Kung Fu Man (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
::::::There was not point in "getting my way", I edited so that a) trivia was removed b) it was worded so as to not be as overly wordy and c) primed it for any real world information that can readily be added. So if you want to keep it, start adding reception and other real-world content.--[[User:Kung Fu Man|Kung Fu Man]] ([[User talk:Kung Fu Man|talk]]) 03:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
::::::There was not point in "getting my way", I edited so that a) trivia was removed b) it was worded so as to not be as overly wordy and c) primed it for any real world information that can readily be added. So if you want to keep it, start adding reception and other real-world content.--[[User:Kung Fu Man|Kung Fu Man]] ([[User talk:Kung Fu Man|talk]]) 03:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' the AFD was !voted as keep, Dreamfocus, you can contact everyone in the AfD about this attempt to merge, as long as it is a neutral message, and you contact everyone. [[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 03:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' the AFD was !voted as keep, Dreamfocus, you can contact everyone in the AfD about this attempt to merge, as long as it is a neutral message, and you contact everyone. [[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 03:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' Well I made a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lord_British&oldid=308998447 reasonable attempt] to give the article some much needed [[Exlax]] so notability can be proven. It's a shame because I think with some work it might be important enough for an article, but apparently Dream Focus wishes to assume bad faith, [[User:Dream Focus|conspiracy theories]] (yes I said it, deal with it) and [[WP:OWN|onwership]]. Bleh.--[[User:Kung Fu Man|Kung Fu Man]] ([[User talk:Kung Fu Man|talk]]) 03:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:34, 20 August 2009
Video games Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||||
|
Sherry in U3
Not sure about the computer version, but didn't you get the compass hearts from a character named Sherry in the NES version of U3? Or is the chart referring to Sherry the Mouse? Y0u | Y0ur talk page 20:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
This list can't hold all the characters
The The Companions of the Avatar has a lot of characters which would not fit on the article here, therefore it perfectly reasonable to put them elsewhere. Otherwise many notable characters would be lost. Also, the ones who get mentioned here already, don't have nearly enough information about them, as they do over there. Individual articles for all the companions were deleted/merged into the companions article. Wikipedia isn't running out of space people. No reason to destroy valid information, just to make it all fit here, and then to erase some notable characters from the list. Dream Focus 20:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Merge discussion
- Merge discussion merge Lord British, Avatar (Ultima) and The Companions of the Avatar into List of Ultima characters?
The merge discussion should be here, not at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Lord_British. Dream Focus 01:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
It has been suggested that Lord British, Avatar (Ultima), and The Companions of the Avatar be merged into this article or section. I say Keep for all three.
- Keep Avatar (Ultima) which just closed as Keep at AFD.
- Keep Lord British as a highly notable character, with plenty of mention in the real world press, as the game character and the persona of famed game designer Richard Garriott.
- Keep The Companions of the Avatar as the information would make this article too long, so its valid to place it in a separate article. Removing a large chunk of the content to merge it over, as someone has tried to do, and eliminating most of the companions to make it all fit, is ridiculous. Just keep it over there. Dream Focus 01:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- First, as the closer stated, the result of the AfD has no effect on a merge discussion, so please do not use that as a reason to keep it. Now for a few quick questions: Do you even care about quality articles? Do you see any of these three becoming good or featured articles? If I just said "Screw it, it's not worth it.", would you even touch these afterward? Really, I mean, you whine and moan about the evil deletionists destroying such important information, but do you honestly even care about anything more than the principal of these characters having articles? It is so annoying playing this whole game with people like you, who go on and on about how important this stuff is, and then when its all over, the articles just sit in the same poor state for years.
- How exactly is the section on Lord British any different from the article? The first paragraph deals with the creation, the second deals with the character's role in the series, and the third deals with the whole "immortality claim." That is no different from the article, but it is nice and compact. Does it really make the character unimportant just because it has a few paragraphs and no title? In the time that you've wasted trying to protect it, you probably could have at least gotten one Ultima game article to GA status, but instead, all you have is a single page that does not assert any sort of real notability at all. TTN (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Quality level is not a valid reason to eliminate something. You may see 99% of the articles on Wikipedia is unimportant, but they matter to someone. I see nothing wrong with the articles, having found them interesting to read, and believe they meet all requirements to exists on Wikipedia. The article sent to AFD closed as Keep, proving its notability. Only the nominator thought it something that should be deleted. Dream Focus 02:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Reduced the whole Lord British to four paragraphs. In the process, no encyclopedic information was lost, and it could probably be shortened further. Stuff like "how to kill British in this or that game" violates WP:GAMEGUIDE and got chopped out. As for the rest, not much when you really work on the text is being said: the majority is just drawn out wording or unrelated details.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- The finished result could easily fit into the list as the four paragraphs now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- In order to get your way, you went over and deleted more than half of that article, erasing not just the well covered assassination bit, but other valid content. I undid your changes. Please use the talk page there to discuss things before editing again. Dream Focus 03:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- There was not point in "getting my way", I edited so that a) trivia was removed b) it was worded so as to not be as overly wordy and c) primed it for any real world information that can readily be added. So if you want to keep it, start adding reception and other real-world content.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- In order to get your way, you went over and deleted more than half of that article, erasing not just the well covered assassination bit, but other valid content. I undid your changes. Please use the talk page there to discuss things before editing again. Dream Focus 03:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Quality level is not a valid reason to eliminate something. You may see 99% of the articles on Wikipedia is unimportant, but they matter to someone. I see nothing wrong with the articles, having found them interesting to read, and believe they meet all requirements to exists on Wikipedia. The article sent to AFD closed as Keep, proving its notability. Only the nominator thought it something that should be deleted. Dream Focus 02:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep the AFD was !voted as keep, Dreamfocus, you can contact everyone in the AfD about this attempt to merge, as long as it is a neutral message, and you contact everyone. Ikip (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Well I made a reasonable attempt to give the article some much needed Exlax so notability can be proven. It's a shame because I think with some work it might be important enough for an article, but apparently Dream Focus wishes to assume bad faith, conspiracy theories (yes I said it, deal with it) and onwership. Bleh.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)