| Revision as of 09:17, 28 March 2008 editJack Merridew (talk | contribs)34,837 edits →resurrecting merged character articles← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:19, 28 March 2008 edit undoKyaa the Catlord (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,442 edits →resurrecting merged character articles: rm trollingNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| My understanding of the purpose of "Request for Comment" is to get the input of the community, hence the views of uninvolved editors only are being canvassed. In the particular case, only two uninvolved editors appeared, both of them opposed to the word "hostage". I read this as "conclusive" for the result of the RfC (though perhaps it could be over-turned elsewhere). Is there anything wrong with my understanding? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | My understanding of the purpose of "Request for Comment" is to get the input of the community, hence the views of uninvolved editors only are being canvassed. In the particular case, only two uninvolved editors appeared, both of them opposed to the word "hostage". I read this as "conclusive" for the result of the RfC (though perhaps it could be over-turned elsewhere). Is there anything wrong with my understanding? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == resurrecting merged character articles == | |||
| Hi. I note that you've resurrected some of the Oh My Goddess characters without any prior discussion and without adding any sources that establish the notability of the characters. There were discussions prior to the merges and any resurrection of the articles should also be preceded by discussion (and a consensus; and sources). I'll be re-interring the articles. Cheers, ] 09:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :No consensus was found after reviewing the discussion. Undone. Please discuss further prior to redirecting these articles. ] (]) 09:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: No, the onus is on you to seek a consensus and find sources. If you resurrect these again, I'll seek assistance at ANI. ] 09:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:19, 28 March 2008
Point continues to not be found. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the complement
It's cool, I was going to do something similar a few weeks ago when someone else dumped the entire Frank West article into Dead Rising but it was reverted before I could get to it. I've always felt that a good merge could benefit the main Dead Rising article and leave the Frank West article unnecessary. Hewinsj (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I spoke too soon. Smilelee split the article to create Characters_and_Story_of_Dead_Rising. Hewinsj (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Smile Lee did what I prefer so I can't complain. Character information should have its own article when the main gets that big.... Its only recently fashionable to make gigantic articles needlessly. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- In most cases I would agree with you, spinning off overly long character sections can improve an article, but in this case I disagree. The character section is rather short and to the point. It gives an impression of who everyone is and what their motovations are without getting into excessive detail. It even sums up all of the details on Frank West's character without getting into too much detail, which makes for a good read for an encyclopedia article.
- Well, Smile Lee did what I prefer so I can't complain. Character information should have its own article when the main gets that big.... Its only recently fashionable to make gigantic articles needlessly. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I do admit that the article is excessively long, but I don't feel that splittng it in the way Lee has proposed is the right move. He did cut half the data from the article, being the characters, story, and parts of other sections that he thought related to characters and story. I wouldn't mind at all if he created an article for just the story, and called it "Plot of Dead Rising", but I don't think it was necessary to remove the character section, and I think he was stepping over the line when he started removing parts of things like "Development" or "Reception" to go along with this. A short paragraph with something like "the plot of Dead rising revolves around Frank West's attempt to survive in a shopping mall full of zombies" with a link to a main article for the detailed plot would have been fine, but this is getting messy and unorganized in the new article.
- I thought that the explanation on why Frank appears the way he does from a design standpoint worked great in "Deevelopment" because it adds an extra angle on how the game came to be made, rather than just focusing exclusively on game mechanics. Additionally how Frank was received by the public relates directly to the game's impact on the world at large, which is the sort of thing that makes editors like TNN happy. That makes it a natural fit in the "Reception" section.
- Sorry, I thought that was going to be short and I started ranting. I hope I made sense. Hewinsj (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
RfC process
My understanding of the purpose of "Request for Comment" is to get the input of the community, hence the views of uninvolved editors only are being canvassed. In the particular case, only two uninvolved editors appeared, both of them opposed to the word "hostage". I read this as "conclusive" for the result of the RfC (though perhaps it could be over-turned elsewhere). Is there anything wrong with my understanding? PR 15:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)