This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TTN (talk | contribs) at 16:35, 11 May 2008 (Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:35, 11 May 2008 by TTN (talk | contribs) (Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Sega/Header
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Video games/Sega page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
|
|
 Archives |
|
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Template:Sonic character
Here we shall discuss the issue with the aforementioned template and see if we can come to consensus on the issue. Here is the issue, for everyone who is reading: Should we or should we not include information on this template, which directly involves this project, relating to statistics such as gender, age, weight, and height? This is my opinion on the issue: while absolute statistics themselves are uncyclopedic about height and weight, they can be used relatively in this case for relation of the size of one object to another, whether it is in universe or in universe to something out of universe. As for gender and age, well, these should stay for informational purposes in the userbox (at least gender, I think). Red Phoenix 17:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
As I have already stated the height, weight, gender and age are some of the little real world info we have and a user could delete the articles on those grounds. God knows they've tried before.Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, not delete the article, but certainly delete the subtrivial statistics of a level of detail we don't even go into for real people. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Like I already said, we don't know a lot of real people's height and weight.Fairfieldfencer FFF 10:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest taking a look at Template:Infobox animanga character, which is used in the majority, if not all, anime character articles. In that template, age and gender are fields, while height and weight are not. --Silver Edge (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Age and gender could probably go. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
That's probably because not many cartoon characters don't give away their height and weight.Fairfieldfencer FFF 10:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Probably because it's subtrivial crap for people fictional or non-, and encyclopedias tend to try to be encyclopedic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why it should go. I mean the info is sourced and official. And it is encyclopedic.Fairfieldfencer FFF 10:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Age and gender should stay, at least. You make the point that it's in the article already, A Man in Black, but I'll make this example. How many times do we put stuff like aliases, record labels, etc, that are already in the article into Template:Infobox musical artist? Just because it's redundant doesn't mean it shouldn't go in the infobox. The infobox is there to give people a quick listing of the important characteristics. As for height and weight, I've already made my case: absolute values aren't encyclopedic, but they should probably stay on a relative terms basis. Red Phoenix 17:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- What about the Godzilla character articles, they list height and weight, and they're cited just like the Sonic character articles.Fairfieldfencer FFF 11:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- It should probably be removed there, too. Encyclopedia, not database of biographical information for fictional characters. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Although MiB's arguement sounds like just his opinion, User:Jappalang made a good arguement on Wikipedia_talk:VG#Sonic_info that his deleting them from the infobox complies with WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:NOT#STATS. But since critters-smaller-than-the-average-human-adolescent-defeating-skyscraper-sized-monstrosities is a big theme of the Sonic series, properly sourced info like height and weight would probably best be served in the area that describes the character. I've been considering merging all the personality, abilities, and interactions sections into a section titled Portrayal (like how Cream the Rabbit wound up) to cut out unsourced speculation and super trivial stuff (like 'so and so met this other guy once so they are friends / allies'). Unlike most of the other existing sections, the info wouldn't be awkward in a section like that. What does everyone else think? Cigraphix (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Cigraphix, your right the height, weight, etc should be kept as it is all sourced. Oh you don't have to worry about the E-123 Omega article, that I'm sorting out myself.Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- FFF, I respect the hard work you did on the character sections for Omega and Blaze (which is why I didn't touch them when I rewrote most of the others' Personality sections). But it doesn't seem that you're warming up to my Portrayal idea. It was just something I was thinking about that might cut the fat, discourage the addition of more, and provide a place where the w/h info would fit in. Cigraphix (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- The idea is a very good one, getting rid unsourced things like that, but we're here to talk about the Sonic template.Fairfieldfencer FFF 07:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- FFF, I respect the hard work you did on the character sections for Omega and Blaze (which is why I didn't touch them when I rewrote most of the others' Personality sections). But it doesn't seem that you're warming up to my Portrayal idea. It was just something I was thinking about that might cut the fat, discourage the addition of more, and provide a place where the w/h info would fit in. Cigraphix (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Cigraphix, your right the height, weight, etc should be kept as it is all sourced. Oh you don't have to worry about the E-123 Omega article, that I'm sorting out myself.Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Although MiB's arguement sounds like just his opinion, User:Jappalang made a good arguement on Wikipedia_talk:VG#Sonic_info that his deleting them from the infobox complies with WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:NOT#STATS. But since critters-smaller-than-the-average-human-adolescent-defeating-skyscraper-sized-monstrosities is a big theme of the Sonic series, properly sourced info like height and weight would probably best be served in the area that describes the character. I've been considering merging all the personality, abilities, and interactions sections into a section titled Portrayal (like how Cream the Rabbit wound up) to cut out unsourced speculation and super trivial stuff (like 'so and so met this other guy once so they are friends / allies'). Unlike most of the other existing sections, the info wouldn't be awkward in a section like that. What does everyone else think? Cigraphix (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- It should probably be removed there, too. Encyclopedia, not database of biographical information for fictional characters. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- What about the Godzilla character articles, they list height and weight, and they're cited just like the Sonic character articles.Fairfieldfencer FFF 11:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding SSBB
A while ago, I removed Sega project from the SSBB page (though I'll admit I did it too hastily), but someone in my talk page asked me to bring up in this talk page. Anyways, Sega's involved in Brawl, is barely anything. However, I ask why would Sega project give an assessment rating for a none Sega game. Involving Sonic isn't quite enough really. It's the same reason why there isn't a Legend of Zelda template or Pokemon template. Yes, the team behind the two were also involved Brawl, but the templates aren't there because the series do not affect the game as a whole. Magiciandude (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Merge Super transformation and Master Emerald With Chaos Emeralds
Hello. I am proposing a merge with Chaos Emeralds and Super Transformation. I believe that Super Transformation does not have sufficient real world information, and that merging with it Chaos Emeralds should make that article sufficient enough if we get sources from both and combine them. How's that sound? ZeroGiga (Contact) 14:47, 25 April 2008 (Eastern Time Zone)
As you can see from the above statement the head of the project is in favour of your proposal. Unfortunately he will not be able respond himself as he is currently busy with finals at his university. And thanks again for your help with the Cosmo article, we couldn't have remade it without your help.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I see... This could take a while. So you're saying that we can't continue with this until he comes back? I can deal with that. Oh, and it's kinda ironic that you thanked me for helping you bring back the Cosmo article, when I was the one who deleted it in the first place, but you're welcome anyway. ZeroGiga (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- The head of the project? Well, considering the absence of Doktor Wilhelm and the indefinitely blocked Gaogier, I guess I'm the senior member of the project. Anyway, I guess I can give you some help. I just can't give you that much while this is finals week. My last final is on Wednesday, and after that I should be fully active again. We can talk about this merger in the meantime, though, because there are some things to discuss. For example, TTN really wants to merge the info into the respective character articles. I think that might work, but it also might not. Let's take everything into consideration for this, I'll be checking this page at least a couple times a day during finals week. FFF, you can also make any points against it or whatever, I'd like to have consensus and hear all points of view rather than a simple, narrow-minded section. Red Phoenix 03:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I myself would like the article to remain as it is, but since it's lacking real world info the only way to save that info would be to merge it, (I would prefer with Chaos Emeralds instead of the character article). I would also like it to be a section over a paragraph.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that's often the problem. We have articles we really would like to save, but unfortunately if they are ever to improve, sometimes we must merge or cut back. It's just the way it works sometimes. Personally, I think what TTN does on a regular basis is going overboard, but then again, I'm generally an eventualist and an inclusionist. Speaking of this merger discussion, why don't we also talk about Master Emerald while we're at it? There's been a merge tag up for a while now, and I personally consider the Master Emerald one of the Chaos Emeralds. Of course, should it get merged, it gets its own section and a good portion of the info stays. Just another point we should discuss. Red Phoenix 17:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I was well aware of TTN's intentions as well. But just to tell you guys before you start pointing fingers, I'm not his proxy. I'm doing this on my own accord. I believe that Chaos Emeralds and the power within them would prove as usefull articles if we combine them. ZeroGiga (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I know your not one of TTN's "goons". If you were you'd want it in the character article like he does.Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I was well aware of TTN's intentions as well. But just to tell you guys before you start pointing fingers, I'm not his proxy. I'm doing this on my own accord. I believe that Chaos Emeralds and the power within them would prove as usefull articles if we combine them. ZeroGiga (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that's often the problem. We have articles we really would like to save, but unfortunately if they are ever to improve, sometimes we must merge or cut back. It's just the way it works sometimes. Personally, I think what TTN does on a regular basis is going overboard, but then again, I'm generally an eventualist and an inclusionist. Speaking of this merger discussion, why don't we also talk about Master Emerald while we're at it? There's been a merge tag up for a while now, and I personally consider the Master Emerald one of the Chaos Emeralds. Of course, should it get merged, it gets its own section and a good portion of the info stays. Just another point we should discuss. Red Phoenix 17:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I myself would like the article to remain as it is, but since it's lacking real world info the only way to save that info would be to merge it, (I would prefer with Chaos Emeralds instead of the character article). I would also like it to be a section over a paragraph.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- The head of the project? Well, considering the absence of Doktor Wilhelm and the indefinitely blocked Gaogier, I guess I'm the senior member of the project. Anyway, I guess I can give you some help. I just can't give you that much while this is finals week. My last final is on Wednesday, and after that I should be fully active again. We can talk about this merger in the meantime, though, because there are some things to discuss. For example, TTN really wants to merge the info into the respective character articles. I think that might work, but it also might not. Let's take everything into consideration for this, I'll be checking this page at least a couple times a day during finals week. FFF, you can also make any points against it or whatever, I'd like to have consensus and hear all points of view rather than a simple, narrow-minded section. Red Phoenix 03:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Super Transformation should definitely be redirected to Sonic the Hedgehog (series)#Super Transformation and the individual sections should end up in their main articles. While you guys really should just have those two emerald articles also redirect there, that's up to you at this point. Just add a paragraph or two into one of the sections of Chaos Emeralds if you really need them. Linking to the section should be no different than the article, so I see no need for it. TTN (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I must disagree with you, TTN, and we'll let consensus decide what will happen, not just what you say. If we put together these three articles we have, we have united three articles centering around one gameplay concept. Then, when all of them are brought together, real world information will be easier to find. This is my viewpoint, and I believe it is also that of ZeroGiga and FFF, except that FFF would prefer them separate. Red Phoenix 23:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- There is no meaningful real world information for any gameplay topic of this series. I have no idea why people are so optimistic about these kinds of things. Find me just one non-trivial sentence relating to any of these three concepts. If you can't do that in a few hours, good luck trying to get four to six paragraphs of it. TTN (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Would you consider yourself an immediatist, TTN? I think you've got to give these things some time to develop. I guarantee you the real world information you are questioning exists, it's all a matter of finding the information and sourcing it. That's part of my philosophy, Misplaced Pages is a work in progress and eventually the information will be there. By the way, people are optimistic because that is the inclusionist/eventualist points of view, that it will eventually happen and to include as much as possible. It's just another Misplaced Pages philosophy that is widely held, and generally it tends to conflict with your deletionist-mergist-redirectionist philosophies which seemingly just reduce the amount of articles and information. I also happen to hold the inclusionist/eventualist philosophy, though I do realize when some things must be done. Another reason people don't really take to you personally is because you're a very bold user in your edits, which I'll commend you for being bold, but it is annoying to other users often. I hope some of this has answered your questions, and I stand by what I originally proposed. The info's out there, trust me. It's just a matter of finding it and retrieving it. Red Phoenix 01:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- There is no meaningful real world information for any gameplay topic of this series. I have no idea why people are so optimistic about these kinds of things. Find me just one non-trivial sentence relating to any of these three concepts. If you can't do that in a few hours, good luck trying to get four to six paragraphs of it. TTN (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought you weren't allowed to edit wikiprojects and their talk pages TTN.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like TTN won't be able to reply to what I said. He just got himself banned for a week for editing a video game article.Fairfieldfencer FFF 12:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- lol, I hate to say it, but he does deserve it. Anyway, let's talk seriously here. Obviously none of us here (FFF, me, ZeroGiga) is in support of TTN's plan. So, let's follow through with our own. I can't be on a lot today, I do have to study for finals. Let's talk out what we need to merge here, what needs to possibly be cut (for redundancy, original research, etc.), and how to put it together. At the end of the week before TTN is unblocked, one of us will execute the merger and end this discussion. Red Phoenix 15:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think we should get rid of users but still list the abilities they have from Super transformation. I've only just realised that the information from Chaos Control is still to be merged. We need to pull off a huge merge and we still haven't discussed what we should do with Super transformation (other media). Oh RP thought I'd let you know I've invited RattleMan to the project.Fairfieldfencer FFF 15:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's fine, you can invite everyone you want. This is an open project, after all. Anyway, you're right about Chaos Control. We also should find some sources for that, but we can look through the past history for the Chaos Control redirect to get the page again. As for the users, why don't we take TTN's suggestion on that (wow, first time I've ever said that lol) and merge that info, or anything that's missing, into the respective character articles. I've taken a look, and the super transformation info for pretty much each of the characters in their own articles is pretty light, not to mention that quite a bit of the users section of Super transformation is sourced. We will keep the rest of the info and reassemble the Chaos Emeralds article with all of this information we have. Then we can start addressing the in-universe issues and the sourcing. Does that sound good for everyone? Red Phoenix 16:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- As for the comics and the other media article, a lot of that is excessive plot summary. If there's anything useful in there at all, we can scrap it and maybe insert it into the various comic articles or comic character articles, or maybe even into the new article we are assembling for Chaos Emeralds. But so much of that article violates WP:PLOT that it's not funny. Let's talk about that, we need to consider what to do for this article. Red Phoenix 16:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest the Sonic X section of other media be merged with List of characters from Sonic X under Dark Super Sonic.Fairfieldfencer FFF 16:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- That could work if you can source it. A lot of the other media article is unsourced, but sure, that's up to you. I really don't know much about the comics, and I've never cared to since I don't consider them canonical. And thanks so much for the barnstar, FFF, I really appreciate it. I think after I'm off my break, I'll make the project a real barnstar image with the project logo over a star. It's a good replacement for the awards system we already have (though we get to keep our old awards as they are, of course). Red Phoenix 23:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say merge the two, but exactly what section(s) has it been agreed to integrate them? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- What articles are you refering to?Fairfieldfencer FFF 10:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Meant where will super transformation and Master Emerald go to? I know the proposal is Chaos Emeralds, but exactly what section(s) in the page? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well I think features should be kept and users should be put into a passing sentence or something like this:
- Meant where will super transformation and Master Emerald go to? I know the proposal is Chaos Emeralds, but exactly what section(s) in the page? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- What articles are you refering to?Fairfieldfencer FFF 10:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say merge the two, but exactly what section(s) has it been agreed to integrate them? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- That could work if you can source it. A lot of the other media article is unsourced, but sure, that's up to you. I really don't know much about the comics, and I've never cared to since I don't consider them canonical. And thanks so much for the barnstar, FFF, I really appreciate it. I think after I'm off my break, I'll make the project a real barnstar image with the project logo over a star. It's a good replacement for the awards system we already have (though we get to keep our old awards as they are, of course). Red Phoenix 23:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest the Sonic X section of other media be merged with List of characters from Sonic X under Dark Super Sonic.Fairfieldfencer FFF 16:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think we should get rid of users but still list the abilities they have from Super transformation. I've only just realised that the information from Chaos Control is still to be merged. We need to pull off a huge merge and we still haven't discussed what we should do with Super transformation (other media). Oh RP thought I'd let you know I've invited RattleMan to the project.Fairfieldfencer FFF 15:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- lol, I hate to say it, but he does deserve it. Anyway, let's talk seriously here. Obviously none of us here (FFF, me, ZeroGiga) is in support of TTN's plan. So, let's follow through with our own. I can't be on a lot today, I do have to study for finals. Let's talk out what we need to merge here, what needs to possibly be cut (for redundancy, original research, etc.), and how to put it together. At the end of the week before TTN is unblocked, one of us will execute the merger and end this discussion. Red Phoenix 15:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sonic the Hedgehog
- Miles "Tails" Prower
- Knuckles the Echidna
- Metal Sonic
- Blaze the Cat
- Silver the Hedgehog
Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll start working on this merger in my sandbox. I should be able to start helping out more now that I'm done with moving back home after a year at college. Red Phoenix 13:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I've got a basic concept set up. It's pretty much a copy and paste merger, but this setup should allow us to find out-of-universe information a lot easier and add lots of sources. I've cut away some of the original research (like the Gem Cut section, what was the point in that?) and I think the Users section of the Super transformation article could be split into each character's article. As for Super transformation (other media), I seriously recommend redirecting the article or maybe a prod. So much of it is terribly written. If someone can make sure that the information is in each character's article, we'll take care of it after making sure the notable information is secure elsewhere. Red Phoenix 14:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The Sega Project Logo
I've asked the guys at the Misplaced Pages:Graphics Lab to tweak our logo a bit. They've outlined the logo in black, per my request, and made the logo a .svg vector graphic, per my instructions. The vector graphic looks better at higher resolutions than the raster graphic .png. What do you guys think? I'm planning on us using it in all of our stuff where the original logo is. Here's the image:
Look good? Red Phoenix 19:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, much better.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll start replacing all our template logos and such with this image. Red Phoenix 20:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
I see there wasn't a barnstar for this project so i created one, what do you think ?
Notify me for any possible improvments
|
The Sega Task Force Barnstar | |
| {{{1}}} | ||
| this WikiAward was given to {{subst:PAGENAME}} by ~~~ on ~~~~~ |
-- Cradel 20:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Got to say I love it! Thanks, Cradel! Oh, and thanks for doing our .svg image for us. Red Phoenix 03:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Sonic Task Force
Today, WikiProject Sega has given birth to the Sonic Task Force. It is currently an expanding task force and branch of this project. There are two shortcuts to the task force: WP:SEGA/S and WP:SONIC. You can use whatever you want to get there. If you're a Sonic fanatic, feel free to join our new task force. While there's no such thing as a true leader to a project or task force (though I seem to be the de facto leader of this project lol), I would like to leave Fairfieldfencer in charge of the new task force by practice only. Feel free to help out, go check out the page, etc. Red Phoenix 04:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Sonic characters
Can we please just get these character articles organized and done with? No matter how much false optimism you put up, they do not meet our community standards and they are not going to improve any time soon. Seven character articles and seven lists should be the goal. It's going to be done at some point, so you may as well do it now. TTN (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Don't you ever learn TTN, no one wants the articles deleted and merged, (well some do, but the people who want keep them out number them a million to one).Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- None of you want them merged. If it were actually possible to set up a situation where only people that don't regularly edit fiction could comment, it would be pretty much unanimous to make these actually encyclopedic. TTN (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Percisely, friend. None of THEM want the articles merged, but on this site, merge is about consensus. It should be everyone's decision to suggest a merge or not, not the decision of one person forcing the guidelines on other people. That right there does encourage good faith. ZeroGiga (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Consensus is global, not local. Just because a small group wants something does not mean that they have an actual consensus. Unfortunately, the whole dispute resolution system is junk and there is no place with enough people to actually comment at once to help solve this problem. TTN (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- If a world without fiction existed then the world would be a pretty dull place.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- That has nothing to do with my statement. Anyways, these are fan articles as they stand, and they need to be fixed. If you could let go of your fan instincts for a little bit, you'll see that nothing would even change anyways. The one shots will still be covered (just not in a list format). The merged characters will have the same level of information and they will not be any less notable. I've never understood they idea that just because something doesn't have an article that it is somehow isn't important. They only thing that it will do is actually help make this a legitimate project rather than one of the many fan gatherings around here. TTN (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- These articles have just as much notability as any other article. It shows what SEGA has made. It is real world information about the games from an in-game point of view.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Notability is shown through the inclusion of reliable sources in order to provide a real world view of the topic. Notability is not shown through your personal opinions or your misinterpretation of what is required. To be considered notable, they need information like development and reception information. Only the main seven have any chance of that at this point in time (and maybe only three of them are definite). TTN (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- You'll never learn will you, no matter what you throw at people, no matter what hidden corner of Misplaced Pages you find, people will stand up to you and fight you, and then you go in all guns blazing when things don't go your way, (which is what got you suspended in the first place). And this discussion has been had about 4 times already and it's always lead to the same thing; people want the articles to stay the way they are, so face fact. Now could you end your monologue please, I have plans for the rest of the weekend.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- You're taking this a bit too seriously. You also seem to forget that they only reason why the articles have stuck is because people would rather pretend that they're actually getting something done (the FICT discussions) rather than trying to actually apply that to something worthwhile (Misplaced Pages:Fiction/Noticeboard). I really suggest that if you like your plot summaries, original research, trivia, and fancruft that much, you should really take up editing at Wikia. If they don't have a decent Sonic or Sega wiki at the moment, you can easily get one created. That way, you can have an article on every single minor thing down to a pallet swapped enemy. TTN (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I already know a Sonic wiki. But that's not the point. We've had this discussion again and again and again. And the articles have always been chosen to stay the way they are. The only thing that's changed is more games have been released featuring the characters and new info has come to light.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Again, the only reason that they have stayed is because of certain circumstance making it impossible to actually get a real discussion going, not because of any a consensus or because the articles are good. You seem to think that because this is a project (with only five active members, its more like a dead taskforce) it has some sort of authority. TTN (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Let's see, you've held this discussion at Talk:List of Sonic characters, WP:Video games and WP:Sega all with the same result. What does that tell you? It tells me that no matter where you host it people will think it's a bad idea.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- As I said, it's impossible to get a discussion going. Not one regular member commented on the actual discussion that I opened. It's hit or miss over there. I mean, right now, a handful of people are discussing the inclusion of two sentences in an article. After that, there is nowhere else with enough people to make any difference. TTN (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the consensus on the VGproject page was merge.Bridies (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm no good with matters like these. Wait till the head of the project is back, you both live in America so you should be awake at the same time.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Let's see, you've held this discussion at Talk:List of Sonic characters, WP:Video games and WP:Sega all with the same result. What does that tell you? It tells me that no matter where you host it people will think it's a bad idea.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Again, the only reason that they have stayed is because of certain circumstance making it impossible to actually get a real discussion going, not because of any a consensus or because the articles are good. You seem to think that because this is a project (with only five active members, its more like a dead taskforce) it has some sort of authority. TTN (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I already know a Sonic wiki. But that's not the point. We've had this discussion again and again and again. And the articles have always been chosen to stay the way they are. The only thing that's changed is more games have been released featuring the characters and new info has come to light.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- You're taking this a bit too seriously. You also seem to forget that they only reason why the articles have stuck is because people would rather pretend that they're actually getting something done (the FICT discussions) rather than trying to actually apply that to something worthwhile (Misplaced Pages:Fiction/Noticeboard). I really suggest that if you like your plot summaries, original research, trivia, and fancruft that much, you should really take up editing at Wikia. If they don't have a decent Sonic or Sega wiki at the moment, you can easily get one created. That way, you can have an article on every single minor thing down to a pallet swapped enemy. TTN (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- You'll never learn will you, no matter what you throw at people, no matter what hidden corner of Misplaced Pages you find, people will stand up to you and fight you, and then you go in all guns blazing when things don't go your way, (which is what got you suspended in the first place). And this discussion has been had about 4 times already and it's always lead to the same thing; people want the articles to stay the way they are, so face fact. Now could you end your monologue please, I have plans for the rest of the weekend.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Notability is shown through the inclusion of reliable sources in order to provide a real world view of the topic. Notability is not shown through your personal opinions or your misinterpretation of what is required. To be considered notable, they need information like development and reception information. Only the main seven have any chance of that at this point in time (and maybe only three of them are definite). TTN (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- These articles have just as much notability as any other article. It shows what SEGA has made. It is real world information about the games from an in-game point of view.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- That has nothing to do with my statement. Anyways, these are fan articles as they stand, and they need to be fixed. If you could let go of your fan instincts for a little bit, you'll see that nothing would even change anyways. The one shots will still be covered (just not in a list format). The merged characters will have the same level of information and they will not be any less notable. I've never understood they idea that just because something doesn't have an article that it is somehow isn't important. They only thing that it will do is actually help make this a legitimate project rather than one of the many fan gatherings around here. TTN (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Percisely, friend. None of THEM want the articles merged, but on this site, merge is about consensus. It should be everyone's decision to suggest a merge or not, not the decision of one person forcing the guidelines on other people. That right there does encourage good faith. ZeroGiga (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- None of you want them merged. If it were actually possible to set up a situation where only people that don't regularly edit fiction could comment, it would be pretty much unanimous to make these actually encyclopedic. TTN (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I will look at them again in about a week, too busy to do anything major at the moment.Bridies (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Do whatever the consensus is. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- And that would be to merge them into a state where they would be considered encyclopedic. Or do you, against everything you know, believe that four people can override the community? TTN (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- There never is consenus with you TTN. You will not accept the fact that people want the articles to stay the way they are.Fairfieldfencer FFF 11:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please read over some of our policies and guidelines relating to content. Those are consensus, not you. TTN (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- TTN you won't listen. We've had this discussion. The articles are staying the way they are.Fairfieldfencer FFF 12:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- TTN, the guidelines are not written in stone. They are to be interpreted in various ways; that's why we have people who are inclusionists such as Fairfieldfencer and deletionists like yourself. If this were not the case, then everyone would be forced to edit in one particular manner and there would be no room for multiple philosophies. While the guidelines are consensus, your view on how they should be interpreted is not consensus. I would have thought that the blocks against you and the ArbCom sanctions against you would have taught you that. My belief is that these articles that you talk about are worthy of note and worthy of their own articles because they are notable enough, and don't use the "it's not established" argument with me. I've turned articles that were at AFD for deletion due to notability issues into worthy articles, one even making it to GA status. If it can be established, then articles should stay the way they are until it is established. Plus, I would say we have a reasonable consensus here to make a strong argument against your opinion in this case. \
- By the way, the Sega Project has a new task force for dealing with these articles and the rest of the Sonic series. Fairfieldfencer has been working very hard to clean these articles up. So there is a cleanup effort in progress, if that's your beef.
- I also want to apologize to Fairfieldfencer, ZeroGiga, and everyone else because I was unable to be on here over the last couple of days, but I am back now. Red Phoenix 16:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Speaking of Afds, there's one going on right now and TTN's involved. Here's the article. Julie-Su I put it in the scope of the Sonic Task force to help it before something like this happened.Fairfieldfencer FFF 16:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is a difference between two people interpreting guidelines in different ways and one person following them, while the other ignores them. The notability guideline is very clear in what these need. There is no way to interpret it in a way that allows these to stay in their current condition. If they can be improved, it needs to be shown (i.e. "Put up or shut up"). It is beyond the point where your opinion has any impact on the claim. Also, the two people who have actually stated an opinion in this discussion and the one other in another discussion is hardly an overwhelming consensus capable of overriding a guideline. I really doubt that a taskforce of a project that has like four active members is going to have much of an impact either, especially when FFF has very little grasp of what is required. TTN (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- TTN you won't listen. We've had this discussion. The articles are staying the way they are.Fairfieldfencer FFF 12:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please read over some of our policies and guidelines relating to content. Those are consensus, not you. TTN (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- There never is consenus with you TTN. You will not accept the fact that people want the articles to stay the way they are.Fairfieldfencer FFF 11:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- And that would be to merge them into a state where they would be considered encyclopedic. Or do you, against everything you know, believe that four people can override the community? TTN (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)