Talk:Snake Eyes (G.I. Joe)

I ask that no one makes random changes to the formating of the main Article unless there is a good reason. I changed the formating this way as I felt it is clarifies where everything fits in. I think this formatting works well for the G.I. Joe Bios. Any thoughts?- SGETZ

Should this page be placed under a Semi Protected state to keep the formatting once it is finalized.

Who is the "many" in "many feel that Scarlett could not have survived such a wound" referring to?

-KarmaInferno (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure, I do not know where this information came from, and think unless we can cite it, this text should be removed as it seems to be speculative. Sgetz (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Image:GIJoevsTfsvolIIITPB.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

Image:Seclassic.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Image:Reloaded2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Image:Snakeeyesposter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Image:Snakesigma.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Image:Gijoe150.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Image:Gijoeae.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think someone's a little too free with that "in-universe style" tag... I see it attached to a lot of articles that go into explaining the fiction from the perspective of someone who isn't part of it (i.e. you and me). The Manual of Style says:

"An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis. The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info."

I don't see that being done here. Am I the only one?--Tyranastrasz (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article focused more on plot summary than on out-of-universe details. This article needs to be severly trimmed and rewritten. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

To really understand Snake-Eyes in all of his incarnations, you need to understand him through plot summaries. He was always one of the main characters in the comics that was truly fleshed out with a history. Sgetz (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

What is the goal of this new heading? What are the "issues" that need to be addressed? Why is this page being threatened with a delete after it has been worked on so much? Sgetz (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I do not know, I was slapped with a Vandalism for taking the tag off. I don't know why this page is being attacked but other pages in the G.I. Joe are okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.15.48 (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

No one has threatened it with deletion. However, the article is almost entirely a plot summary (hence the plot tag) of his comic and TV appearances (kudos for a start on the toy section). The article entirely lacks any evidence of the character's notability, as demonstrated by commentary from third-party sources (hence the notability tag). The article lacks any real-world information about the character's development or other real-world facets (hence the in-universe tag). These problems appear to pervade all the GI Joe articles, and hardly "okay"; this is the one I stopped to read more thoroughly and tag. I'm sure with the movie, plenty of worthwhile folks will tap their nostalgia and offer up citable sources -- this article needs them. In the meantime, though, take a look at WP:GNG, WP:WAF. --EEMIV (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

If someone disagrees with a tag, they can remove it. That isn't vandalism as suggested here In the future, when you add a tag, please state the reasons why you have added it, on the talk page straight away. Dream Focus 10:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

The thing is, the main development of Snake-Eyes is through the plot in the universe he appears. I would really like to see some more on how he was developed, but you can see the TV version developed differently than the comic version, and that can really only be developed by plot discussion. What other items would you recommend to add? Sgetz (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

• He is notable for having had 40 action figures based on him, in the many years this popular toy has been around, and having been featured in cartoons and comic books. You can be notable, without having to be mentioned in the press anywhere, or meeting any of the suggested guidelines. Dream Focus 00:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

• I don't dispute that he's notable; I'm just saying the article doesn't make the clear case for it. Lighten up. Go find some sources. --EEMIV (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am very confused. There is quite a bit talked about here as to why he is notable from his appearances as a figure, and him in comics and TV. However, he is a Fictional Character, so it is not like we have first hand interviews with him. He was also created by a Toy Company as a generic character. It was not until Larry Hama worked on him in the Comics that we actually had a character. Much of the stuff on this page is cited. I vote that this tag be removed because the reasons for its use have not been made clear, and the person that posted it has no clear information as to why this should even be here. I think if anything, this discussion needs to be brought to the G.I. Joe pages, not just on this one page for Snake-Eyes. I see people coming here and wanting to learn about the history of the character after they see him in the movie, not caring if he is notable to have a wiki article. What sources do you want people to put here? If you think they exist, why aren't you adding to this page, instead of just slapping tags on it? 74.71.15.48 (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I second removing the tags until someone makes a clear case for what is wrong with this page. I have edited the Snake-Eyes article many times, and have added as much as I could to add to the history of the character. Only thing I see that I want to add is cross link this with the Scarlett page for the relationship as well, but that is about the only big thing I can see needing. Sgetz (talk) 03:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Let me try to say it again:

• Plot tag: Just about everything outside the "A Real American Hero Toy history" section is a regurgitation of plot minutiae. Please see WP:PLOT, WP:IINFO -- it looks like this article attempts to offer an exhaustive catalog of Snake-Eyes' appearances, and goes into excruciating detail on many of them; really, it isn't necessary.
• Notability: The article comes close in that it presents the merchandise list. In fact, if you want to remove the notability tag, fuck it; go ahead, but please fix the lead to assert notability there.
• In-universe: Generally goes hand-in-hand with WP:PLOT. The non-merchandise sections of this article read like some sort of character bio, which is unencyclopedic. Please see WP:WAF. This article lacks entirely any discussion of concept, development, critical reaction, etc.

Until these concerns are addressed, the tags should remain. If your efforts are insufficient to improve the article, perhaps they will attract the attention of other editors. The seemingly defunct GI Joe WikiProject would probably be better served to expand these tags to the other character articles -- most of them are as in-universe and plot laden, with even less real-world merchandise information and a similar absolute lack of third-party reaction, as this one. --EEMIV (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

• How do tags attract more editors? I see tags on articles remaining there for years, most people just ignoring the meaningless things entirely. And why would you need a third party reaction? The character sold very well, thus getting his own comic book, and a rather large number of toys over the years. And if we eliminated anything that wasn't really necessary, the article would be rather boring and short. Anyway, I agree with the others, the notability tag should be removed, you the only editor who has thus far stated it should be there. Consensus is clear in this case. Dream Focus 10:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

What is this "Third Party Reaction"? I am very confused by that concept. Snake-Eyes is a Toy that went on to be a character in a Cartoon and a Comic book. But, at the core, it is a toy. What this article does well is it shows how he is very different in his Original Cartoon Appearances, and how he evolved from the nameless black suit to being a star in comics. I think one thing that could be added for the figure history is how he was mistaken for an enemy in some of the international markets. Other then that, I am not sure what else we can do to make this different. 74.71.12.22 (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Read WP:WAF, which has been linked several times in this conversation. --EEMIV (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why is it that the episode's Snake-Eyes appears in is no longer valid? They were cited, and in a way helpful if you wanted to know where he appeared. 72.237.4.150 (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Needless trivia. If something important about snake eyes happens in them, incorporate the context/events into the article (or use them as citations to verify plot summary -- there's so much of it...). --EEMIV (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

How do you expect to attract new editors when you go about deleting things without any reason. You give your opinion here that it is needless trivia, and you delete it. I find it hard to add to something if people go about deleting it because they feel it is unimportant. 72.237.4.150 (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you take a gander at WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:WAF and follow those guidelines, you'll be fine. It took me a while to figure out the basics of writing about fictional subjects, too. After all, this is the kind of cruft I used to fire up (take a look at the article history). I'm sure you'll figure it out. --EEMIV (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Weird. In Resolute, Snake-Eyes was called Storm Shadow. Looks like there was a mix-up. 76.179.24.20 (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

When/where? I don't remember him being identified by name in the "current" time frame, and the flash-back scenes I'm pretty sure he was consistently called "Snake Eyes" those few times he was identified by name. --EEMIV (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was referring to the animated movie, G.I. Joe: Resolute, where for some odd reason they call him Storm Shadow, which, at first I thought was fitting, but that was because even though I think that it's cool I didn't know that much about it. It perplexes even me. They call Snake-Eyes Storm Shadow and the actual Storm Shadow remained nameless, identified only as his sensei's nephew. 76.179.25.148 (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

They refer to Storm Shadow by name when they said he sabotaged their aircraft carrier and killed Bazooka. In the flashback though, I don't know. They might've made a mistake. Dream Focus 18:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid I don't see a good reason for including a detailed description of the trailer; unless this trailer is for something other than the 2009 movie, I don't understand why there would be a separate section for the trailer. Other sections don't have blow-by-blow action descriptions, just simple summaries, and I'm not clear on what makes this section different. It seems to give undo weight to this relatively brief bit of film to me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've asked several users about this and say its ok i had it as movie plot but some IP kept deleting it their it shows what we know of the person so far The Movie Master 1 (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why can't it just wait until the movie is released and a plot summary is available? That would save the effort of rewriting the article, and avoid having a less-good version in place until the movie's release. Wikipedia is not the news, so there's no requirement of instant but partial information -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

It cant wait because its info you can discuss this with the other project members as well ans I know Wikipedia is not news its an encyclopedia which is supposed to say this stuff and it will be updated as we learn more and as I said before I;ve already aked for opinions of other G.I. Joe wiki members and they agree it should be left The Movie Master 1 (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Normally, that discussion would happen here; can you link to the other discussion? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I got your message, but I'm replying here; as you can see, it's easier to keep discussion on the article talk page, so others can participate. I see the discussion on your talk page now, but of the two people who responded, one of them said that there shouldn't be a separate section for the trailer, and the other said that we shouldn't use information from the trailer, but wait until the movie plot is available. Of the people you polled, the only one who responded also said that this material shouldn't be included at this time, and another person chimed in to agree. That makes, as far as I can tell, 0 people who agree with you that this information should be included, and 6 who think it shouldn't. Are you sure, with the discussion that has happened so far, that you want to continue making this edit? It is against the consensus that exists so far. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

They both said it was fine, Just the header should be different than 2009 film The Movie Master 1 (talk) 23:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's a good idea to have the section at all, but because the section was restored after I removed it, I offered the compromise of calling it "film trailer" instead of "movie plot" as it was originally called in this and other G.I. Joe articles. BOZ (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I do not see any reason to have a section that describes every time we see Snake-Eyes in the Trailer. Sometimes, Trailers show scenes that do not make it into the movie. I do not see any reason to have this mentioned in this article, unless you can show me where it has been done before on other Wikipedia Articles. Sgetz (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I deleted it a long time ago as several people said it shouldnt be there The Movie Master 1 (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is being discussed on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_G.I._Joe to set up the name convention for all pages in the project. As the first and most subsequent release of Snake Eyes have been named Snake Eyes without the dash, I think the page should be renamed accordingly. Also, to fit the G.I. Joe character part, this page should have the (G.I. Joe) attached to it. Anyone see a reason why it should not be moved, or should it be named something different? If no one has any problems with this, I would like to move the page in August. Sgetz (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Support - Once we have the conventions page set up, assuming the (G.I. Joe) tag is made policy, we should be able to have a speedy move done on this.--Ridge Runner (formerly known as Flash176) (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, this page would have to be a (G.I. Joe) no matter what, because there is already a Snake Eyes Page. I also looked at the most recent Intel from Hasbro's site, and it again names him Snake Eyes, no dash.Sgetz (talk

• I support it and tried to rename it, but found there is already a page by that name, which redirects here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snake_Eyes_(G.I._Joe)&redirect=no An administrator will have to do it. Dream Focus 19:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

• The original was called Snake Eyes. Is there anywhere at all his name is featured with a hyphen? I think someone made a mistake years ago when they made the redirect, and no one ever noticed and bothered to fix it. Dream Focus 19:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think it was because some of the file cards called him Snake-Eyes, specifically V2. But, that just became the convention of naming throughout this page. Sgetz (talk

• Remember to sign all of your post. I posted at the administrator request area [1] and the name has been fixed. Dream Focus 20:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have overhauled the comic series information as Hasbro has officially disavowed the DDP series and is now using a new series by IDW Publishing to continue the original Marvel run. I have cited the information in my changes. Please comment and make changes accordingly. Please do not restore the previous version as this is the new direction from Hasbro. Sgetz (talk) 04:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Should be trimmed at least a bit. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Still very overdetailed. It would be great for a wikia, but in Wiki there's this article size thing for readibility because of limited average attention span of general audience. Same goes for the other article too, of course. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I can't see it here, maybe it's elsewhere. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Cool discussion bro. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

The point is, that your edits have been reverted several times by more than one editor, but instead of trying to come to a consensus here on the talk page, you continue to just change things back to your POV. This edit warring has been going on for months, it is not constructive to Wikipedia, and it disrupts progress towards improving the article. Furthermore, edit summaries such as: "this is how it should be written on Wikipedia", border on claiming ownership, and when you state "if you have some reading attention problems maybe Simple English Wikipedia would be more for you", that is a personal attack, and goes against WP:CIVIL. The first couple times that your edits were reverted, you were given the benefit of the doubt, but this type of editing is not helpful or constructive, and can actually be harmful to Wikipedia. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Snake Eyes (G.I. Joe). 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 //joeguide.com/interviews/larryhama_ci.shtml

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

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

While 30+ years of depictions across many media, Snake Eyes name is normally never given. However, in a Transformers vs. GI Joe comic book last year, they depicted a full name for Snake Eyes. I've now tried twice to insert this information, only to have it reverted both times, most recently with a note that what I was including was "non canon.".

I'm not aware of any policy on Wikipedia that says that information about a fictional character must be restricted to only what is considered canonical, especially if the information (canon or not) is from an officially licensed depiction of the character.

How can this information be noted in the article in a way that will be acceptable to other editors?

Wingsandsword (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I see a problem with including it more or less as proposed. Pinging User:Fortdj33 for his views on this. bd2412 T 19:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Since the information was introduced in the Transformers vs. G.I. Joe comic book, it could be included with references in the Comics section, as long as it is noted that it's non-canon. But IMO, it doesn't belong in the overall profile of the character. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

That sounds like a reasonable compromise. After all, using a "Witwicky" name is sort of a Transformers inside joke. bd2412 T 15:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Snake Eyes (G.I. Joe). 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://www.hasbro.com/gijoe/default.cfm?page=News%2FItem&newsid=CA8EAF8A-D56F-E112-4866E9438261EDFA
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121009020642/http://www.mania.com/toy-maniac-retro-review-gi-joe-real-american-hero-nes_article_116894.html to http://www.mania.com/toy-maniac-retro-review-gi-joe-real-american-hero-nes_article_116894.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://joeguide.com/interviews/larryhama_ci.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110830121711/http://www.ugo.com/tv/tv-worst-speakers-snake-eyes to http://www.ugo.com/tv/tv-worst-speakers-snake-eyes
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110209092600/http://www.ugo.com/tv/silent-killers-snake-eyes to http://www.ugo.com/tv/silent-killers-snake-eyes

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I need to bring this up since IP address 47.232.201.144 is deleting info for no reason, since there is no picture of him at the moment, he needs to be described what he looks like and it's simply a fact that Snake-Eyes is a Caucasian male with blonde hair and blue eyes as it was shown in the comics. (G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero #93)[2] (G.I. Joe: Scarlett: Declassified) [3] Deleting that info doesn't just somehow make it not true.108.208.137.192 (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

It has been proposed in this section that Snake Eyes (G.I. Joe) be renamed and moved to Snake Eyes. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

• Snake Eyes (G.I. Joe) → Snake Eyes
• Snake Eyes → Snake Eyes (disambiguation)

– Would like to say that Snake Eyes is a popular character in the G.I. Joe franchise, so i think he should be renamed to Snake Eyes because he is notable. Toby2023 (talk) 04:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply