→Merge discussion: Reply |
→Merge discussion: thoughts |
||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
*:::::''Quality informative video game articles?'' How do you get that by destroying an article, or some of the informative content? The character is notable enough to be on a list with other characters, but not by his self, even if the valid information about him wouldn't all fit properly on the merged article? It seems some people are just obsessed with mindless rules. You don't need someone to tell you something is notable, you able to think for yourself. Video game characters didn't get as much coverage back in those days as they do now. Old media sources aren't always archived. If the character was notable enough to be in 14 Ultima games, all of them quite notable, plus a Japanese Anime and manga series, then common sense would say, that character is notable enough to have their own article. [[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>]]''' 23:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
*:::::''Quality informative video game articles?'' How do you get that by destroying an article, or some of the informative content? The character is notable enough to be on a list with other characters, but not by his self, even if the valid information about him wouldn't all fit properly on the merged article? It seems some people are just obsessed with mindless rules. You don't need someone to tell you something is notable, you able to think for yourself. Video game characters didn't get as much coverage back in those days as they do now. Old media sources aren't always archived. If the character was notable enough to be in 14 Ultima games, all of them quite notable, plus a Japanese Anime and manga series, then common sense would say, that character is notable enough to have their own article. [[User:Dream Focus | '''<span style="color:blue">D</span><span style="color:green">r</span><span style="color:red">e</span><span style="color:orange">a</span><span style="color:purple">m</span> <span style="color:blue">Focus</span>]]''' 23:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::::::This has nothing to do with "mindless rules." Managing articles that are not up to par is just basic cleanup work. As it stands, none of these have a chance of reaching GA status, and they have been given enough of a chance to reach that point, though if you actually provide some real sources, that can easily change. The list itself can be expanded upon and possibly reach FL status with some work, so including these within the list to strengthen it makes perfect sense. While you keep mentioning the importance and the status of the characters, you need to actually show that through substantial secondary reliable sources, not through one or two that can easily fit within the list. [[User:TTN|TTN]] ([[User talk:TTN|talk]]) 00:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC) |
:::::::This has nothing to do with "mindless rules." Managing articles that are not up to par is just basic cleanup work. As it stands, none of these have a chance of reaching GA status, and they have been given enough of a chance to reach that point, though if you actually provide some real sources, that can easily change. The list itself can be expanded upon and possibly reach FL status with some work, so including these within the list to strengthen it makes perfect sense. While you keep mentioning the importance and the status of the characters, you need to actually show that through substantial secondary reliable sources, not through one or two that can easily fit within the list. [[User:TTN|TTN]] ([[User talk:TTN|talk]]) 00:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' rather than merge as these seems capable of being larger than stubs as well sourced articles that are relevant to at least some segment of our readership. Best, --[[User:A Nobody|A Nobody]]<sup>''[[User talk:A Nobody|My talk]]''</sup> 00:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:38, 21 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)
- You don't want notability proven, since as soon as you were done, you went over to the merge discussion and said you had hacked it down enough to be easily merged. It isn't a conspiracy theory, to notice what is obvious before you. I have contacted everyone who participated in the AFD, other than those who already posted here, since they of course know about the merger discussion. Dream Focus 03:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- No that would be an observation on my part. I never said "support" or "merge" or whatever, just that it could fit into a list. It's you that jumped the gun. :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not in favor of a merge. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Can we move the material to the talk page until we reach consensus, or am I going to have to request it be protected? Ikip (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The only one that seems a clear case for merging is The Companions of the Avatar. Merging a list of characters to a list of characters seems uncontroversial. Furthermore, the Companions article is completely unsourced, and game-guideish, but the other two have at what looks to be real world info. Abductive (reasoning) 03:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support merge per what I said here i.e. a few miscellaneous sourced statements isn't enough for a decent article. bridies (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Merge: The point stands that both the Avatar and Companions of the Avatar are not referenced enough to be character articles according to Wikipedia standards. In fact, it seems that the AFD consensus was actually to redirect/merge, but it was shut down for not being a valid AFD anyway. There is no reason for the article to be deleted, but it should still be merged.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- It closed as Keep[1]. And 7 people said Keep, with 5 saying redirect, and one saying merge. Dream Focus 03:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Merge would make article too long. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC).
- Keep. Merging would make the article too long. Lord British and the Avatar are notable characters and covered in reliable sources, including academic ones. Offliner (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Someone should cut them down the content verifiable in independent reliable sources, and then see if they "would make the aricle too long". bridies (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I'll have to have a good look through next week before I give my opinion. I'd just like to ask people to read WP:Writing about fiction if they haven't done so already. I quickly looked at the Lord British article. The sources presented don't come close to the GNG. A bullet-pointed list of ways to kill the character? Our coverage of this aspect should reflect the attention given to it by our sources, which would seem to be a few sentences at most. Plot information should be included in the plot summary of the games. This can probably all be cut down to a mergable level. Will look at the "List of" article another time. Marasmusine (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Per above. With the thousands of sources it should be possible to write at least good articles about these subjects independently, so best not to merge. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Merge Avatar: Though the result of the AfD was "Keep", I feel that there are several issues which were not properly taken into account. Yes, there was only one "Delete", but I believe that was the result of the comment about GDFL's impact on merged content. That's why there was a chunk of "Redirect" and "Merge"'s. However, many of the "Keep"'s did not cite any policy or guideline. Most simply stated that the character deserves its own article based on common sense that the character appeared a lot, which is not how Wikipedia is structured. When asked to provide sources, very few were supplied despite the assertion that many exist. If those in favor of Avatar remaining its own article, then I suggest the quickest way to end this is to provide said sources to satisfy WP:V and WP:RS. Because in the article's current state, I have to agree the article is not up to standards and a merge would strengthen this list. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC))
- Wikipedia is not a set of rules. You are to use common sense, and ignore all rules, they just suggestions on what to do in most cases. The founding principle, it a policy/law, which was there long before the suggested guidelines of notability came about, reads WP:IAR "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." It all comes down to consensus. The AFD established consensus was to keep. Dream Focus 16:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Dream- While I agree common sense must play a part in our practices here, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules clearly states "if", not to always ignore all rules. And regardless of age, the other guidelines still have to be taken into account as one of the Five pillars also clearly states "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy; unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references."
- So again, I suggest the best way to end this quickly is to provide said sources that establish Avatar's notability. In it's current state, the sources in such an article of its size does not meet standards. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC))
- The character has notable mention in various third party media publications, as well as in studies done, and is the star of 14 Ultima games, all of them notable, many redefining the industry. Did you see the parts I added earlier this week? Dream Focus 16:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I did Dream. In fact I linked the version I examined in my response above. It is a good start, but in it's current state not enough to warrant a separate article. So again, I ask that you present and add the "various third party media publications" and studies. That is what will bring this matter about the Avatar to an end. I guarantee you that if you provide a slew of sources, the above opposition will see no point in continuing the matter. Most have conceded the character is an important gaming element, but that does not cut it by Wikipedia's standards. And that is what they are trying to enforce. Despite the lengthy argument, we all want the same thing: quality, informative video game articles. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC))
- Quality informative video game articles? How do you get that by destroying an article, or some of the informative content? The character is notable enough to be on a list with other characters, but not by his self, even if the valid information about him wouldn't all fit properly on the merged article? It seems some people are just obsessed with mindless rules. You don't need someone to tell you something is notable, you able to think for yourself. Video game characters didn't get as much coverage back in those days as they do now. Old media sources aren't always archived. If the character was notable enough to be in 14 Ultima games, all of them quite notable, plus a Japanese Anime and manga series, then common sense would say, that character is notable enough to have their own article. Dream Focus 23:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I did Dream. In fact I linked the version I examined in my response above. It is a good start, but in it's current state not enough to warrant a separate article. So again, I ask that you present and add the "various third party media publications" and studies. That is what will bring this matter about the Avatar to an end. I guarantee you that if you provide a slew of sources, the above opposition will see no point in continuing the matter. Most have conceded the character is an important gaming element, but that does not cut it by Wikipedia's standards. And that is what they are trying to enforce. Despite the lengthy argument, we all want the same thing: quality, informative video game articles. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC))
- The character has notable mention in various third party media publications, as well as in studies done, and is the star of 14 Ultima games, all of them notable, many redefining the industry. Did you see the parts I added earlier this week? Dream Focus 16:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a set of rules. You are to use common sense, and ignore all rules, they just suggestions on what to do in most cases. The founding principle, it a policy/law, which was there long before the suggested guidelines of notability came about, reads WP:IAR "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." It all comes down to consensus. The AFD established consensus was to keep. Dream Focus 16:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with "mindless rules." Managing articles that are not up to par is just basic cleanup work. As it stands, none of these have a chance of reaching GA status, and they have been given enough of a chance to reach that point, though if you actually provide some real sources, that can easily change. The list itself can be expanded upon and possibly reach FL status with some work, so including these within the list to strengthen it makes perfect sense. While you keep mentioning the importance and the status of the characters, you need to actually show that through substantial secondary reliable sources, not through one or two that can easily fit within the list. TTN (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)