistake, in my opinion, as I believe it contravenes WikiProject Video games' instruction to not include trivia in the plot, which is particularly bad for a featured article.

SH2 has some other connection, other than the setting, to SH1 and SH3 (but even if SH2 had no connection at all with SH1 and SH3, it still wouldn't be a criterion to support exclusion of the SH2 characters from a potential list, as lists do not require absolute connection between the individual works of fiction to which the characters belong, which in this case are video games, or between the works of fiction themselves; belonging in the same fictional universe is enough, as far as I know); there is one more staple element that connects the 3 games, the cult's religion, as Lost Memories says: [1], [2], [3], and [4] (in links 3 and 4 there are mentions of connection between PH and Valtiel, who is an important figure of the religion). Although in SH2 the religion has a much smaller presence, it still exists in the game, both in the main scenario and Maria's sub-scenario. What about calling other editors to participate in the discussion to raise consensus? I personally disagree with both merging the info into the games' articles and converting this into a "List of Silent Hill and Silent Hill 3 characters", for the reasons explained above, though if I had to choose between the 2, I would say the second option is better. Hula Hup (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Good example. Nursery school children can be really scary. In fact, I believe that was the focus of a horror video game... My rambling point was that, for the team, it was important to make him a writer. It is not a subconscious message at all. It is part of his characterisation, and his official description of his character (as I remember). I think that having the opinions of others would be very helpful in determining what to do next. :) Besides, it's always nice to see what others think. Kaguya-chan (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that including his occupation in the plot could be perceived as an indirect passing of certain, let's say stereotypes or whatever, for example that a writer is a more intellectual type of guy or that a soldier is more like a brute, tough guy. Maybe I'm wrong that it could be seen as an indirect violation of the neutral POV policy, I'm just listing it as a possibility. Even if it was important for the team to make him a writer, it still is trivia, I'm very afraid (maybe it could be included in the "Development" section, I don't know). So, I'm calling people who have participated again in discussions on issues of Silent Hill-related articles, to give their opinion. Feel free to call people yourself, too. Hula Hup (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this will help, but after reading the above really quickly (and after being invited again to participate here), is there a possibility that how some of the plot is written is contributing to NPOV problems? It's not uncommon, when writing about fictional elements, to have difficulties maintaining that outside perspective and keep the plot sections as what they should be – summaries of the plot; when you dwell on trivial elements, then it may be a good sign that the plot summary is becoming more of a book report than anything.

Of course, that doesn't mean don't mention any trivia, but just keep them in their perspective. --MuZemike 19:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

To MuZemike: It's not that the way this trivia is described is POV, it's that the presence of this trivia in the plot could be perceived as labeling and passing of stereotypes. I'm not against their inclusion to their respective articles, I just believe (at least, in Harry's case, and only if his occupation was indeed important in the development process, as Kaguya-chan said [we need to find a source for this]) they belong to the "Development" section, not to "Plot".

To Kaguya-chan: Whether the protagonist is a writer or a teacher or an electrician doesn't make any difference to the plots of SH1, SH2, and SH3, because the events depicted in these games aren't tied to the protagonists' occupations. Homecoming, on the other hand, is an exception: the game begins and ends with the protagonist in a hospital operation room; the "Plot" section should explain that he's a soldier returning from a war, otherwise readers won't understand the relevance between the beginning and one of the endings, which shows that the events depicted in the game were a dream, something which alters readers' understanding and interpretation of the game's plot. If we find a source to support the importance of Harry's job in the development, then this info should go to "Development". Not to mention that WP VG forbids the inclusion of trivial details (as I said above, I believe that in SH1, SH2, and SH3's case, the protagonist's job is a trivial detail). About this list's content, I believe a compromise would be the best solution, don't you agree? I suggest that we follow your idea to only include SH1 and SH3 characters. My view that SH2 characters should be included, too, because no absolute relevance between the works of fiction to which the characters belong to is needed (as far as I know, of course), is known, but, it's OK, if there's to be consensus. Furthermore, Characters of Silent Hill 2 is just content forking, as it repeats content already present here, with little extra information. Merging it here would be the best option, in my opinion, as I think there's no point in having a whole different article for just an installment's characters. Ideas? Hula Hup (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I also support that the Characters of Silent Hill 2 article should be merged here. But, somehow, we need to tag these in order for a merge discussion to take place. Any comments or objections? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

There are merger templates in both articles. Whether people will participate in the discussion is another story, which, as far as I can tell, is quite bitter, as none replied to a previous call for discussion here, about a couple of months ago. Hula Hup (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me get my thoughts in order. I agree with Hula Hup's compromise about the Sh1 & Sh3 character list.Although being an electrician in Silent Hill would be very useful, I think. Or a locksmith. However, I support the merge of the SH2 characters to the SH2 article, not this article. I think that this current page is a redundant, confusing rehashing of the plot (which does nothing to deepen the reader's understanding) and that the character sections would make more sense as a subsection in each of the parent articles, and not scattered across another page: eg. SH2 characters with SH2, SH4 with SH4, etc. As for editors participating in dicussions, well, we can't really do much about that, can we? So, there's no point in worrying about something out of your control. Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, nothing would compare to a psychiatrist, which would be the most profitable job in that universe.:PThis list's purpose is to inform about the characters, not enhance readers' understanding of the plots of the games the characters belong to. Not to mention it would be such a pity to let all this info contained in the treasure called Lost Memories, as well as in the SH2 making-of DVD, go wasted. SH2's characters have the biggest coverage on design (although with the recent discovery of the SH3 making-of DVD, SH3's rival them). In addition, the plot section of the main SH2 article would be crammed with trivia. Including a "Characters" sub-section in each SH game article's plot section would only increase the already exceeded 700-word limit with brief things that can be explained in depth here, where no such limitations exist. It's not worth it, in terms of both word count and quality, as the plot section would be exceeding the limit and the info would be inadequately presented. Since there isn't a policy (again, as far as I know; if there is one, feel free to show it) requiring total relevance between the works of fiction from which the characters who are a list's topic come, I'm very afraid that the point that SH2 isn't as linked to SH1 and SH3 as SH1 and SH3 are to each other is not enough. If a policy requiring total relevance is found, then we can, of course, although sadly by my side, follow the suggested compromise. Hula Hup (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

One more reason I can't see any good reason to merge the content of this list and the content of the SH2 character list into the main game articles is that a potential list of SH1, SH2, and SH3 characters fulfills the notability criteria: there are adequate first- (Lost Memories and making-of DVDs) and third-party (the collage of quotes mentioned earlier) sources. Also, Pyramid Head belongs here, as he is a SH2 character; just basic info here, details in his main article. Shall we proceed with the merger of the SH2 character list here? If I still haven't convinced you, I'd like to know it please. Hula Hup (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year!Okay, you've convinced me about the SH1-3 character list—only because there is plenty of nonplot info. (I still don't see the purpose of this article, as it's just plot info.) Do you know where the 700-word limit came from? I looked at the project's guidelines and the Manual of Style, and I can't find it. Kaguya-chan (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Um, you confused me with the hyphen and with "this". Agreement for a SH1 and SH3 character list or for a SH1, SH2, and SH3 character list? By "this" I suppose you mean List of Silent Hill characters, the article to which this talk page where we are discussing now belongs, right? If you suggest deletion of List of Silent Hill characters and creation of a new list from the beginning, this is time- and energy-consuming, we can much more easily merge the content of Characters of Silent Hill 2 here and change the title of this list (by "this" I mean List of Silent Hill characters) so that it is in accordance with the content. Don't forget that a large portion of SH1-character info already exists here.

There used to be a clarification somewhere (I think in the Manual of Style you cited, but I'm not entirely sure), saying that the limit is 700 words, but obviously someone has removed it. I should apologize for my awkward stance; I initially agreed with the compromise, but then I rejected it, because I thought about it twice and realized that since sources with real-world info on all 3 games' characters exist, such a list fulfills the notability criteria. I may had forgotten to immediately explain the reason for changing my mind. Hula Hup (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The hypen between SH1-3 was to shorten it, because I didn't feel like typing SH1, 2, & 3. Are you talking about the 'em' dash between "list—only"? That's to emphasis that my decision to support the creation of SH1-3 character list based on info other than plot. The "this" refers to the list of SH characters. Hopefully I'll make more sense. Let me see if I understand your suggestion: SH2 character list gets merged here, and the page covers the characters of SH1-3 only (And has a name change to better reflect that?) as they are the ones that have notability? I agree with that idea. And don't worry about changing your mind. It's far better to carefully consider something from all sides, than to blindly stick to one point of view. Kaguya-chan (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the hyphen between 1 and 3. Yes, this is what I propose. So, I proceed to the merger of the SH2 character list, removal of the SH4, Origins, Homecoming, Shattered Memories, and Downpour characters, and renaming of the article. I think the correct title is List of Silent Hill, Silent Hill 2, and Silent Hill 3 characters. If you'd like to suggest another title, please, besides, this can be changed easily (although I think this is the correct one). I believe we are before what is going to be a really nice article. Hula Hup (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. I haven't merged the lead and "Analysis" sections of the SH2 character list, I leave their fate to you. I'm not pretty sure what to do with "Analysis"; merge it in the corresponding characters' sub-sections or create an "Analysis" section here, too? Do what you deem best. May I suggest this image for the article's lead (it needs to be cropped, though, to remove the irrelevant characters and the logo depicted)? It portrays all the characters covered in the list in one picture. Hula Hup (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Amazing work, as usual! (And you found a picture! I'm no good with images, so you might need to go see the graphics lab if you need any help with images. The editors there are very helpful, but as it would be a fair-use image, there may not be much they can do with it. I'm not exactly sure.) I'm really fond of the Analysis section, so I'll think about where best to incorporate it. Yes, I have high hopes for this article as well. The title is a little too wordy for me, but I can't think of a more condensed title. I'll see if anyone at the Horror project can. Kaguya-chan (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, you're giving me courage. I've made a crop request at the graphics lab, as you suggested, and added a size reduction tag on the image's page. I haven't added a caption to the image, for obvious reasons. Nice catch on the copyright violation, I'll start removing links to "Translated Memories" from other articles too. Hula Hup (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Quote box color

So, I noticed that red is currently being used on the quote boxes for SH1 & SH3 sections. For me, that color makes the quotes very difficult to read, and looking over WP:Writing better articles#Using color sparingly, I began to wonder if red is such a good idea as it is a powerful color typically used for warnings. (It may also be a cultural thing.) Also, now with the recent merge and changes, it clashes with the blue of the SH2 ones. I think it would be a good idea for the colors of the quote boxes to be harmonized, perhaps using a color softer and easier to read. Ideas? Kaguya-chan (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right, color changed back to default. Hula Hup (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"Design" section

The character design content in Lost Memories is already present in the "Development" sections of the SH1, SH2, and SH3 articles. If we add it here too, this list's "Design" section will only repeat the main articles' character design content. If we remove it from the main articles and add it here the main articles' "Development" section would be shrinked much. Maybe substitute all the details in the main articles with generalized info and bring the details here? For instance, substitute the current part on the character names ("Cheryl Mason's first name is based on actress Sheryl Lee's first name, and Lisa Garland's surname is taken from actress Judy Garland. "Michael Kaufmann" is a combination of Troma Studios producers Michael Herz's and Lloyd Kaufmann's first name and surname, respectively. Alessa's original name was "Asia", and Dahlia's was "Daria", based on the first names of actresses Asia Argento and Daria Nicolodi – Argento's mother. Harry's name was originally "Humbert", and Cheryl's was "Dolores", in reference to the protagonist and title character of Vladimir Nabokov's novel Lolita") with a phrase like "The names of the SH1 characters have been taken from various celebrities". This issue has troubled me. Hula Hup (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggested sources

For "Reception": [5], [6]. Hula Hup (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

More for the same section: [7]. Hula Hup (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

More of the same: [8]. And insight into the altered ages of some Shattered Memories characters: [9]. Hula Hup (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the SH3 making-of DVD in text, for anyone willing to expand "Design" or correct the content already present in the section. Hula Hup (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

A source for "Design" that should be added after the section is expanded to include info on the voice acting. Hula Hup (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

SH1 characters

Due to lack of sources on the design (only Lost Memories has some very minor info and that's only on their naming) and reception (almost no review praises or criticises them) of the first game's characters, I believe the article should only be about SH2 and SH3 characters, for whom adequate design and reception material exists. Should I proceed to the removal of said content? Hula Hup (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I understand your concern. Personally, I feel that the character lists should be merged in with their main game articles. I feel that it would be better to have one thorough article for each game that provides an adequate summary than to have everything scattered here and there. This way, we would not have to worry about inadequate material. Skimming through the SH reviews, I saw a little bit of material, but not really enough. I'm also thinking of the deletion of the SH monster list, and how the community felt that the list was unnecessary. I feel that having a character list of SH2 & SH3 characters, who have completely different storylines, would be incredibly difficult for someone not familliar with the series to understand. Especially considering that SH3 is a sequel. What do you think? Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Since the policies permit the existence of a stand-alone article if enough real-world info exists (a fulfilled requirement), then why should we move all the stuff in the main articles? I don't see a good reason for disregarding a rule simply because we consider the result inconvenient. I support following the rules even if we totally disagree with them. If the content was only minor then I'd surely advocate its merger into the main articles, but it's adequate to constitute a separate article. The deletion of the monster list was the result of people's unawareness of the rule said above and perhaps prejudice. I made the fatal mistake of proposing it before checking the adequacy of sources, which I tried to in the midst of the voting, after I had realised my error, but it was too late as recalling a proposal for deletion is not allowed, AFAIK. I'd love to resume tracking more sources, though, at some point in the future.

Differing storylines isn't cited by any rule as a reason not to create an independent article. Heather and Claudia's roles in SH3 are already mentioned, so the solution to the resulting gap between the plots of SH1 and SH3 after a removal of SH1 content would be briefly explaining in about two and a half lines that Claudia's scheme is a continuation of the same scheme from SH1: "Heather is the reincarnation of Alessa Gillespie and Cheryl Mason, underage female characters from the first installment. Prior to the latter's events, Alessa was subjected to a ritual which impregnated her with the deity worshipped by the Order. Due to the girl's resistance to the ritual, her soul was bisected; one of the halves was a baby Cheryl, who was found abandoned and then adopted by Harry and his wife." Given that one major task would be out of the way, the list's preparation for GAN would be much easier. Most of the SH3 character design is covered (only the voice acting stuff is missing). The remaining difficult tasks are the expansion of the SH2 character design and of "Reception". The lead and the biographies sections are fairly easy parts, only needing some minutes to be expanded. I can continue looking for reception sources. With cooperation and organisation, the article could be submitted in some weeks. We now have the experience of two GANs (!). Hula Hup (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. I don't consider the result inconvenient, but something I feel would be a real hinderance for the readers. To me, the content found is minor (three sentences or so of reception that could be merged easily & a paragraph added to development). Perhaps that is where we disagree. :) While I don't want to deny the existance of bias towards video gaming, I also feel that it is very important to take into account the community's reaction. Seeing as we've already had a long discussion about this, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. :)

I agree that it would be nice to look for more sources. The second issue is that I don't think there is anything else for SH2, except the new voice work. I think your suggested lines are a good start. I would suggest these changes:

"Heather is the reincarnation of Alessa Gillespie and Cheryl Mason, underage female* characters from the first installment. Prior to the latter's** events of the first game, Alessa was subjected to a ritual which impregnated her with the deity worshipped by the Order, the town's cult. Because of her Due to the girl's*** resistance to the ritual, her soul was bisected; one of the halves was a baby Cheryl, who was found abandoned and then adopted by Harry and his wife. At the conclusion of the game, both halves of Alessa are reincarnated as Heather."

*Both names are traditionally feminine, indicating that they are female. Underage is a legal definition that I feel does not belong here. Personally I feel that giving specific ages is much better.

**"Latter", I feel, is confusing and clunky.

***"The girl's" I think can be easily replaced with her. "Because" vs. "due to" is a subjective matter, I think. "Due to" sounds clunky to me. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I've located quite a bit of unused content in the SH2 making-of DVD, as well as some in Sato's interview. Also, I've forgotten to mention that info about Pyramid Head and Valtiel's design should be added in the section, as they are both considered characters, not simply monsters. I'll look for further reception sources, they're indeed limited currently. So, moving on with the removal of all the SH1 content as we both agree on this. Hula Hup (talk) 09:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Multiverse issues

Two users have added descriptions from art director Masahiro Ito's theory. However, Hula Hup and I removed it per WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:REDFLAG. Hula Hup stated that "a development team member's theory not included at all in any official material by Konami cannot be presented as fact because it could probably be their personal view of the series' setting." Since we don't want an edit war going on here, I am opening a discussion about this here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

EDIT:

Hi, how are you. I just wanted to clarify that the reason people are wanting to edit this topic is that it breaks the neutrality parameters that Wikipedia is trying to uphold. The use of terms like "multiverse" and "alternate dimensions" are only one possible explanation for the goings on in Silent Hill, and at no point in the games or relibable supplementary material does it confirm (or legitimately deny) that the games take place in alternate dimensions. The only exception is Silent Hill 4, which seems to take place in either a pocket dimension or inside the antagonist's mind.

In short, it would just be a more accurate description of the games for there to be more neutral descriptions like the ones that were recently edited in and out. After all, no sources can be cited as confirming alternate dimensions.

- Magik Mayne

But can we find a reliable source for this? Masahiro Ito is WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:REDFLAG. Also, prsonal interpretations are considered WP:NOR. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The point is that the use of terms like "alternate dimensions" is WP:NOR. The Masahiro Ito quote, along with several others from game devs, is merely meant to explain how it breaks neutrality. The best answer is to find a middle ground, rather than take a side on the Wiki page. As you said, you want to avoid an editing war. Information from the games can easily be quoted in favor of several theories that are contradictory to the idea of multiple universes. But doing so would only create needless arguing where a simple change in wording to enact neutrality would fix all this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magik Mayne (talk • contribs) 02:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I know. I have notified WT:VG about this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. We just don't want people to misinterpret the original intent of the creators, which was always to leave it ambiguous. Magik Mayne (talk • contribs) 02:28, 4 April 2013

If you are new, I would please ask that you do take a look at the welcome page so you can learn how to edit constructively. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Good evening editors. I am responsible for some of the recent edits and I apologize if I have created any unwanted tension. Like Magik Mayne has mentioned, my sole purpose was to enforce neutrality. I am not here to start a debate, nor to purposely pursue an "edit war." I only wish to modify the current descriptions to create an unbiased summary of the events of the game. Whether the "Otherworld" is a distortion of our world, or an alternate dimension(s), should be for the reader to decide. Taylor the Impaler (talk) 04:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello editors. I am one of the users who started the "edit war," for which I apologize, as I am relatively inexperienced with Wikipedia. I became aware of the summaries in various Silent Hill entries fairly recently. For those unfamiliar with the Silent Hill games, the phenomena that occurs in Silent Hill are left ambiguous, the nature of which encourages speculation amongst players. The concept of "multiverses" or "alternate dimensions" is not clear, and is hotly debated. Therefore, to keep neutrality, all instances of "multiverses" or "alternate dimensions" should be removed from all Silent Hill 1-4 related entries. The citation of Masahiro Ito shows that a key member of the development team gives evidence against a notion of a "multiverse" - stressing the importance of neutrality, and making the "multiverse/alternate dimensions" omissions preferable. Prinn (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The possibility of including Ito's version of the series' setting has been already ruled out per WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:REDFLAG. The possibility of excluding the term "alternate dimension" is also ruled out because multiple secondary reliable sources in all SH video game articles with no exception recognise the existence of at least one alternate dimension, the Otherworld. Some of the sources treat the fog-shrouded sections of the games as an alternate dimension too and some regard it as the real world; this has repeatedly been the subject of debate on Wikipedia: Talk:Silent Hill#It's NOT alternate dimensions & Talk:Silent Hill#Protection of Silent Hill Articles from ELABORATE THEORIST Descriptions Requested (UPDATED AGAIN AND IS MUST SEE). After locating today Oxford Dictionaries Online's definition of a multiverse, I realised I was trying to introduce an incorrect term, as this would mean that the series takes place in a general realm different than ours, something totally unsupported by either official Konami material or secondary sources. I'm really sorry for the confusion that I have caused with this term. It's the second time I contribute personal point of view to the project and I would like to publicly apologise for both times. I hope I have caused more good that harm to the series' articles since I started editing them. My deepest apologies to the community. Hula Hup (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Hula Hup, I am glad we can come to a consensus about the omission of "multiverse." However, the "alternate dimension" phrase needs to be removed as well. The source cited for the usage of the term "alternate dimension" on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Hill entry, is simply in-game dialogue by the protagonist [10], the dialogue of which, does not definitively indicate an "alternate dimension" at all, and to claim it does requires WP:EXCEPTIONAL - as there are number of other plausible explanations for the phenomena described by Harry, such as psychological and perceived manifestations. Furthermore, Harry states, "Rather than shifting from reality to a nightmare, this is more like reality becoming a nightmare," which makes the usage of "alternate dimension" even more questionable. Without getting into a debate on wiki, the point is, any terminology that presume to know the nature of the Otherworld phenomena in Silent Hill is WP:NOR. In addition, Masahiro Ito, the member of the development team, has been cited in official Konami sources in the past, (ex. Book of Lost Memories) [11], which gives credence & validity to his claim, making the "alternate dimension" term omission all the more preferable. Thus, Masahiro Ito, while he cannot be sourced for anything in the affirmative, cannot simply be dismissed as WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:REDFLAG for anything contrary to his input. Prinn (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The inclusion of Ito's version of the setting and the exclusion of the term "alternate dimension" have already been dismissed according to the cited guidelines and reasons, respectively, so the problem is considered solved. Harry's quote can be replaced by multiple secondary sources, located all over the SH video game articles, supporting that an alternate dimension (at least one, the Otherworld) is the case here. Thank you. Hula Hup (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Hula Hup, but you incorrect. The idea of excluding the terminology "alternate dimension" has not been dismissed - the inclusion of the terminology has been sufficiently challenged. Whatever previous consensus reached has been disputed. To avoid users talking past each other, please provide the exact citation, where it has been corroborated by an official source, with the exact text, and post it here in this specific talk page discussion. Otherwise, the claim of including "alternate dimension" is unwarranted, and is advocating WP:NOR, because additional secondary sources can be cited against "alternate dimensions" as well. You will not find the phrase "alternate dimension" in any official Konami source, nor in the Book of Lost Memories [12]. Without citing any sources, this discussion will only go in a circle without a resolution. Prinn (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, there is no guideline requesting that sources on a fictional work's setting need to be primary to be considered correct, secondary ones are of equal validity; if I am mistaken and such a guideline exists, please accept my sincerest apologies. Please provide secondary sources contradicting the existence of at least one alternate dimension. Here are articles from, mostly, different sites and different authors which back up the existence of the Otherworld: [13] ("It's up to the player to uncover Heather's dark past by embarking on a demon-filled journey twisted out of shape between two dimensions"), [14] ("alternate world" in page 1), [15] ("parallel dimension"), [16] ("alternate worlds" in page 1), [17] ("alternate dimensions" in both pages); I will add more in the near future. Hula Hup (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

None of those sources cited are from any official material published by Konami and were written by independent authors that have no affiliation with the publishing company, nor the original development team. Your references can be dismissed per WP:SPS.

You may have mistaken our efforts. We are not denying the existence of "The Otherworld" but rather throwing into question whether it is, itself, another dimension. Alternative explanations can be found and supported, therefore breaking a NPOV. For example, here is a script from the story index of the Official Silent Hill 3 website:

"不意に、何の前触れもなく、理由もわからぬままにそれは訪れる。その平凡な幸せが、失われる。悪夢に侵蝕されたように世界は変貌し……ヘザーはその中に取り込まれてしまう。休日のショッピングモールを満たしていた幸福なざわめきは、陰湿な沈黙に変わり、聞こえてくるのは異形の生物の足音だけ。 何が起こっのか……聞きたくても、答えてくれる人はいない。 孤独な狂気の世界に取り残されたヘザーには、逃げ出すことしかできなかった。 どこに行けばいいのか、それすらもわからずに、生きるため……襲いかかってくる怪物を殺すための拳銃を握り締めて……。"

A section of this loosely translates to:

"The world is transformed into a was found into a nightmare. "

"nightmare erosion appears to be changing the world ... "

"Transformed the world into a nightmare as erosion"

This implies that "The Otherworld" is perhaps a distortion of our world, rather than the transportation to a separate plane of reality. Again nothing can be found from any official material by Konami, quotes from the development team, or in-game evidence that reveals "The Otherworld" as an alternate dimension, or in a multiverse. Therefore it is appropriate to remove these terms to present a neutral point of view of the events of the game(s). Taylor the Impaler (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty sure those are all video game reviews from critics and reviewers and aren't very reliable even as secondary sources since they're both WP:REDFLAG and WP:NOR. If those sources are viable, then an individual who was directly involved in the creation of the games should be equally viable if not more so, even if their comments could be considered WP:ABOUTSELF (since the same could be said of anyone doing a game review that is opinion based).Magik Mayne (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Hula Hup, thank you for taking the time to post your sources. However, as Magik Mayne and Taylor the Impaler indicated, the opinions of game reviewers are unreliable, as they are not an authoritative source; the virtue of being a paid reviewer does not grant them a special insight into the inner workings of the story over even the casual gamer - and especially not in comparison to Masahiro Ito, a member of the development team, who has intimate knowledge of the story by necessity as his position as concept artist/creature designer (and the thought processes required to go behind associated designs). Rather, the cited game reviews merely state the opinionated judgment call of the reviewer, which may be wholly incorrect.

Alternatively, game reviews can be cited that point to a strong psychological aspect, while terminology such as "alternative dimensions" go unmentioned. [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] While a reviewer may not explicitly state that the nature of the Otherworld phenomena being "alternate dimensions" as untrue, it also could mean the reviewers concluded they didn't attribute the Otherworld phenomena being caused by the machinations of a dog in a laboratory either :) It does infer that the inclusion of such terminology as "alternate dimension" was deemed irrelevant, or never even crossed their minds. If anything, the amount of reviews that make no judgment call on the nature of the Otherworld gives credence to the intended ambiguity of the phenomena. Contrast that with the content of game reviews such as of Chrono Trigger - time travel is an undeniable aspect of the game, will be explicitly mentioned, and no one will argue against that.

In any case, the inclusion of game reviewers are not a sufficient source for the inclusion of "alternate dimension" terminology, and the fact the so many reviews also make no case for it (as opposed to a game review of Chrono Trigger and time travel) make its omission necessary, and further supports Wikipedia's standards of neutrality. Prinn (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

To Taylor the Impaler: The articles are not self-published sources because they were not published in any books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forums, Tweeter or any of the other venues mentioned in WP:SPS as being self-published media, but on reliable websites owned by companies which are the publishers of the articles. No, no, I did not misinterpret your opinions, I understood from the beginning that you are not denying the Otherworld's existence but just questioning its nature, do not worry at all. The absence of mention of a fictitious element in a video game itself or official material related to that video game is not considered by any guideline, again as far as I am concerned, a reason for exclusion of that element from Wikipedia (as long as the element is reliably sourced by multiple sources of course, which is in this case). If such a guideline exists, please disclose it. Otherwise, the argument cannot be accepted de jure.

To Magik Mayne: WP:REDFLAG states that "any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources," which is covered in this case, as I cited 4 different high-quality sources (the fifth article is also by IGN, so it is not counted as a separate source). WP:NOR says: "The term “original research” (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist," which is also covered, because reliable, published sources for the material exist in this case. Since Ito's theory cannot be accepted because of 2 rules, WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:REDFLAG, I believe there is no point to mention it further. Since these reviews and many more reliable ones present the existence of at least one alternate dimension as fact, the supported claim can be included; it could only be excluded if they explicitly stated that the claim is personal opinion.

To Prinn: Per WP:VG/S, PC Magazine, GameTrailers, GameRevolution, and Allgame are reliable (Metacritic is reliable only for aggregate scores, as it contains links to reviews by certain unreliable sources). I am very afraid that your claims about the reviews you cited is speculation, which is prohibited in Wikipedia; Wikipedia content should be based on clear statements, not implications or supposed intended omission of facts.

I think I have covered everything here. I have noticed that all three of you have misinterpreted existing guidelines and supported certain arguments not accepted by any guidelines at all, which is very saddening. Thank you all for your time. Hula Hup (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Hula Hup, however saddened you may feel, you have just dismissed official Konami sources demonstrating an intended ambiguity of the Otherworld phenomena by the developers (a primary source), in lieu of game reviews. Logic, reason and common sense must be applied. Game reviews are not satisfactory citations, and the reviews are questionable as even secondary sources, because of their intended audience. It's essential that you understand this.

Game reviews are the opinionated judgment on the quality of a game by video game journalists. For a game reviewer to be adequately sourced for anything pertaining to the story as ambiguous as Silent Hill, they must reference - an official source (as Taylor the Impaler has done), because the nature of the Otherworld phenomena in the game is not self-evident to the player. By the very nature of game reviews, the reviewer is biased, and will give biased scoring, and an incorrect perception of complicated aspects of the story may develop from a slanted bias. A secondary source must CITE A PRIMARY SOURCE (official source - Konami) as Taylor the Impaler has done to hold validity in this case.

Game review publishers are a valid source as far as it goes when it comes citing game ratings and press releases, but they are not a valid source when it comes to establishing official canon, especially in a series as ambiguous as Silent Hill - that right lies with Konami, and the development team (primary sources). The publishers of game reviews are not scholarly presses of any sort, merely people that rate games unassociated with game companies such as Konami when it comes to establishing story canon. To value the importance of a publisher of game reviews over a primary source (Konami) is to misunderstand the order of importance.

Their game reviews are intended for an audience of consumers wondering if they should buy a game - not for people looking for neutral encyclopedic information.

A healthy amount of game reviews do not cite an "alternate dimension" as relevant to mention; it is inconsistent in importance as opposed to games where the phenomena is clear (ex. Chrono Trigger). Neutrality must be applied.

To put it simply, citing game reviews to establish story canon is a categorical error. We have not misunderstood the guidelines, but the guidelines you are going by have been been applied incorrectly.Prinn (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Hula Hup's concerns here. The three of you have unfortunately misinterpreted existing guidelines and supported certain arguments which are not accepted by any guidelines at all. We need more eyes to take a look and see what we can do to get a consensus. It appears we have reached a disagreement. Speculating claims is prohibited and it has led me to believe that one of these users is a sockpuppet of User:Fragments of Jade, obviously. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I just want to say that I don't believe we're dealing with one or several sockpuppets of Fragments of Jade, here. This really doesn't sound like her, and neither did the suspected IPs and accounts listed over there from February 16, 2012 to October 25, 2012. Let's not be hasty. Erigu (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, right. Please excuse me. I apologize if my edits ever do more harm than good. The accounts listed over there from February to October were actually Zhoban, another long-term abusive user. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I certainly didn't mean to imply your edits did more harm than good (and that other "Zhoban" user certainly didn't sound like he would be missed anyway, indeed)! I'd just like to prevent SyberiaWinx / Fragments of Jade from causing more trouble, be it directly or indirectly. Chances are she'll make other attempts (possibly quite soon, considering the recent incident), but I really wouldn't want unrelated users to be summarily labelled "sockpuppets of a banned user" because of her antics. Erigu (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello everybody, it seems this got a bit grim since last night and I apologize for that. I just want to emphasize that Taylor did post a reliable primary source that could at least create reasonable doubt as to the "alternate dimension" concept. This would in effect make use of the terminology as though it were implied fact a breach in neutrality, would it not? (Also on an off-topic note I'm sad to hear that you guys also have an abusive cyber-stalker. Believe me, I know what it's like better than anyone. Please trust that we and those in our group are only wishing to be civil and find ways to help rather than create drama) Magik Mayne (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Sjones23 for taking time to review our dispute. I'd like to remind everyone that my efforts are not in attempt to disprove anyone's beliefs, nor to assert my own. My only objective is to sustain a neutral point of view for all Silent Hill related articles, as enforced in the WP:GUIDELINES; which this multiverse and/or "alternate dimension" presumption negates. The mention of such terminology cannot be found or supported by any primary sources as well as alternatives seen fortified by these very references. Therefore I believe it would be in the best interest for these terms to be omitted from current plot descriptions to withhold article neutrality for future Wiki readers. And since I feel it is not necessary to repeat myself, I ask all whom wish to see further illustrations and examples of this to carefully (re)read the elaborations made by Prinn, Magik Mayne, and I above. Thank you for your concern. I do hope an agreement can be reached to resolve this issue soon. Taylor the Impaler (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Erigu - Thank you for your act of good faith.

Sjones23 - The basic point is that the citation of game reviews are being misapplied. Game reviews cited as secondary sources are permissible per Wikipedia guidelines when applied to the correct section (ex. Reception and Legacy - see [[31]]). Citing game reviews for establishing encyclopedic information concerning the Plot (ex. see - [[32]]) is an incorrect application, especially when used to the degree that it is overriding primary sources that have already been previously cited by Taylor the Impaler, indicating otherwise. We must think of the intended use behind Wikipedia's guidelines of secondary sources, and apply them correctly. I hope we understand each other. Prinn (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I know this is a year old, but I wanted to point out that an official source does explicitly mention a multiverse. The Silent Hill 2 making of uses the term "parallel dimension". [33] AlessaGillespie (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The narrator only suggests this, openly being a separate insinuation. This is a personal interpretation from the video script, and not a plot description; nor has relevance to the featured developers. Taylor the Impaler (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Split?

I propose splitting the article into Characters of Silent Hill 2 and Characters of Silent Hill 3' (I've dropped the list part because of personal preference, but I'm open to List of...), because they seem to really be two different subjects. Take, for example, the reception section: the first paragraph follows Silent Hill 2, and then the second follows 3 with little connection. A similar pattern follows throughout the article. I'm not going to pretend that there's no connection at all -- for instance, they were both designed by Takayoshi Sato, but I don't think there's enough to form one solid subject.

While excluding the other games due to lack of any conception/etc. information about them is a rational decision, and I think it allows for overall a better article, it does remove that focus of "Silent Hill (series) characters".

If the split is to take place though, it may be necessary to expand on the reception section; it's fairly sparse at is, to be honest. I'm fairly certain that this can be done for each game, but if anyone would prefer to wait for that to be done, I'd understand. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Question - I've played Silent Hill 2 (one of my favourite games even if it's terrifying) but not 3, are the characters/plot related in any way? As in, SH3 is a follow on from SH2? If so then it may be better to keep them together to avoid overlap. If they are different settings/characters then I would support a split. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Cabe6403. To answer your question, the characters are different (SH3 is actually a direct sequel to SH1, confusingly enough), but both games take place in the town...well, SH3 actually starts outside the town. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, in that case I'd be inclined to split the article. I don't really see why they are together to begin with. That they both take place in the town is irrelevant as this is an article about characters not locations or setting Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 12:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

A split can take place only if enough sources can be gathered for each one's "Reception". I've searched many reliable sites to little success, but will continue. Hula Hup (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's a source for the reception, concerning James and Mary's relationship. Obviously not enough on its own, but I'll keep an eye out for anything else. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Another thing I found traversing the web. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 21:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Title Change to List of Silent Hill Characters

Come On People can't you add the characters from the main installments and please change title.--Toxin45 (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC) Can't we all just agree to add all characters and some monsters to it?

I agree, it seems a little unfair that only characters from 2 and 3 get their characters listed. Bluekevlar16 (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Bluekevlar16.

There are not enough sources on the design and reception of the characters of SH1, SH4, Origins, Homecoming, Shattered Memories, and Downpour, so their inclusion is impossible. There was a lengthy discussion concerning this on this talk page. Thank you. Hula Hup (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Silent Hill series characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://coregamer.web.simplesnet.pt/sato.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100213143637/http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/silenthill/productiondiary/archives/2006/03/on_adapting_sil.php to http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/silenthill/productiondiary/archives/2006/03/on_adapting_sil.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://coregamer.web.simplesnet.pt/sato.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Silent Hill series characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111126205815/http://thegamingliberty.com/index.php/2011/08/23/exclusive-interview-troy-baker-the-new-james-sunderland/ to http://thegamingliberty.com/index.php/2011/08/23/exclusive-interview-troy-baker-the-new-james-sunderland/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100524224337/http://uk.gamespot.com/ps2/adventure/silenthill2/review.html to http://uk.gamespot.com/ps2/adventure/silenthill2/review.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Number of silent hill games

? 2001:56A:F6E5:EC00:9813:6DDD:E793:B34E (talk) 13:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)