This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Should we put a limit on the creation of articles for unreleased games? For example, Black Mesa (game mod)'s only possible claims to notability are 'unreleased mod' awards for three years running from one web site; so it's clear not much has happened besides a bunch of screenshots (might want to check the NFCC about those anyhow...) So my question is, like unreleased films, should we redirect articles which are currently in development but which fail the GNG as well? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes i agree. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The Black Mesa mod's notability goes a bit further than a few unrelease awards, it has received some significant coverage in from the magazine journalists. They've scanned some of it onto their site. Its coverage should mean its able to build a half-decent unreleased game article, although I don't know how much can be said for online coverage pass ModDB though. However, when an article's unreleased status means it cannot grow much beyond something like what is currently in the Black Mesa mod's article (although as I've said, I think the Black Mesa article can improve beyond what it is at the moment), redirection is probably a good idea. -- Sabre (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Notable is notable. Something that's unreleased, even vaporware, can be notable. Something that's released can be non-notable. I'm not sure what a release really changes, except making it more likely to reach notability. Randomran (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I no this is always coming up but i just want to clear this up to avoid the 3 revert rule or whatever because of a little problem over at Metal Gear Acid. So User:Jonny2x4 believes that a 209px cover is better then the previous one of 256px because "That cover art is too large and distracting compared to mine. 255px is merely the limit, not the requirement.", however i thought that 256px was the preferred size and that would allow for consistency. So i thought id bring it up here to see what you guys think. Salavat (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently, in all the different video game infoboxen, artwork can be displayed at up to 252px before it begins to stretch the box from its default size. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 06:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Preference is POV, and if there is no other basis for the size change, it should be left as it originally was. Plus, while the image handling code allows for downscaling by removal of detail, it obviously cannot do the reverse. It therefore cannot hurt to have higher resolution images, but the opposite can be harmful if, for example, the standard size changes in the future because everyone has a 1600x1200 desktop. So even if the dispute over the displayed size is valid, the smaller image file is redundant. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

So what your saying is that the 256px should stay and if User:Jonny2x4 wants it to be 200px sized in the infobox he should just have "Image:Metal Gear Acid Coverart.png|200px", instead of uploading a new image at 209px? Salavat (talk) 07:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the WP:Image use policy states as a rule of thumb: "Upload a high-resolution version of your image whenever possible (unless the image is being used under fair use; see Fair use considerations for details), and use the automatic thumbnailing option of the Wikipedia image markup to scale down the image. MediaWiki accepts images up to 20 MB in size. Do not scale down the image yourself, as scaled-down images may be of limited use in the future." The majority of box cover images are small enough to fall within the fair use considerations mentioned. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the input. Salavat (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to state again that 252px is the maximum size for the infobox not to be stretched, not 256px. Also, should uploaded images be scaled down just enough to be below "high resolution" so that a reason for the resolution does not have to be stated? I have seen images that are over the .1mp limit, but still say "low resolution". MrKIA11 (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Another question, since 252px is maximum without stretching should we now change the guidelines? Salavat (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if true. The documentation for ((Infobox VG)) still says 256px. If this is incorrect, it should be updated. Aside from the instructions on the template, I don't see that there is an actual guideline (Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines), so it may be worth creating one -- I think it would be prudent to have a size guideline that is independent of current technical limitations. If we feel that 250px is a good number, let's just say so (and not worry about how many pixels get left over as the infobox code changes). Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed the documentation to 252px. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a concrete (.1mp) limit on resolution. IANAL, but in general, I think resolution can be downplayed for cover art since it does not give away any part of the actual product (game). The question of whether resolution is too high is intended mainly for works of art such as paintings and photographs, for which a high-resolution image could be used as a substitute for the real thing. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the infobox template has changed the left over pixels arent as important anymore. So in regards to 250px, it would make more sense as it is a more simple and straightfoward number. Salavat (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is a reason for resolution to be important, in our case if the resolution is high enough to be nicked off Wikipedia to be used to print the cover to make pirated copies of the game. I gotta dig up the guidelines somewhere... Chan Yin Keen | ^UT_C 04:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I simply upload all cover art images at 256px, since I'm not using them any larger, though they might be used as thumbs and thus smaller. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

As there are many discussions happening on Classes right now, I thought I'd show you all the options.

Unassessed

Image

Temp.

Cat.

Dab.

Redirect

NA

Needed

Portal

List

Stub

Start

C

B

GA

A

FL

FA

Currently there is work being done to add full functionality for Template, Category and Dab to Template:WikiProject Video games (see the talk page). While I don't see a need for Redirect, I would like to add Image and Portal. This may seem excessive or unnecessary, but using all of these NA tags (and appropriate categories) would be ideal for maintenance. Instead of digging through all the subcats of Category:Video games, there would be a single Category:WikiProject Video games categories (of which there are many). This would save NA for internal WikiProject pages (like this one). I'm sure most of you have seen User:Giggabot on your watchlists in the last few days running template maintenance. Jobs of this sort would be much easier with these tags available. I am bringing this up here A) to make sure that such tags meet a majority approval, and B) because I am not an admin (nor do I have any knowledge of template code/sorcery), so I am relying entirely on others to make these changes for me. Some others have previously discussed dislike for the idea, but I truly can't see these tags as getting in anyone's way. Thoughts? JohnnyMrNinja 07:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As I asked on the template talk page, couldn't these classes be automatically detected by the template without users or bots having to manually assess them? With some conditional command and ((NAMESPACE)) I think it could. Kariteh (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This would actually be ideal, as many have templates on them already (Template:WikiProject Video games already has itself on it). Any "Image:Whatever" would automatically be tagged "Image". Also on the talk page, it was asked whether this all met consenus, which I'm making sure of here. Especially, any article in "Wikipedia" namespace automatically being classed NA, and saving NA for internal project pages. JohnnyMrNinja 08:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

To further clarify, while these classes exist on Wikipedia, they are not fully implemented in our project. I would like them to be. JohnnyMrNinja 08:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I made a sandbox version of the modified template at User:Kariteh/Sandbox (with placeholder texts instead of real categories). In that version, pages that belong in the "Image", "Template", "Category", "Wikipedia", or "Portal" namespaces can't be assessed since they're automatically categorized. Regular articles, disambiguation pages, redirect pages, needed articles must still be assessed manually, and they're properly categorized when it's done. For instance, transcluding ((User:Kariteh/Sandbox)) here gives: ((User:Kariteh/Sandbox))((-)) (un-transcluded Kariteh (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)) And it's automatically categorized in the category JohnnyMrNinja made without having to type "class=something". Kariteh (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Fully support implementing the other classes into the template, and very much in favor of having it classify things automagically for things like images, wikipedia space, etc. --PresN (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone oppose removing Redirect and Needed? Can anyone see these getting actual, maintainable use? JohnnyMrNinja 15:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think that redirects are even supposed to have talk pages (unless it was a previously an article, but I'm on about specifically created redirects here) so they are kind of unnecessary. For example, it would make sense to have it on something like this, but not this--.:Alex:. 18:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the only purpose of redirect-class is to clog up my AWB lists, because they're in mainspace. Nifboy (talk) 04:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any clue what this means, but I agree completely. Redirect-Class sounds like a hassle that nobody really could use. As I don't want all redirects to have templates, I don't think any should. As it appears there are no serious problems for the project with these changes ([[User:PresN|PresN = consensus), I'll move the rest of the discussion to Template talk:WikiProject Video games, as they are more relevant there. Thanks to Masem, PeterSymonds and Kariteh for the work they have already done. JohnnyMrNinja 05:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Should there be seperate articles for Overlord (1990 video game) and Overlord (1993 video game)? The latter is concerned exclusively with the NES port of the former, and the primary author of it has left his thoughts on why he isn't in favour of a merger on the talk page. I would also propose that the title (at least of the former) should be Supremacy (video game), as this was the original European title of this Probe Software developed game; "Overlord" being a rename for the US release. Miremare 19:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say the latter is best served as a section in the former. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

On the article Criticism of World of Warcraft, Nezu Chiza has removed the same content from the article, where cited criticism that has been reported by multiple reliable sources has been removed (diff [1]). Please note that this same criticism can still be found in the main article of World of Warcraft, as it was a key criticism that has been levelled against the game. Although long term plans for the Warcraft Taskforce are to eventually remove the criticism article entirely and incorporate the information into the main article, I feel that this removal of wellsourced information concerning. The editor has since specified that they will continue removing the content from the article [2]. As I have no desire to enter into an edit war with this editor, I would like to establish consensus on whether these actions are appropriate and what should be done to progress forward with this article. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 20:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for leading me to that article because i think it should be merged with Warcraft (series).Gears Of War 21:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

We're looking at merging it with World of Warcraft, although some of the content can now be found in Maressa Orzack. The controversy was quite widely reported, targeted against WoW and I feel justified for inclusion. At this stage though, I'm asking for feedback in the behaviour - I don't feel that the wholesale removal of reliably sourced information from articles is appropriate without discussion first. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 21:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

My problem with this addition to the article is that the source quoted has been shown to have MADE UP her numbers with no research beyond having read a message board, and a supporting source pointing out that the initial source made things up. Between that and the knowledge that addiction isn't misusing the game, I don't see how that point fits under that particular section. If you really want a badly sourced claim in the article, put it somewhere other than Misuse. It doesn't fit that section even at the best of times. As a side note, I don't see how an unverifiable claim made by someone can be considered a verifiable source. Unless you mean we can verify she lied about the numbers, in which case it's being used in a false manner to support claims that it actually contradicts. Nezu Chiza (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

We run on verifiability, not truth. It's clear she does research in the field of addiction, and that she claims that 40% are addicted. Her claim comes from an email out of a forum. That she used made up numbers though has no bearing on whether it should be included or not. What does have bearing on its inclusion is whether what is reported is verifiable. In this case, she said X% are addicted, and we can verify she said that. If she wants to say anything and people pick up on it, it's verifiable. It's not exactly truthful, but it is very much verifiable. You've also got the other view that she didn't make that percentage based on an actual study but based on opinion. Again, verified. There is no undue weight since both sides have been covered. The gist of it is not whether game addiction has become a real problem or not, but that you have an expert in her field who considers it a problem, has made her voice known, and everyone picked up on it. Whether she comes out with actual information that supports her view is another thing altogether; all we should care about is that events happened and in this case, she decided to say 40% are addicted. The only thing that would seem not neutral is the whole article itself, which I hope will properly find its way into the WoW article or wherever suitable. Chan Yin Keen | ^UT_C 04:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the end goal of the cleanup work - to move a lot of the criticism into the main body of the WoW article and balance it thereIt's a work in progress though, and it's important not to lose anything while the work is carried out. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 12:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have put the article up for a merge. If anyone has a problem please contact me on my talkpage.Gears Of War 13:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The main article is already fairly long. Is it really a good thing to make it longer? Ratfox (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well how about merging the article with Worldcraft?Gears Of War 16:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

...what? I'm assuming that you didn't look at the article you're linking to :) --PresN (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ratfox: We just finished spinning out the longest section, so at the moment, we're focused on shrinking said section, as it is the longest, and probably the unwieldiest. Once that's done, we can enlarge the reception and criticism areas. --Izno (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay them we shall do this(sorry for talking in the form of old language I'm playing Viking Battle For Asgard), we can take only the most important facts of thou article and moveth it to thee Warcraft article.Gears Of War 18:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right. When I said it should be merged with Worldcraft, I meant to say Warcraft. A simple spelling error.Gears Of War 20:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC

← Copied from the talk page in question: I'm in favor of condensing the article down, per Wikipedia is not a soapbox. "Criticism of" articles are rarely more than just well-written bitchfests about what's wrong with a particular game or technology. There have definitely been a few real, notable scandals/problems with WoW that have had far-reaching implications on the MMO genre as a whole, but gripes about software instability are almost never notable, unless it's a case where the company was caught installing malware on people's computers, etc. There's a lot in this article that could just be tossed, as far as I'm concerned. And it may very well be that once the unsuitable stuff is tossed, what remains would be much easier to merge with the main article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I encourage Nezu Chiza to leave the issue and let Gazimoff continue his work of implementing the long term plans, which would dissolve the article as KieferSkunk rightly advocates above me. User:Krator (t c) 21:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

When i looked for Wolf Team here i only got info about some company im going to work on the videogame soon ok any support on these well just reporting --201.210.224.38 (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The peer review for Adriatic campaign of the Napoleonic Wars, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 00:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on The Final Fantasy Legend somewhat, and I started tackling the design section, but have a peculiar problem: the US version completely omitted the credits saying who did what for the game. However I do have a transcription/dump of the japanese text which has the credits intact, available here: http://xb_lim.at.infoseek.co.jp/gbffl1/serihu6.htm Unfortunately haven't been able to translate all of it. The best I've been able to ascertain is the following:

Akitoshi Kawazu - Scenario director, game design
Nobuo Uematsu - Composer, Sound Director
Hiroyuki Itō - Scenario Director
Takashi Tokita - Scenario Director, Character Design, Graphics

Adding to this Hirokazu Ishii is mentioned on japanese WP as scenario but I didn't turn the name up through what I translated there. Either way I could really use some help overall translating the credits so I can cite for sure who the men were behind this game. Hope somebody can help.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Starting from the top of the credits:

• Concept: Nobuyuki Hoshino
• Game design: Akitoshi Kawazu
• Development: Keitarō Adachi
• Programing: Takashi Oki
• System program: Naoki Okabe
• Battle program: Keitarō Adachi
• Scenario staff: Kōichi Ishii, Hiroyuki Itō, Takashi Tokita
• Cartography: Kōichi Ishii, Hiroyuki Itō
• Graphics: Ryōko Tanaka (background), Takashi Tokita (sprites)
• Character design: Takashi Tokita
• Sound: Nobuo Uematsu (director), Keitarō Adachi (programing)
• Effects: Nobuo Uematsu, Takashi Tokita, Masanori Hoshino
• Composer: Nobuo Uematsu
• Director: Akitoshi Kawazu (scenario)
• Work: Square

--十八 04:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Philcha and I have done a lot of work on the 4X article in the past few weeks / months. We had some great peer reviews to guide us. Right now, we're trying to prepare for GA status. The main thing is doing a few more copy-edits, and formatting the references properly. We'd appreciate a fresh pair of eyes on the article to make the writing style more clear. (Although making sure the statements match the research has been an ongoing concern.) Thanks in advance. BTW, this is my first attempt to push a B-class article to GA status and would appreciate any further insights or advice. Randomran (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Im willing to help with the article.Gears Of War 19:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The article, especially the prose, needs a lot of work before FA is remotely possible. I did a little review ;) User:Krator (t c) 21:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

4X Update

Thanks a lot for the help and feedback guys. The article has progressed rapidly over the past day. I could definitely use some help with the prose. I'm good at research, and precise technical language. Writing is not my strength. Randomran (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a nice little pleading to head over to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Myst III: Exile and leave your comments, since its essentially dead otherwise and I hate restarting noms... :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've not worked on a video game article before, so I was wondering if there's an experienced editor around who could have a quick look at the article. I could use some pointers on what to include/what not to include at this stage. Also, there's a lot of cruft being added, and I'm not sure about the notability of Dead Space (comics), which is basically about marketing material for the game. Any help would be much appreciated. JMalky (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw there was a request for a boxart for Dead Space, since there is no official boxart yet, I will just add the game infomer cover that had dead space as a cover story.Gears Of War 14:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

See my reply on the article's talk page.JMalky (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:FFIII has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Kariteh (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Would any interested parties please input on the categories for discussion page, as they are being considered for renaming. JohnnyMrNinja 02:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The Article in question violates WP:GAMEGUIDE, and WP:TRIVIA. It also doesn't cite any sources, and is full of bad grammar. I suggest a good old fashioned cleanup for this article. --SWJS: The All Knowing Destroy All Humans! Nerd(Cortex Scan) 07:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I dynamited the worst of the game guide. It's a start. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops)

I'm having a minor dispute at the Lair (video game) article over whether to include information about a demo that was released exclusively in Asia - Hong Kong being the only english-language release of it there. My argument is basically that while Hong Kong is english-speaking, it's not notable as a video game region (where NA/AUS/EUR/JPN are). This kinda leads into the article guidelines for release dates too, which state that english-language releases should be included - is a Hong Kong release notable enough for inclusion with its own entry? Thoughts? Fin©™ 18:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If there was only one demo released for the game, then I believe it's notable regardless of where it was published. It would go in the Development or History section. As for the infobox, I don't think release dates for demos ever appear there. Kariteh (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Kariteh on this point; the main reason it's an issue is because it's in its own section, because the article does not yet have a proper History/Dev section. I'd suggest renaming it to History/Dev in order to encourage people to add more general info, and then it would be less of a sore thumb. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

While it is in the best interest of the reader and the project to stick to coverage English Language releases, if something happened out of English-influence it can still be noted, provided it is relevant and interesting. If a demo was only released in one area, it doesn't really matter what language they spoke there. Keep in mind that Japan isn't an English-speaking country per se, but Japanese releases get plenty of coverage here. Also, the release of a demo only in non-primary market is in itself novel. JohnnyMrNinja 08:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Cool. Obviously Japan isn't an english-speaking country, but it is a huge videogame region, so it's easy to see why there's often japanese info in aticles. Hong Kong is more a grey area. Kariteh, I actually meant full game releases in the infobox, not demoes - like Gran Turismo 5 Prologue. Any thoughts on this? Fin©™ 08:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the demo info is relevant and HK an important region. By the way ™ is lying HK is not the only region with this english language demo since it was released first in south korea. Hk is important since HK people are likely to use the English language wikipedia (remember this is not wikipedia for england). In other hand i don't think JPN is considered relevant in the english language wikipedia even though japanese users are likely to use the japanese wikipedia not the english one. to my best knowledge main game regions are JPN, NA, EU, AUS/NZ, ASIA (includes HK, SING, TWN) and SK. Synchronicity I (talk) 08:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

for your information GT5P is not a demo but a full release, you know like halo 3 is supposed to be a HD game. by the way HK is an important market, with some japanese releases sold only in Japan and HK (renamed "Asia edition"). Synchronicity I (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I am of course not lying, I just assumed the south korean version was in Korean. I do believe this discussion should be over notability, not the language of the country. Like I pointed out on Sync's talk page, India and Pakistan are both english-as-a-primary-language countries, but any video game releases for them are not included. Also, the same logic cannot be applied to Japan, which is a huge videogame region (though JPN releases shouldn't be included in the infobox if that's not the country of origin, and generally, articles do not contain any Japanese information for non-Japanese games). Fin©™ 08:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've no idea what the first point of your second paragraph is trying to say. If Asia editions exist for games (and they are severely different), I'd say that's probably notable enough to be included. Fin©™ 08:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

since everyone but Fin agree to conclude HK is a relevant English-language market, it fits to the English Wikipedia and the info about the English language Lair Trial Version is important i'll revert Fin's removal of Lair demo. thanks everyone. Synchronicity I (talk) 08:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Em, what? I just agreed when replying to Johnny. I've reordered and renamed it per the actual consensus. Also, no consensus has been reached on whether HK is a notable market, consensus was reached that the demo was notable enough for inclusion. Thanks! Fin©™ 08:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Errr... Now I'm being called a vandal for editing the article to include a dev section per Ham and Karieth above.... ? Fin©™ 08:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've grown somewhat tired of this. Oftentimes, I have to deal with this, because people, in their attempt to prevent a move from their ideal article, they pull that card out of their sleeves. Because of the industry's set-up, Googlehits are skewed towards North American names when discussing disputes between different regions' names. For instance, Another Code: Two Memories came out in Europe and Australia months earlier, but is at Trace Memory.

All I can say is - in the case of Brain Age, Brain Age 2, Trace Memory, and several other titles, they're ONLY there because of being North American titles. Because of this bias, I think that these titles are not stable, because they weren't there for a good reason, just regionalism. Now that PAL titles are used more often because of stronger enforcement, any suggestion that these articles are stable at these titles should be erased, and we should actually discuss which title is better based on the evidence, not "it's been stable, we don't need to move it". If the reason it was there in the first place is faulty, I don't think it's stable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree to that. The primary arguments I've seen for article naming (and overall style) have been:

1. Wikipedia is based in North America (United States), and thus should use American naming conventions and linguistic styles over those of the UK.
2. Article titles should be based on the "best known" title available (disputable because of regional differences).
3. Articles should be named in English (first and foremost), and then after the first title under which the game was released.

Each of these has a problem. The first one enforces a regional bias based on the location of the Wikipedia servers, which isn't really a valid argument in my opinion. The second one is too subjective - it's hard to form a consensus on what title is the "best known" - it'll just lead to regional arguments that almost invariably turn uncivil. And the third one proposes that we use the first-known title of a game, even if that title is totally obscure and hardly anyone would recognize the game by that title. (As a fictional example, "Peter Pepper's Hamburger Factory" might have been the first-release title of the game much more popularly known as Burgertime in all regions - it would be incorrect, IMO, to title the article by that first name. Similarly, our article on Pac-Man is not called Puck Man, even though that's how it was first released in Japan.)

So which of these do we go with? Or do we go with any of them? Is it a case-by-case thing? How do we decide on this and come to consensus on it? Enquiring minds want to know. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we have to devalue the policy's usage, basically. It shouldn't be excluded, but in the examples I provided, I seriously think that the only reason they were moved to their current targets is bias towards those targets (all of the articles I mentioned were at the original title initially - that is, Brain Training for Adults, More Brain Training from Dr. Kawashima: How Old Is Your Brain?, and Another Code: Two Memories. People are basically able to end a discussion by citing that policy. However, like I said, the articles were only there because of bias, and now that we've repaired much of the bias in the project, we should reevaluate what should and should not be at the NA title. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, 'Article titles should be based on the "best known" title available' is the general rule on WP, but it needs to be combined with 'Use English'. Of course it's often hard to know what's "best known" (I guarentee many many people in the US haven't even heard of a Megadrive while at the same time own(ed) a Genesis, as a for instrance), but from all I gather, a mix of 2 and 3 IS what one should be worked toward. Being released first shouldn't really be an issue at all. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

LTTP, you've set up some nice straw man arguments then had a lovely time of beating on them.

Contentious moves on Wikipedia and regional English disputes are generally handled this way: the status quo prevails unless there's a pressing reason and a consensus to change it. NA vs. EU titling is a perfect example of this; both the NA and EU titles, covers, etc. are just as reasonable for a game originally developed and released in Japan. If you want to make a case that a game that fared better in whatever region belongs under that region's name, fine, see if you can convince people. If you want to make a case that a game's first release region prevails, fine. If you can't convince people, do a little bit of assuming good faith instead of beating on the tired systemic bias horse.

In the meantime, I stand staunchly opposed to creating a WP:CVG-specific way of handling contentious regional differences in titling, images, etc. in the name of preventing illusory biases. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The project is already strongly tilted towards North America, and this needs to be fixed. The pressing reason is that the people who moved to those titles in the first place ignored the status quo. And like I've said, the problem is that people won't be convinced because they do not want to be convinced, and hide behind the "status quo". If one title blatantly fails to trump the other in any regard, THAT is what I would call unstable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

the problem is that people won't be convinced because they do not want to be convinced, and hide behind the "status quo".

If you're convinced that there's a a conspiracy against you, give up now and go away.

When you're prepared to assume good faith, we'll be here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

So you chose to summarily ignore the first half of his message which was the potential that someone moved an article before, thus ignoring the original status quo? Chan Yin Keen | ^UT_C 01:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's false and had been refuted before, but I don't mind clarifying.

The article was moved from its Japanese title to the NA release title in February 2006. Barring a May 2006 move that added an exclamation mark, the page was untouched until LTTP tried to move this in Feburary, got reverted, and couldn't get consensus. Now he couldn't get consensus, then moved it anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, after reviewing the history of that, the other Brain Age title and the dark chronicle title I'm inclined to agree that moving the pages again and again is a fruitless and pointless endeavour. I can't be stuffed what the article is called, as long as the article properly mentions all the names of the game. If most of references call it an orange, call it an orange. If most call it an apple, call it an apple. Little need to flip flop over what we feel should be the title. Chan Yin Keen | ^UT_C 05:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The possibility that there may have been some bad contentious moves biased for NA (can we have some examples?) does not mean that bad contentious moves should now be made policy. The proper course of action in dealing with bad moves is to have them reversed, on the exact same grounds provided. There is no actual bias here, the policies can and should apply both ways, regardless of which direction it's going in. Link's argument in these discussions is that if a game sells more copies in EU vs NA, it has the same inherent relevance to Europe as the European Union, or in the opposite case, the same inherent relevance to NA as the American Civil War. (These are the examples given by WP:ENGVAR). Trying to equate sales figures of a video game to the nature of these topics is, to me, absurd (using the very British, Monty Python sense of that word). More than that, to defy WP:COMMONNAME he also argues that it's not just absolute commonality but proportional importance -- that is, even if the NA title is more common, the EU title should be used if the game was better-received there, i.e. the title of the article should be decided by sales figures and which country gave it better reviews, a novel argument which I neither agree with nor is supported by any guideline. I have yet to see a proposal to rename a EU title to a NA one on these grounds. Yet somehow he manages to accuse others of regionalism if we should contest a poorly-justified move proposal that appears to have little other purpose. Even if the moves occurred, they would still be equally controversial, which is the whole point of the "stable" name issue. We don't want to get in a situation where people are constantly moving or proposing to move the title back and forth -- that's what an "unstable" article is, one that requires e.g. repeatedly changing redirects and pipes and such. If the current title, albeit controversial, is one of the front-runners, it should be left as-is. The guideline does not say or mean that the title encourages stability, it means that we should try to maintain stability by discouraging controversial moves. FWIW, if we seem a bit blase with respect to Link's arguments, it's because we've already been through all this, excruciatingly, on the proposal discussions. I don't plan on repeating more of that than I already have. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

1. The three I just gave? Another Code was released in Europe first, and yet was moved to Trace Memory anyway.
2. That's very easy for you to say - especially when I DID reverse the one move I was immediately aware of, Brain Age 2, and wasn't going to wheel war with someone (who didn't even provide an edit summary in one of his moves). Opposing biased moves was impossible back then.
3. Yeah, that was my only argument. In addition to that, up is down and black is white. Brain Training had and has more marketing - which is not sales, it is EXPOSURE to anyone watching television or reading a magazine - and we've established the games' influence.
4. Defy? You brought up common name in your favor because of blatantly skewed Google hits - "oh, Brain Training is too vague, so we'll make it extremely specific, while we use Brain Age". You compared "Brain Age", the most common name for the NA version, to "Dr. Kawashima's Brain Training", definitely NOT the most common name for the PAL version. The Google hits with "Brain Age" +Nintendo versus "Brain Training" +Nintendo are 300k higher for Brain Age. That is not a substantial difference period, let alone when you consider that there are many, many more video game websites based in North America than PAL regions. The fact of the matter is that most coverage of Brain Age that you'll find on Google is old - not so with Brain Training.
5. And the term "Brain Training" is instantly recognizable to most anyone, while looking at Google, taking the Nintendo out of the search returns the exact same hits - it's exclusive to the game, and so the only people who understand the term are those who have played the game.
6. The only people who would find it controversial are the people who are the cause of the problem of this infernal bias.
7. I don't see how one can misspell "blatantly lying" as blase (wrong é). Yeah, because despite having never mentioned reviews, that was actually a point I presented!
8. The fact of the matter is that Ham Pastrami, you are blasé because you don't have to deal with fixing the bias that screwed up these articles. We should treat this problem like any other problem - erase it. Would it kill you to actually argue any point because "oh hay it's already stable". - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

ALTTP, that last stepped over the line. Please cool it; I would advise any others who have previously been in this discussion to take it easy on the accusations; Link isn't the only one guilty of uncivil remarks on this page. The sarcasm can definitely go. --Izno (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You need consensus for change to happen, the "stable article" argument is made by editors who feel that the argument for change is not strong enough. It's not like you'll be able to get rid of it, as onus is on the instigator of the change to make the argument for it, and there'll always be those who are unconvinced. I've been involved in a few page move disputes and the view I take echoes Melodia's above. You'll see the "stable article" card played in other areas too, such as British vs American English disputes. - hahnchen 19:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay last time we disscussed when to make new articles in the GH series. But now I have some questions about the Mass Effect series. Many things were announced and few days ago, but the future of the Mass Effect series was announced. Mass Effect 2 and 3 were announced(in a way) and it is posted on IGN and Gamespot.(see the request for articles M)We already have a Mass Effect 2 article, but at what point do we decide to continue on the series and make a Mass Effect 3 article.Gears Of War 18:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Having a profile page on a games website is not a reliable source for inclusion, I think, as until it's confirmed by the publisher it's still speculation - though until there's an actual press release, it can still be unreliable (Call of Duty: World at War was initially claimed to be on PS2 during an investor conference call but it turned out not to be). Generally, until there's a definite confirmation from a publisher, the page shouldn't exist - rumours can sometimes be filed in a "Sequel" section in the prequel's page, but that varies, depending on quality of rumours and such. Don't forget to keep WP:CRYSTAL in mind. Fin©™ 08:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

How's it going? Is it delivering what you were expecting? Thoughts, gripes, comments? To keep the discussion all in one place, could you respond here please? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay last time we disscussed when to make new articles in the GH series. But now I have some questions about the Mass Effect series. Many things were announced and few days ago, but the future of the Mass Effect series was announced. Mass Effect 2 and 3 were announced(in a way) and it is posted on IGN and Gamespot.(see the request for articles M)We already have a Mass Effect 2 article, but at what point do we decide to continue on the series and make a Mass Effect 3 article.Gears Of War 18:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Having a profile page on a games website is not a reliable source for inclusion, I think, as until it's confirmed by the publisher it's still speculation - though until there's an actual press release, it can still be unreliable (Call of Duty: World at War was initially claimed to be on PS2 during an investor conference call but it turned out not to be). Generally, until there's a definite confirmation from a publisher, the page shouldn't exist - rumours can sometimes be filed in a "Sequel" section in the prequel's page, but that varies, depending on quality of rumours and such. Don't forget to keep WP:CRYSTAL in mind. Fin©™ 08:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I swear I'm almost through, but what about using ((Future-Class)) for article assessments? It was originally designed for WP:FILM for upcoming movies, and has since been adopted for several other projects. Could we benefit from using a Future class for upcoming video games? I could see the advantage, in that an article could never be complete before the game is actually released, as much of our real-world content is reception, reaction and sales. Most development details aren't available before the article is released either, and often-times much of the plot. Content in the article is likely to drastically change after release, so a pre-release rating seems somewhat redundant, or even unfair. Thoughts? JohnnyMrNinja 05:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't find future class that useful. I think we can easily rate articles as stub (or even start in many cases) before the game is released. A lot about the plot and other details is released ahead of time before the game actually comes out to stores. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

((future game)) serves essentially the same purpose, and development hell can sometimes complicate things (Personally, I think the Duke Nukem article is stable enough for GA). Nifboy (talk) 08:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No need for this class. Nifboy and Rob covered everything I could say about it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Using this class to say "it isn't out yet, so we can't assess it" seems like an admission that the article shouldn't be there in the first place. Articles on future releases can be guided a few notches up the assessment scale, some kind of note to say "don't bloat this article with crud which will be deleted the moment the genuine info becomes available" would be a lot more useful than an opt-out class IMO. Someoneanother 13:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Figured as much, just wanted to put the option out there. JohnnyMrNinja 21:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Editors can spend a good deal of time creating a good article about future games. StarCraft II, for example, is B-class. Just like any other article, these articles could benefit from assessment and the class scale. User:Krator (t c) 22:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

General comment re title of thread: Please avoid insulting other contributors by calling their work "cruft" per WP:ITSCRUFT, [3], Wikipedia:Cruftcruft, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. When referring to unreferenced plot detail, made up nonsense, fanon, speculation, and the like, make sure you call it crap. This is much clearer, without the emotional baggage of the word "cruft". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

AMIB, that was just not called for.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it was exactly called for. These articles are full of useless crap, and we need to clear the dross so we can figure out what to do with the salvageable material. That's the point.

If you're adding unreferenced plot detail, made up nonsense, fanon, speculation, etc. to an article, you should be made to feel bad so you stop doing that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of tact and respect for fellow editors. There are ways to say "excessive detail" or "unverifiable" that would not come off in a manner that discourages editors from contributing. We have to remove words like "crap" and "cruft" from discussions, because they prevent editors from commenting productively. If you tell someone that the article is hard to follow because of excessive detail, then they can respond with an "okay, so let's tighten it up," but if you say, "It's full of crap and cruft," it's more apt to either offend them or make them defensive rather than conciliatory. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

AMIB, you could at least pretend that users edits are in good faith, by not calling them crap, or is an admin going against the rules of Wikipedia.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Le Grand, you really need to read over WP:ITSCRUFT, seriously. Bridies (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"Please note that while declaring something to be "cruft" in itself is not a rational argument for deletion, actual cruft — vast amounts of specific information on topics of little notability — is not acceptable for Wikipedia. "Cruft" is often used as a shorthand term for failure to meet the above criteria, and should not be treated as a bad faith dismissal of the information. Nevertheless, editors who declare something to be "cruft" should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion why it is cruft. Bridies (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In other words, editors need to stop using that word. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. If editors are going to use that word, they need to explain why (just like any other rationale). Again, please just read it. Bridies (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If others beyond me take issue with the word and find it unconstructive, why would anyone still use it and not instead try a more polite and respectful way of arguing? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I'm taking issue with. I'm taking issue with the fact that you link WP:ITSCRUFT as if it supports your argument, which it does not. Bridies (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I only like to it when it supports my argument. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Can you please quote exactly what part of WP:ITSCRUFT supports your argument. Bridies (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it's listed on an essay titled "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I suggest you actually read the essay. The 'argument(s) to avoid' is 'it's cruft' without offering an explanation, much the same as saying 'keep/delete cos I (don't) like it', without explaining why. I'm going to quote, explicitly, again: "Cruft" is often used as a shorthand term for failure to meet the above criteria, and should not be treated as a bad faith dismissal of the information. Nevertheless, editors who declare something to be "cruft" should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion why it is cruft. Bridies (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly what many do, i.e. "Delete as cruft." without saying anything beyond that. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, this isn't an AfD and people are not writing 'delete as cruft'... Bridies (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I pointed out that others find use of the word unhelpful in general per [4], User:Alansohn/Cruftcruft, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You're digressing again, we're talking about the title of the above thread and again, I have no problem with you claiming others find the term unhelpful (though in my opinion that's nobody's problem but theirs), but WP:ITSCRUFT takes absolutely no issue with the term 'cruft' itself, in general, merely the expression of 'it's cruft' (or 'i (don't) lie it', or whatever), without any expansion. Bridies (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Cruft and crap are just terms we use to describe stuff that shouldn't be on wikipedia. We could call it pixie dust and flowers, but we still have to remove it, and ultimately disappoint the people who added it in good faith. In AMIB's defense, he wasn't calling the whole article crap. He was calling specific parts of it crap. And he was right. Part of this discussion is identifying parts of the articles that are crap, and parts that are not. If you can't accept criticism, grow some backbone, or leave. Randomran (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

They are unhelpful and unconstructive terms. If editors want to stay here and edit in a cooperative and civil manner then they need to respect their fellow contributors by not insulting their work. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If they make people feel bad for adding bad stuff, then they're helpful. You can't insult the inanimate, and if you aren't ready to have your contributions edited mercilessly, then you're on the wrong project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Our goals should not be to make people feel bad. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the only way to keep them from adding crap to articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There's almost always a polite alternative. My hope here is that we disuse language that raises the temperatures needlessly in discussions. I am not saying that some stuff shouldn't be removed, but that we don't go about it in even a mildly antagonistic way. There are far worse things to feel frustrated about (proce gouging by oil companies...) than Wikipedia. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with people who act like jerks is a fact of life, and unfortunately acting like a jerk may not be against WP rules itself. You just have to know how to deal with it: grow a thicker skin and continue arguing or let it go as not as important for how much your blood pressure is going to raise. I had someone act like a jerk to me a short time ago in much the same way, I let it go since it didn't matter that much to me. Though I don't think the word 'cruft' is not insulting if properly explained (and not used as the entire arguement). Cigraphix (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I know this discussion has been resolved, and is pretty much a non-issue. But I see honest criticism of article content as the epitome of respect. It's something people have to learn to accept. Randomran (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"You are a bad person" is not okay. "This is a bad article" is okay. Nobody disagrees about this. The rest is details.

Now let's stop noding about noding and get back to the business of writing an encyclopedia that doesn't suck. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

How's it going? Is it delivering what you were expecting? Thoughts, gripes, comments? To keep the discussion all in one place, could you respond here please? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of the sources at World Tour are from a blog, are we excepting that as a reliable source?Gears Of War 15:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, we have to weed that section every day to avoid outright speculation. What is presently there that has a properly formatted reference is generally ok. Ultimately, when the game's out, this will all be fixed. --MASEM 16:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have come up with a new code here that always only requires one call, and displays the dates in the order that they are given. There is a better explanation on the page. Please provide comments on the talk page. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I became very irritated when I couldn't add a CfD to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion (because CfDs cannot be transcluded) that I have proposed a (basic) change to the way they are setup. Please see and comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Transcludable XfD discussions. Cheers! JohnnyMrNinja 00:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The peer review for Operation Tractable, an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject, is now open. The Military history WikiProject is currently partnering with our project to share peer reviews, so all editors are cordially invited to participate, and any input there would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 03:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Pokémon and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article and several other WikiProjects. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I did a couple, but someone actually familiar with Pokemon should do the rest. It's not much, and it's worth it to try to keep a GA. --PresN (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The article needs a lot more work in referencing than what is listed there. Unless someone is willing to put significant work into it, I don't think it's worthy of GA status. —Giggy 03:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ian McKellen is included in the video games project but his only connection with the topic is having voiced two video games. Shouldn't the article be excluded from the project? Kariteh (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason he's included is because he is in Category:English video game actors, but yeah, it does seem a bit far fetched. JACOPLANE • 2008-06-28 11:26

I think that one sentence about video games in the whole article isn't enough to include the article in the project. --Mika1h (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This editor, 67.181.228.6, has been repeatedly spamming a website, gameanyone.com on several videogame articles. In the future if you see any more edits by this user (search gameanyone.com's EL, I have cleared all of them already) in an article please report him.

Thanks. Strongsauce (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Report it over to WP:WPSPAM as well, I believe they can help get the domain blocked. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 09:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The review needs more input for the article to be kept or demoted. Please comment if you have the time, thanks. Kariteh (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of cleaning up List of characters in the Resident Evil series and List of creatures in the Resident Evil series and merge most of the articles in Category:Resident Evil characters and Category:Resident Evil creatures in those respective articles. Most of the articles in both category are barely above stub-class now. Jonny2x4 (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you should, most are permanent stubs, and together perhaps something worth while can be scrapped together. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ill Like to create the Destroy All Humans! Task-force. Which will help to clean up all the DAH articles which are in desperate need of help. EE 19:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my french, but it seems that the shit's hit the fan. All editors of WikiProject Video games are entitled to be informed of such debates, which is suddenly spread out to many pages. See:

• Talk:List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City#NFCC does not forbid using images here
• Talk:List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas#WP:NFC says the images we have here are fine
• Talk:List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas#Non-free images in list articles
• Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 73#Images in List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Non-free images in "List Of" articles
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#non-free article discussion and 3RR

All input to help resolve this matter once and for all would be very much appreciated. Please do not reply here. The debate is spread out enough as it is, this is simply a notice. --.:Alex:. 20:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Guyinblack25 has made some changes to the Portal:VG, so there is now also a dynamic pictures box (next to the dynamic featured articles box that was already there). Any feedback? JACOPLANE • 2008-06-30 22:54

Spiffy, but we might want to put it below the FA space. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support.I think we should accept the class because it will make grading much easier.Gears Of War 13:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

   Totally unrelated, the word you're looking for is accept, not except. Inner grammar-nazi at work. Chan Yin Keen | ^UT_C 13:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Support: A start class article is more than a stub, and a B class article is something that has some decent references and information but a lot of OR too. A C class article, to me, is an article that has gone some way to include useful information, but might lack the research or organization to be taken seriously. Randomran (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Support: Start class, the way I've been using it, encompasses a lot of ground between "A little bigger than a stub" and "B-class with cleanup tags". C-class would fix that.
4. Support: I believe there is ample room between start and B-class. Start just means stub+, whereas B is a largely complete article which is either ready for GA or would be with further fixing. Someoneanother 02:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Support: There's some pretty broad distance between a Start-class article and what should be a B-class article. A C-Class is just the way to fill that gap. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 06:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Support, this plugs a substantial gap between Start and B-class articles. -- 90.202.37.20 (talk) 09:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Support for pure consistencies' sake. It's best to have everyone using a similar scale (even if the actual guidelines for the scale are different by subject) rather than a patchwork. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Support: I agree with everyone else. C class is like and extra drawer with which we can better organize articles. For example, you put you red clothes in one drawer, and whites in another, but you have no place to put your pink clothes. The C class would be the drawer for the pink clothes, so to speak. It makes sense to me. --SWJS: The All Knowing Destroy All Humans! Nerd(Cortex Scan) 07:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Support: Most people in the project don't care either way, so we might as well implement this class like the rest of Wikipedia. Kariteh (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Like I opposed its implementation. I'm not convinced the start-B gap is that major, and while I will respect consensus if the project chooses to use it, I'd rather not. giggy _(:O) 01:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose: Unconvinced that an extra class will really bring anything different to the table, cleanup of an article is still the same to me be it Start, B or A. While it can be argued the C-Class will give the article a pitstop as such between Start and B, adding that additional class really doesn't feel like a milestone for an article to achieve but more like what the article would look like if it was assessed in the midst of being properly written up to a B. Chan Yin Keen | ^UT_C 02:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

Recently, C has been added to the scale(the first change in 3 years), that update needs to be added here. Thanks.Gears Of War 13:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I oppose. Is it possible for specific WikiProjects to dissent? User:Krator (t c) 14:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I've read, it's opt-in (or something like that). See also Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MelonBot 7. giggy _(:O) 14:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, the editorial team did decide that no project had to except the C class. Should we have a vote just like the editorial team to decide wether or not the project embraces the C class. We could use the traditional Support, Oppose, and Netrual vote.Gears Of War 14:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally think we should go for it. I think many VG articles in particular are highly subject to the "not quite B, not quite Start" situation. --.:Alex:. 15:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should go for it too. There are a lot of articles that don't really qualify as start articles, but not B either. Is there anywhere I read more about this? We should put this to a discussion in the near future. Randomran (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You can read the entire page for details but look here for the main discussion.Gears Of War 15:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Adopting the grade would allow us to reserve B class for articles which are genuine future GA candidates without requiring a complete overhaul and gaps in coverage. Start class doesn't actually ask for much at all, yet when assessing I often find it necessary to keep an article at start rather than promoting to B because of a range of problems. Another notch would also act as positive reinforcement for editors with little time or experience who are trying to improve a particular stub or start class article. Someoneanother 16:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I too would like to embrace the new class.Gears Of War 16:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure how to set up a poll, but we need one. There is currently work being done on the project template to incorporate new classes (cat, dab, & template), so if C should be added too, it'd be nice to know. JohnnyMrNinja 08:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If we do embrace C-class, how to define the approach then?

• Stub - One, two paragraphs about the topic, typically unreferenced but notable
• Start - More than a stub, but not well organized and referenced - The basic information we expect to see in VG articles is there, but may not be all complete, sections are off, etc. Most commonly the gameplay and plot and story have been written (the "easy" sections) but nothing on development or reception. (example: Klonoa 2: Lunatea's Veil)
• C-Class - Article is organized decently, but missing one or more sections generally considered appropriate; referencing may not be completely there, but there is some. This would be the class I would use for a well built "future game" article since it will lack any reception section, a necessity for more VG articles. I would also say that the bulk of our articles on games from this and the last console generations are probably around this class. (eg Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time is a C-class to me as it's got most key sections, so its beyond start-class)
• B-Class - Pretty much a good copyedit and cleanup away from being a GA; all sections necessary are present, all referencing appears to be done, and so forth.
• A-Class - An article destined for FA that just hasn't been put through FA. Prose is super-tight, references are perfect, etc. Should be assessed that way by two VG assessment reviewers. --MASEM 12:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, at the link I left they had ideas for the discription. Note that the conclussion was to make a C class. To get some examples, there is indeed already a new cat called list of c-class articles. But though the class has not officially been added to the scheme, it will be soon, maybe we should vote now and then see the discription for all of Wikipedia and then incpoperate it into our own style.Gears Of War 13:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Voting is evil. User:Krator (t c) 14:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously. We don't need to vote to use it or not. I mean, if someone assesses a video game article as C-class, it's not right to change it back to either Start- or B-class if C-class fits better until it's expanded to B-class or higher. Quite frankly, edit warring over article assessment is a quick road to WP:LAME, and I don't want to see it happening, especially not on any articles I work on. Either you use it, or you don't, but since it's now apart of the assessment scale, I think we should embrace the change when it arises, and where it is applicable.--十八 02:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we can't use it effectively until it's been implemented (in templates and categories. The main question is Does this Wikiproject opt out? As it has been added to the grading scheme, I think we'd need a strong consensus to not use it, which it is not looking will be the case. While I don't feel this class is the most useful improvement that could have been made, it was made, and I feel we should embrace and implement it (for now). If and when the uselessness of the class asserts itself, it should be adjusted. I don't feel any progress will be made by pretending this change didn't happen. JohnnyMrNinja 03:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

So is it safe to say that there is no consensus to opt out of using the C-Class rating? As it would take some work to make us unable to use ((C-Class)), and it also would take work to be able to use it properly, we should either be for or against. As the new class has already been added to the grading scale (after a Wiki-wide debate), I am assuming the default to be to use it. As there has been no consensus to completely opt-out as a project, I am going to go with the default, which is supporting this new class. Have Imisjudged the situation? JohnnyMrNinja 08:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you're right. New Wikipedians who come into Wiki now are not going to be even aware that this debate ever existed for the most part, and as such will be the ones who utilize the use of C-class the most. Trying to ignore something which is already implemented is probably the dumbest thing a Wikipedian can do.--十八 08:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the opportunity has been seized to ovrhaul much of the assessment scale. There is a proposal to raise B-Class standards to meet 5 particular criteria (just like WP:MILHIST) and to increase minimum A-Class status requirements in a manner we already use here at WikiProject Video games. --.:Alex:. 11:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for poll to be closed and for C-class to be implemented. Discussion seems to have run its course. Although some members don't see a need for an additional class and would prefer not to use it, the majority seem unbothered either way and nobody has voiced violent opposition or brought up any serious problems which would be caused by it. At this point it seems fair that those of us who have an interest in using the classification should be free to get on with it. Does anybody disagree? Someoneanother 13:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well im gonna be bold and say it like this. Because of the lack of activity in the poll, once the poll is archived, I will tally each side and decide which side to lean on(based on number of votes. Gears of War ^{Go 'Skins!} 19:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the discussion, there was no consensus to opt-out. The C-Class has already been implemented, our assessment scale just needs the text added. JohnnyMrNinja 08:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well in that case I'm closing it now. Gears of War ^{Go 'Skins!} 22:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(Was Sonic Cruft part two; renamed so the merge discussion links all work)

Okay guys, can we at least try not to get into wars with other editors this time? If it happens again and the discussion gets archived again, then there's a good chance we'll never get this done. Anyway, let us pick up where we left off in terms of the cruft. If you're going to continue working on this, then please leave the edit warring at the door. If you've got reasons for something, explain your point of view. Now, let's try this again. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 13:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

We can all agree at least that we don't need an article on every variation(s) of every character. Jonny2x4 (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with that, with a few exceptions.Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll be closely monitoring this discussion, FYI. User:Krator (t c) 14:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Krator. The last thing we need is another all-out war. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 14:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The baseline is probably a single list for all the characters. Articles for individual characters should be the exception when they can prove notability and have enough non-game-guide material to make a reasonable article. I'm particularly concerned about articles about settings and items, because that's pretty gameguidey, too plot heavy, and generally outside WP:VGSCOPE. That's speaking very generally, though. We should talk specifics before we do anything. Randomran (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we already got rid of the settings, and most of the items are being redirected to the series article where there's a relevant section. As for the characters, at least Sonic has enough to do that, and as for the rest, I'm not so sure anymore as I used to be. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 15:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

A Man In Black's edits should be undone until we've made a choice of consensus.Fairfieldfencer FFF 15:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to revert everything because "a choice of consensus" has to be made. That can be done without reversion, which saves everyone a lot of headaches. User:Krator (t c) 15:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. But his edits to the Chaos Emeralds article, (now a redirect without any form of notification or discussion), should be taken into consideration.Fairfieldfencer FFF 15:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What should be done with the pages within Category:Sonic portal? Are inactive things like that usually deleted, redirected, or marked as historical? TTN (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, Sonic Christmas Blast, Cast in Sonic X, Mobius: 25 Years Later, Mobius: 20 Years Later, Sonic the Hedgehog franchise timeline, and EndGame are some articles that should probably be dealt with. TTN (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Portals should be taken to deletion, like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Halo, then redirected to the VG portal. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The cast in Sonic X article should be merged with List of voice actors in Sonic the Hedgehog, which isn't too much work really.Fairfieldfencer FFF 16:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually that information is already there so; delete and redirect I think.Fairfieldfencer FFF 16:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, strongly oppose calling this thread "Sonic cruft" and also suggest that any and all of the above can be dealt with by revising, merging, and redirecting, but that deletion is totally unnecessary and counterproductive. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:BAIT. Let's confine our discussion to how to identify the cruft and deal with it appropriately. Randomran (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's confine our discussion to improving encyclopedic content and other editors' hard volunteer work. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

These are just two articles with the same content, the other one, (Cast in Sonic X) is not needed. The edits were done in good faith and were done well, but the article doesn't need to exist.Fairfieldfencer FFF 20:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If they are duplicative, then I recommend merging and redirecting. I also recommend notifying the article creators and those who contributed to the articles of this discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest we just erase the content, (which is what I meant by delete) and replace it with a redirect.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If we are willing to make a redirect, we can do that without having to misplace time with AfDs as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree with you. In fact; I'll take care of it now.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like A Man In Black already took care of that.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Are those the only articles we're dealing with right now, or are there others? A lot has changed since the initial discussion began. It would be helpful if we could focus on a specific list of articles to merge/delete/clean-up. In abstract, we're all against cruft. The specifics are the issue. Randomran (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Those should be the rest of the cruft articles that aren't characters. There are about eighty of those still around. I think there are also some songs that should be redirected. TTN (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks! Randomran (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming nobody can find any references that would help these articles meet their individual notability requirements, I would suggest:

• Clean-up/shorten and merge Sonic Christmas Blast into Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog or List of Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog episodes
• Clean-up Sonic the Hedgehog franchise timeline. This is an encyclopedic way of summarizing the history of the franchise. I might be wrong though.
• Find a way to summarize Mobius: 25 Years Later, Mobius: 20 Years Later and EndGame into Sonic_the_Hedgehog_(comics)#Storyline_Summary, which itself needs a clean-up.
• Delete Cast in Sonic X per WP:NOTE and WP:NOT. Wikipedia isn't IMDB.

That's my initial reaction. Although further evidence / guidelines could persuade me otherwise. Randomran (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I found Sonic the Hedgehog franchise timeline under some godawful old name, and was surprised at how decent it was. If we ditch the "Such-and-such character debuts", add some more bullet points for the associated people and development studios, and reference the hell out of it, that's almost GA ready.

Cast in Sonic X was redundant and has been redirected to a larger list. What we want to do with the larger list, I dunno. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Right now, I've been focusing on the worst of the cruft in the character articles. There's a lot that needs to be deleted on sight, but I think I've gotten the worst of the glaring stuff. I'm going to be digging into some of the in-universe writing.

We need to decide what we're doing with the characters who just don't have an article when all the garbage is cleaned out. I'm not entirely happy with the idea of a big character list; it ends up being a big ugly list instead of small ugly articles, in the case of a series with a large ensemble cast. (I do like how it turned out for MGS and FF, but not any other series, like Pokemon.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, a secondary thought: we need to eliminate "SatAM" on sight. I would recommend "1993-1994 Sonic the Hedgehog cartoon" on first reference, and "Sonic the Hedgehog cartoon" in later references. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It would definitely be a few different lists for the different pieces of media. That should keep them fairly tame. I can't really tell with the comics, but the video game character list would probably be about 30kb at most. TTN (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please try to get Fairfieldfencer over his ownership complex? He is so into it that he believes that he and his "friend" edit warring over 20kb of pure cruft nullifies the discussions here and just policies and guidelines in general. This whole process would be a lot smoother if he could just start using another wiki for this kind of information. TTN (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What you call cruft I call important information that I know can be sourced. And why are you trying to force me off Wikipedia? This encyclopedia is for everybody not just people like yourself.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fancruft (second nomination) in which I nominated Wikipedia:GAMECRUFT for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(useless offtopic argument deleted) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, whoa, whoa, let's slow down the "forcing people off" and debates about calling it "cruft". This is what got the last discussion archived, and do we really want that again? No, we're all here because there's a problem and we're working together to fix it. A Man in Black calls it "crap", many call it "cruft", Le Grand Roi hates the term "cruft", and I really could care less what we call it as long as it gets fixed. But whatever it is, let's work to fix it, not antagonize each other. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 23:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I think we need to keep an open-mind to what can potentially be referenced and improved as well as merged and redirected before bringing the material to AfDs, i.e. please be sure to first discuss with the editors who are working on the pages in question and offer merge ideas as AfDs really need to be a last resort when there is no chance the articles can be improved. And I for one have subscriptions to a variety of video game magazines and can possibly help with sources not found online. So, please do not hesitate to ask me if I can find sources before going ahead with AfDs. Thanks. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, though, Le Grand Roi, not everything is appropriate for a merge or redirect. I'll make an example here to demonstrate this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel Island (Sonic the Hedgehog). None of these locations showed any notability at all, not even enough for a merge or even a redirect to be placed. Now, I've been pushing another possible answer to this: transwiki - ing these articles to http://sonic.wikia.com , a Sonic Wikia where this information is appropriate. By all means, I do believe your solution is fair, but I think I would favor a transwiki over a merge or redirect that is out of place. Also, with many of these articles that we are talking about, they have not been edited in a long time, so there's no way to contact the editors who worked on the pages. This is part of the problem with many of these articles: the standards of Wikipedia have risen over the years and these articles can't show the notability to stay (and never will, just because of their topic). As for your sources, thank you for that. I believe those could help greatly on the video game character articles, as well as the video game articles. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 14:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Never will? I wouldn't go that far. Maybe with a few of the articles.Fairfieldfencer FFF 14:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course not every article. Just some of the particular ones, like the locations. We need to sort out what is notable and what isn't. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 03:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone want to get the characters sorted out? I hate how these kind of things always just die down before anything really gets done. The best way to get this rolling would be with the video game characters. All of the articles within the merge tag can easily be merged at this point. The two lists have already been partially merged into it, so they can just be redirected. Even if a list like that isn't everyone's favorite solution, I imagine most can agree that it is better than separate articles in the least. TTN (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't perform that kind of edit before discussing it. You did that once and all hell broke loose.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

TTN, FFF's got a point. I read that discussion about the edit war you had with User:Doktor Wilhelm over the first edit of the list. Don't get me wrong, I support merging at least some content, but let's get a consensus first. I'll give my opinion later. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 03:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I was more interested in getting the character articles into shape before determining their fate. Otherwise we get the Pokemon merges all over again, where bad articles were combined into bad lists. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that if FFF would just chill out. It's fairly counterproductive to have him constantly edit warring while trying to get them done. It would just be easier to work with a few lists at this point instead of dealing with him. TTN (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I've been good mannered with you TTN. It'd be nice if you could return it.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well today two of the articles nominated for deletion, one with no consensus and another for merge, but left for the community to do, so effectively two keeps. It seems the "lack of third party real life references to meet numerous Wikipedia policies" that I and a number of editors have a good reason to question about these articles doesn't cut it anymore. I wonder if we could see a number of deletion reviews in the light of these current nomination for deletion closures, because a few editors here would now have a strong case to get articles restored? On another note, the requirement of in line citations from third party, real life sources in articles in the light of these AfD closures might need to be discussed by the wider community. --tgheretford (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Alternately we could just merge them to single paragraphs in the respective articles.

Which is what was going to happen anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break

This is getting to be a long discussion, so I'm just breaking it off to make it easier to find. The discussion that was above is now below. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 15:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

---

K. Just saw all the Sonic articles. I must say that I believe that these merges are correct. AMIB, pretty much all you're doing is WAY trimming down articles. Why? Because YOU simply find them to be minor characters, even though they've appeared in quite a few games with major roles? Hell, after all your work, half the summaries for minor characters are longer than most articles for major characters. I'm on Triple F's side with this argument. I'll fight for, and improve the following articles:

• Sonic the Hedgehog (character)
• Miles "Tails" Prower
• Knuckles the Echidna
• Amy Rose
• Cream the Rabbit
• Blaze the Cat
• Silver the Hedgehog
• Big the Cat (Needs seperate article)
• Rouge the Bat
• Shadow the Hedgehog
• Metal Sonic
• Dr. Eggman
• Eggman Nega
• Superforms (Sub-section for each character)
• E-123 Omega
• Chaotix
• G.U.N.
• List of minor characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games) (Chaos, Jet, Wave & Storm put in here)
• List of minor villains in Sonic the Hedgehog (games)
• List of Sonic the Hedgehog species (Chao, Babylon Rouges, Echidnas & Humans)

I am happy to work on all these articles and find a proper source for each. Does anyone support this?  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  22:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

New AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Acorn Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 03:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm WAY trimming down these articles because they're full of crap.

I don't really care about fighting about who's major and who's minor. What matters is the quality and volume of sources we can use to write articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining how you find the history of game characters to be crap? They had plenty of reliable info before. It just sounds to me that you're trying to get rid of characters because you don't like them. If you fight about it, then it proves it. Thanks for proving your failure.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  05:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The articles had great qualities:

• Appearances
• Personality
• Relationships
• History
• Referances

It was all cited, yet, you called it fancruft. Simply because of the fact that YOU felt that it wasn't important? All of that info that you removed from the articles was great. I guess people who aren't familiar with those important characters will never know? Stop being so negative.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  07:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with you 100%.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I find unreferenced evaluative claims, unreferenced factual claims, speculation, excessive plot summary, excessive non-free images, references that don't actually back the claims made, game guides, and dossier-style heights/weights/lists of attacks/etc. to be crap. It wasn't all cited, and when it was, oftentimes the references didn't back up the claims made, or the claim made was an opinionated interpretation of the (almost always primary) source.

You can beat on this "You don't like it, so you're messing up the articles!" strawman all you want, but it's not going to change anything. The reason that they're so short when TTN or Johnny2x4 or I go through them is because there's so little referenced, encyclopedic info, not because we're horrible ogres out to destroy your articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this whole thread is the work of Robotnik. Stay strong Freedom Fighters!! JohnnyMrNinja 14:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

AMIB, you're going the wrong way about cleaning up these articles. Did you even bother to check if the information there could be sourced through your own search? And you could you please cut it with the language. May I remind you that some of the people protesting here aren't even 14 yet. Besides it is in no way needed to swear.Fairfieldfencer FFF 14:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

And it is intresting to note that despite the fact that an editor said he could find reliable sources, fairly quickly, AMIB went ahead and deleted a section.[5]Fairfieldfencer FFF 15:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually what is interesting is this [6]. How appropriate timing to publish that article. « ₣M₣ » 18:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I dunno what's worse: using wordcount to determine an article's weight vs. another article, or taking a site that pondered what would happen if a nuke went off in Superman's bonghole seriously. But that's a different subject than the one we're discussing.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Plus, last time I checked, God didn't have a personality section.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(←)The point is the articles in general have areas are just too detailed and need work to weed out such trivialities (such as "It is important to note..."; this or that "seems" [insert speculation here]) without any reference. « ₣M₣ » 19:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, i missed alot. To dish ou on AMIB, before the articles were shortened, i saw no spectulation, only info. about the characters. Is it really neccasary to completely take the characters history out? Perhaps people who don't know of them would like to know what games they've appeared in, what they've done in the series, know of original ideas for the characters, etc. If i go about finding references for info on all the characters, can we all agree to some extent to add some info back to the articles? So that visitors will actually find what they're looking for, instead of just the characters name?  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  05:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can find proper references (meaning non-trivial references in third-party sources), yes. That's the point. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The idea that someone could possibly be looking for it does not mean it should be on Wikipedia. I have been looking for my DS for like two hours but I do not expect someone here to tell me where it is (unless you actually know). This discussion is the same one as before and is about the same thing over and over. Just because Sonic is notable (and he is) does not mean his friends are notable. If they are, that means we should find reliable sources (not fan-sites or the games themselves) to give us information about them. If by this point you do not understand that I do not believe you are trying. It seems as though people are not even listening to whats being said here, but just trying desperately to hear what they want to. I see no point in continuing this. Please stop wasting everybody's time and harassing editors like A Man In Black that actually understand policy. He may be totally messing things up, I don't even slightly care, but he is made to look like a Professor of Wikilaw in this current conversation. Until the rules are actually understood, you are doing nothing but hurting Sonic. And Princess Sally Acorn. JohnnyMrNinja 07:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Harassing? The only thing that's being harassed here is the articles. After AMIB cleansed the articles with fire valuable information was burned. Even a deletionist agrees with me on that one. I have been fighting edit wars so the articles can be sorted out properly. You may not care but this is an encyclopedia, where people come to find out all the facts. AMIB was the wrong editor for this job, (he can't even spell one of the main characters names properly, suggesting that he isn't that much of a fan and doesn't know that much about the subject at hand), do you really think that he should do this when he doesn't even know what he's talking about? And may I remind what these articles are for. There here so people understand the character better, and to do that there needs to be personality sections and things to understand the characters.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. JohnnyMrNinja 08:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have some sort of idea of how to resolve this without edit warring or using one of the various dispute resolution methods that don't work in this type of scenario? These hardcore fans do not understand how this site works and there is little chance of having them understand. FFF just added a couple of references to a useless "Theme Song" section and he really believes that doing that much is enough to save the cruft. He also believes that only he is one of the only fans worthy of editing them (leading to a bad case of WP:OWN), and he just doesn't understand the concept of removing cruft. Now that there are three or four other people just like him involved, this is getting really annoying. Any ideas? TTN (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Since when has real world information been useless? And no I don't think I'm one of the few fans worthy. I just think that someone who knows the subject better should be doing this. Someone who can tell what's fact from cruft.Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And besides, AMIB hasn't really helped the articles, he's gotten rid of fancruft which is good, but valuable infomation was deleted. What really needs to be done is the editors need to source the content on the articles before this action was taken. Get some time to save the content before it was cleansed with fire.Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I won't bother trying to explain it to you. You have generally taken anything that was explained to you and tossed it out the window. You keep saying that you'll remove the cruft, but you seem to ignore the fact that the cruft is what you keep reverting in the first place. What exactly is your definition of cruft anyways? Ignoring the fact that there are absolutely no requirements that must be met in order to edit articles, I've played close to all of the games in the series, including the horrible Shadow the Hedgehog and the even more horrible 2006 Sonic the Hedgehog. I would say that I am quite qualified to discern good information from cruft by your standards. TTN (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have listened. And I know what cruft is and the only reason why I haven't removed it is because the discussion on what to do isn't over yet. Unlike some I wait until things have been settled and there is consensus. And yes if you've played close to all the games then yes you would be a good choice, if it wasn't for the fact that you seem to be targetting fiction articles by going to the extreme.Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Second Arbitrary Section Break

Breaking off the discussion like this helps to keep things organized. Now, back to the discussion. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 19:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Woah, this is going no where first. I'm seeing from the sae point of few as Triple F. From what i've seen, AMIB started out just removing fancruft, whch i fully support, when i notice something along the lines of "This characters i SAID to appear in Unleashed" ,i fully support removal of that line. But, he quickly began removing valuable info. from articles. Like a list of appearances, their interactions towards other characters, and their personality. All of which, is needed to complete a good article. I don't know how big of fans people are, but, if what Triple F has stated, AMIB, knows very little about the series. I believe that people editing these artices should be people whom are very familiar with the characters, and games, so that they know what to actually remove, and leave in the articles. I'm not saying only a large fan like myself should edit the articles but, rather someone who actually knows what their talking about. I will began searching the web in a few minutes for reliable sites that can give notable info about characters, and i don't want AMIB, or anyone else being all "Oh, personalities aren't notable!!!" A characters personality is JUST a notable as say, the personality of Yuji Naka, who as well, has a very bad article, the i wish to help improve.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  17:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea for everyone: when considering what goes into a character article, why not use Link (The Legend of Zelda) or Master Chief (Halo) as concepts of what a great character article looks like in terms of sections and coverage? Granted, we're not working with such quality articles, but I think these articles still serve as appropriate barometers of what should really go into a character article and what shouldn't. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 19:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed a list of appearances that consisted of two appearances, one mentioned in the paragraph immediately above and one a claim that a character was going to appear in a cancelled game WITH NO REFERENCE TO BACK THIS CLAIM.

Then I removed lists of characters' supposed feelings about other characters WITH NO REFERENCES TO BACK THESE CLAIMS.

Then I removed claims about their personalities 'WITH NO GOOD REFERENCES ABOUT THESE CLAIMS.

Fuck, if I can't make it clearer than that, guys, I dunno what to do. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

AMIB, it doesn't get any clearer than that. You've made your point clearly. But can you please calm down? Boldface capitalized yelling isn't really that civil. And in case any of you are wondering, yep, I'm basically moderating this thread so we don't have another blunder like the last discussion which was archived. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 20:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Then i shall locate some references but, AMIB, please calm down, and watch your language in case of younger children coming through here. Acting like that only proves immaturity. But, i already know that once i find sources to cite, and place them in the articles, you will go ahead, and remove them stating thet their not notable, or say that the cited source doesn't state such info. So, before we all waste our time, and patience, i say that we must come to some sort of an agreement here.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  22:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are offended, say so. I don't intend to worry about offending hypothetical people.

If you add a source, make sure it's a reliable third-party publication (or at LEAST a simple, nonevaluative reference to a primary source), make sure the claim is backed in the reference, and make sure the claim is relevant to the article. Otherwise you're wasting everyone's time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I shall be on my search right now!  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  00:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources are generally acceptable for fiction IMO. Not enough to meet WP:N, but you can certainly cite them. Hobit (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're not creating a synthetic whole. Using the plot of game to create a plot summary of the game, roughly reflecting the shape of the plot, that's okay. Using cherry-picked quotes to create a description of what you think a characters's personality is, not okay. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You said that the quotes weren't relaible. You honestly think that lines made by Sega and used in the games themselves aren't reliable? Those would count as prime sources, possibly third-party since they were made by the writers not the creators. But you still think those aren't reliable? Somebody back me up here.Fairfieldfencer FFF 14:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What AMIB is saying is that you can't synthesize inexplicit information based on a primary source. For instance, you can say that at the beginning of Mario 64, Mario gets a note that the Princesses is inviting him over for cake. You CAN'T say, though, that either he or she likes cake because of this (note: This is probably too much unneeded detail, but it's the first thing I could think of). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If Mario didn't like cake, he wouldn't have come over. And if Peach didn't like cake, she wouldn't have made it.

But, back on topic. I'm completey on thesame page as Triple F. If someone, does, or says something in a game, comic, or cartoon for that matter, we should add it to their personality section. We just have to cite a reliable source showing this. I.E. IGN has a trailer for TDB, in which shows Espio is in love with Rouge, we would cite this trailer, and say so in his personality section. I'm not saying that this is true but, using it as an example.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  16:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Saying that they like cake in the cake analogy is dangerously speculative and OR: it could also be Mario likes cake but Peach doesnt, Peach doesn't know Mario doesnt like cake and Mario is being polite, and so on with other possiblities. These speculative things can also be viewed differently by others: take Rouge and Shadow's relationship - some think they have a crush on each other, while others think their relationship is like Shadow's relationship with Maria. If you have another source (like a game manual, or even better a non-Nintendo magazine) that says Mario likes cake (like the manual says "Mario raced to Peach's castle because he likes cake" or "Rouge has a crush on Shadow" then it is not OR. Wikipedia has rules about OR and must stick to things that are explicitly sourced. Cigraphix (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:SLJCOAAATR 1, User:Fairfieldfencer, please accept that you do not understand policy on this matter. It has been well over a month and you are still attempting to argue every explanation that is offered to you. You would be more able to argue your viewpoint if you actually paid attention and knew what policy is. Melodia offered an example of original synthesis, and it was immediately argued. If you wish to change policy, this is not the place to do it. Until it is changed, follow it. All of these editors are attempting repeatedly to explain these concepts to you, and constantly arguing each one while ignoring the text is disrespectful and frustrating. JohnnyMrNinja 17:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't speculation. And I know policies. Like neutral point of view. This so called speculation is merely another point of view, and every article needs a point of view. It is non-negiotable. And they come from reliable sources.Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What in the world does NPOV have to do with anything? Are you seriously saying that AMiB is deliberately skewing Wikipedia to further his own anti-Sonic agenda? JohnnyMrNinja 17:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This policy clearly states that articles need neutral points of view, this so called speculation/fancruft is yet another point of view which is essential to the Sonic articles. And I'm not accusing A Man In Black of anything, except not being the right person for the job.Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV does not relate. It says that the sum of the article must be neutral and that all valid viewpoints must be presented. It does not mean that every person that's ever had a viewpoint can put them into the article. I repeat that you do not understand policy, and this is extremely frustrating. JohnnyMrNinja 17:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Calm down. And granted all the view points haven't been presented, but I'll change that once this discussion is over.Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I contend that Sonic is a pervert and a pedophile. He wears no pants, and hangs around with children (like Tails), who also have no pants. I have seen many pictures on the internet depicting them making sweet Mobian love (in fact, it was the first thing that came up when I typed "Sonic Tails" into Google). Should this viewpoint as well be added? Considering my sources, it is at least as valid (if not more). JohnnyMrNinja 18:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

My sources are official. Those are obviously fan made.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

it was stated above "If Mario didn't like cake, he wouldn't have come over". It seems unlikely that someone would come over for cake if they didn't like cake, right? Does it not also seem unlikely that an adult that hangs around kids wearing only his shoes is not a pervert? You cannot deny that neither of them wear pants. That obviously implies that they are in love. Please prove me wrong without proving yourself wrong. JohnnyMrNinja 18:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Other than the fact that they obviously don't need to wear clothes because they've got nothing to hide. After all the girls wear clothes.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Because the girls are not perverts. Do you get why original synthesis is bad? JohnnyMrNinja 18:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Third Arbitrary Section Break

See User_talk:SLJCOAAATR_1#plot details for a related discussion. As Johnny stated above: this has been going on for over a month. I personally feel an admin needs to be involved in this, to finally end it. We shouldn't be going in circles, with the "I'm right, you are wrong" path forever. Or perhaps Skeletal and FFF need a mentor to help them understand policies/guidelines better. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This discussion has gotten way out of hand, and the arguments being made to keep the Sonic character details have been in the realm of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:NOHARM and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, none of which are valid arguments for keeping unnecessarily-detailed data.

I'll repeat my earlier comments: Does a person who is NOT a Sonic fan and has no particular interest in the private lives of the characters in the series actually care that there might be a relationship between Rouge and Shadow? Or that there's anything significant about the lack of Sonic's pants? What does this information have to do with the games themselves? What's your average reader going to get out of understanding every possible detail about the minor Sonic characters, sourced or not? Even Sonic himself isn't getting as much attention as these other characters, even though he is the one widely considered the most notable.

I find it extremely frustrating that this discussion has gone on like this unabated for over a month. Throughout the whole thing, it's been the same few people arguing to keep the cruft here, and a significantly larger number of people are arguing to get rid of it. Here's my take: If the information doesn't contribute directly to an average, non-gamer's understanding of the game or the series as published by Sega and its affiliates, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Take it to a gaming wiki where this kind of information is more appropriate.

If this keeps up much longer, I'm going to start enlisting the help of ArbCom or whatever equivalent there is of ArbCom to get this matter settled. This discussion has gone well beyond the bounds of anything helpful and is now purely disruptive, and it needs to stop. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's high time that this had a 3rd break...

That aside, Johnny, Triple F, what you're saying is that anyone's POV should be added. No. That's a no go. But, Johnny, AMIB wasn't removing random POV, he was removing info. that we've recieved through games, comics, cartoons, offical sites, etc. And he kept insisting that it was fancruft. Fancruft is stuff that a random fanboy made up. This info removed from the articles WAS NOT fancruft. It was reliable, sourced info that hadn't come from, say, a fanfic, or a perverted drawing on Goggle, or something else of that sort. Johnny, AMIB, and the rest of you lot are acting like the info was all made up junk, from a child's imagination when it wasn't. I say that we revert the articles to their appearance PRIOR to this nasty editwar, and work on what little fancruft there was from there. That should put an end to all of this childish bickering!  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  20:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think every point of view should be included should be mentioned. Just the ones that have been backed up. Like the refs I added to E-123 Omega.Fairfieldfencer FFF 21:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The point they were trying to make was that the info was made using original research - which is that conclusions were made using real offical info, but the conclusions themselves were never stated anywhere else (anyplace that counts as a reliable source anyway). If Rouge looked at Knuckles in the obvious "I've got a crush on you" way in Sonic Adventure 2, but nothing ever outright said that she may have a crush like Sonic Central does, then saying she has a crush here would be OR and against the rules. Wikipedia is actually not about truth, but it is about what can be verified using sources that outright describe the info. Cigraphix (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes but, we had sources that COMPLETELY confirmed the info. You all act as if we didn't.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  21:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The point they were trying to make was that the info was made using original research - which is that conclusions were made using real official info, but the conclusions themselves were never stated anywhere else (anyplace that counts as a reliable source anyway). --PresN (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Dude, did PresN just copy & paste what I said?

Anyway, how about this: bring 3 examples of things that were deleted as OR here and explain why they are not OR, this may give us all a better understanding of the understanding each of us has about OR. Cigraphix (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I can give you more than 3. I can give you about 40. This article, E-123 Omega, is jam packed with previously deleted info. Most of it, such as quotes, falls under NPOV as I have given my source and point of view. I would've given the other articles sources like this but I was busy with Omega at the time. Once this discussion is over and AMIB's edits are reverted, I will source this so called "fancruft" under NPOV.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I did, on the assumption that he hadn't read it. --PresN (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Cigra, t move along somewhere.This may actually help us move along somewhere.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  22:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, your transmission was not received. Please repeat. Over. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Skeletal, if you are telling Cigraphix to go away: that's very uncivil. Everyone has a right to be a part of this discussion. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

By his second sentence, I assume Skeletal was saying that this might move us past this roadblock. I also want to clarify that I did not (and still do not) consider the number 3 to be some magic number like "3 strikes and we declare a winner," I felt 3 was just a good starting point toward understanding where everyone is and getting everyone on the same page. Cigraphix (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry abot that misunderstanding. The entire message wasn't placed in. My laptop kept freezing up, and left alot out. Sorry...  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  23:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to say that i would do so. For instance, in Blaze's article, the statement saying that she was afraid of heights was removed from her personality. So personaly said so herself in SRA in Sky Babylon that she's afraid of heights.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  00:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK so after some digging I found the quote and reference used:

"It is also revealed in Sonic Rush and Sonic Rush Adventure that she is afraid of heights." (refSonic Rush (2005) Blaze the Cat: We're going to fly again? Uh, wait a sec. I'm kinda scared of heights...Aaah!/ref)

Cigraphix (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. And for what reason did AMIB remove it for?  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  01:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one, if that's the actual reference that was used, it fails one test by being a reference to a Wikipedia article. WP articles can't use other WP articles as references. Two, quotes directly from the game may be acceptable for fiction, but they do not establish any out-of-universe context for information that is useful to people who aren't fans of the series. Out-of-universe info (real-world info) is important for fictional topics, and in most cases it's the bar that articles must meet to establish notability. And three, is this character's fear of heights important to understanding the game? It sounds like incidental dialogue to me, which would make it much more along the lines of trivia than encyclopedic content. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, I'm pretty sure it is referencing the game and not the WP article based on the game. Also to clear this up, the article the quote is from is about this particular character, who appeared in this game along with other games, and not about the game itself (whether or not the character is notable enough to have a seperate article to itself is another matter). Cigraphix (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed that because it's a contextless factoid. It's a cherrypicked quote, illustrating nothing other than at one point in one game a minor character was afraid of heights. Look at the section it was in; it was full of "One time, Big said this. Another time, Big said that. Yet another time, such-and-such character said this about Big." The sentences weren't individually OR (although they were inane as hell), but the whole was an incoherent mess, illustrating no thesis and having no point. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view could argue with that. And the reason why I put Sonic Rush into the ref was because I needed to state where I got the quote from. You can't put that in and have people playing every game Blaze is in to varify it's true. And the Blaze quote is quite easy to understand. Someone says there afraid of heights that means there afraid of heights, nothing only a fan understand. In fact only a complete idiot, no offence AMIB, couldn't understand that.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Fourth Arbitrary Section Break

Another break. I advise everyone to keep this discussion clean. It's not looking bad, but consider it friendly advice. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 13:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall if anyone has mentioned this (apologies if so), but WP:GAMETRIVIA is also an appropriate link to see in this case. In particular, the "excessive fictional details" part. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Were not talking about actual video games. Just game characters.Fairfieldfencer FFF 11:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The guideline applies to characters, settings and other concepts within this project's scope as well, so it is 100% valid. -- Sabre (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Whew. I missed alot up there! o try and help along, AMIB, i'm not saying through EVERY quote in but, important ones that give detail on WHO the character is. Blaze's fear of heights is one example of this. And since when is Blaze a minor character? She's had 3 major roles, and has appeared in over 5 others. That's a pretty major character, and not to mention her comic appearances. Chaos is actually a minor character, and he had an article, 1 that was way stretched out with actual fancruft. It just kept going on, and on about his forms.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  14:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV doesn't have a single thing to do with these articles. WP:NPOV helps us deal with multiple conflicting sources. When there are no sources whatsoever, we use other tools.

Who decides what an "important quote" is? In the absence of REFERENCES TO BACK THESE CLAIMS, we shouldn't be writing OR about these characters then frenziedly trying to cherrypick quots that back our claims. It just doesn't work that way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A Man In Black, NPOV is the cornerstone of Wikipedia and must be in all articles. And this isn't OR. These things are implied by Sega making them prime sources, (though I guess they could be third-party since it's the writers that did this). And these quotes can be used on articles under NPOV.Fairfieldfencer FFF 14:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Some fictional content is needed to understand a character (like enough to explain that Homer Simpson's character is an overweight oafish dreamer for example), but not every fictional detail is needed for that understanding (we can understand the character of Cream the Rabbit without knowing she likes to watch "The NEXT Show" on TV). Her fear of heights seems like a quick joke (I don't think it has even been mentioned more than once) and I don't really see how it advances the understanding of Blaze as a withdrawn and duty-bound character who is a little too serious. It doesn't even affect gameplay like Sonic's inability to swim. And NPOV is about the subject matter the material covers after it has passed rules about verifiability, no OR, and no excessive fictional details, not the material itself in negation of the other rules. Cigraphix (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is a cornerstone policy, but we don't have conflicting sources, so it isn't applicable here. WP:NPOV exists to deal with one of the problematic results of adhering to WP:V, and these don't adhere to WP:V and that's really bad.

"These things are implied by Sega"

THIS IS THE FUCKING PROBLEM I CANNOT MAKE THIS ANY CLEARER. It is not our job to infer implications from primary sources! That is original research! Don't do that! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to wade in on this long-running debate but I have to agree, NPOV as a policy has absolutely nothing to do with this, for instance this edit: link. ^Synergy/_{Blades (Talk)} 14:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

At this point, we should really just ignore FFF and the others like him. Its obvious by their comments that they will never understand what we're talking about and they will just ignore it if they do understand. Is it really that hard to understand the NPOV has nothing to do with this? Seeing as "force" hasn't worked so far, something new should be tried. Would mediation work or is it just as useless as RfCs? TTN (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ignore? I have a feeling that would go against WP:Consensus.Fairfieldfencer FFF 14:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is formed from discussion based around policies and guidelines rather than just the number of people that are part of a discussion. Seeing as your arguments are based purely from the perspective of a fan that has little care for an overall encyclopedia based around secondary sources, you can easily be ignored without an afterthought. TTN (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring them will only lead to more destructive edit warring, which has been already going on and only extended this arguement for so long. Maybe some patience and respectful explaining would work, because there hasn't been any of that in the entire discussion (and I'm talking since the very beginning with the first attempts months ago). Cigraphix (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's why I suggested ignoring them and moving on to some other sort of other process like mediation if that would work here. It's just pointless to pretend that their views are relevant and its not like they'll ever accept anything other than a fan guide. I don't know about other users, but FFF is completely hopeless. There have been at least a dozen attempts to explain it to him. Feel free to try with the other if you would like. TTN (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

TTN, I've been good mannered with you, might be nice if you could do the same. Have I ever suggested ignoring you because you always take things to the extreme on fiction articles? I believe that got you a six month bad didn't it? And I think you might've just done a personal attack.Fairfieldfencer FFF 15:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack, it was a valid observation on your behavior here. There is no point in further discussion. Consensus has been made clear. A lot of people have been very patient in trying to explain things to our younger editors who have disregarded every attempt. I have seen several younger editors who made a distinctive effort to learn policy, and to go along with consensus even when they didn't understand it. User talk:Fairfieldfencer and User:SLJCOAAATR 1 do not seem to care. It is more about personal desires than consensus, policies, or respecting other editors who are trying their best to be clear to them. You are wasting everyone's time. I ask you to stop. JohnnyMrNinja 15:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

We aren't the only ones unhappy here. Dylanlip, Coconutfred73 and Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles don't like it either.Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Le Grand Roi had more of a problem with us calling it "cruft" and using deletion instead of merge and redirect. So I just say who cares what we call it, and we'll redirect what can plausibly be used as a redirect. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 18:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So has anyone here been through a mediation process that actually turned out well? The few I've been involved in ended up as train wrecks, so I'm not really sure about the process. That's really the only thing that could actually end this other than a lot of edit warring. TTN (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think either mediation, admin/admins stepping in, or mentors for both editors (as I stated before) are the best routes to go. They just wont understand policies, and this is getting very disruptive and just plain annoying. It's been over a month of this, and never seems like it will end. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't we get a say in this?Fairfieldfencer FFF 21:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't think so bud...

• 5th section!*

 Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  21:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

FFF, you've said 87 things on this page alone on the topic (including the thread that was just archived). You've made yourself very clear. At this rate, if you posted 870 more comments, I don't think your viewpoint or opinions would change. And no matter how many things you say here, it won't change policy, so again, there is no point in further discussion. If you would like to change policy, then please see the appropriate policy's talk page, and good luck. But please stop wasting the time and talk page of the entire WikiProject. JohnnyMrNinja 22:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I need a good old copyediting over at Blue Dragon.Gears Of War 15:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the article has been comepletely redone(in a way), but I still need someone to copyedit the article. And I mean a full lookover the article, because soon it will be a GAC.Gears Of War 13:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I did some copy editing, as requested. Since I had originally composed portions of the text some time back, I found parts of it already quite well-written ;) There were some duplications of text, i.e. literal cut and pasting from one section into the lead-in paragraphs, as well as some issues with internal consistency. Hopefully it's improved now, although it still needs more work. --Slordak (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I need a good old copyediting over at Blue Dragon.Gears Of War 15:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the article has been comepletely redone(in a way), but I still need someone to copyedit the article. And I mean a full lookover the article, because soon it will be a GAC.Gears Of War 13:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I did some copy editing, as requested. Since I had originally composed portions of the text some time back, I found parts of it already quite well-written ;) There were some duplications of text, i.e. literal cut and pasting from one section into the lead-in paragraphs, as well as some issues with internal consistency. Hopefully it's improved now, although it still needs more work. --Slordak (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)