Talk:Deus Ex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Skip to Table of Contents Skip to Table of Contents
Famicom style controller This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
CVG To-do:
Deus Ex is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Date of review: 25 September 2006

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Deus Ex article.
To-do list for Deus Ex: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • This article needs more references for critical reception (print references would be nice), references on creation, references for the gameplay, references for everything. Warren Spector is a blabbermouth and this game always shows up on Best PC Games Evar lists, so it shouldn't be too hard to find references.
    • All of the existing refs need to be converted to use citation templates, like {{Cite web}}.
  • Merge UNATCO and the other stubs here.
  • The critical reception section is a start, but needs more and needs print references.
  • There's essentially nothing on the development or creative process that led to this game.
  • The gameplay section needs more.
    • The multiplayer section isn't very good, but may be hard to reference.
  • The lit/pop culture references section needs to be referenced, converted to prose, and summarized.
  • All of the images need fair-use rationales
    • We might have a few too many screenshots; how many first-person view screenshots do we need? Do we need the Ambrosia canisters?


/Archive 1
/Archive 2
/Archive 3
/Archive 4

Contents

[edit] GA review

This isn't quite ready for GA.

  • It still has a trivia section (the pop culture references section) which needs to be shortened and converted into prose.
  • It's very list-heavy; again, I suggest converting the lists of awards and such into summary prose, again.
  • There's no plot summary, but the article makes many, many references to the plot. I suggest condensing the "In-game fiction", "Date setting", "Themes", and the many, many articles summarizing pieces of the plot or backstory into simpler sections along the lines of "Plot" (or "Story"), "Characters," and "Setting", with possibly a referenced section titled "Themes". Shadow of the Colossus is probably a good article to look at for ideas.
  • There are separate, scattered sections about mods, multiplayer, and the fan community, all unreferenced. They should probably be combined and referenced.
  • The proposed merges need to be done or removed from the page.
  • The references need to be converted to use cite templates, usually {{cite web}}.

This still has a ways to go yet. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you A Man in Black (I know, amazing isn't it? ;)) - to a certain extent. Yes, this article is certainly not ready for GA rating yet for most of the reasons you mentioned.
However, I do not think merging the perepheral character and organization articles would be an improvement. Shadow of the Colossus is perhaps not the very best example to use, as the story is much simpler, and has many fewer characters. Perhaps a better example would be the Half-Life 2 page, which resembles Deus Ex more in terms of its complexity and scope, and as such also requires a template to cover all of its various aspects. -- Grandpafootsoldier 00:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, for example, the articles for Grey Death, Ambrosia, and Versalife could easily be merged here, as they're nothing but snippets of plot and setting from this game. (In fact, if the plot summary for this article covers all the major plot points, then they'll be redundant.) Some of the others would be slightly more complex merges, but the vast majority of these articles are just recapping the plot of this game or DX:IW. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I must seriously ask you AMIB, if you have actually ever even played Deus Ex. It would be nearly impossible to cover those subjects very well in the plot summary without making it extremely long - as anyone who has played the game would know.
Even with the most basic description, the plot summary is already going to be quite lengthy (as it is right now, it hasn't even gotten past the first level yet). I urge you again to look at the Half-Life 2 set-up as a good example of what I'm trying to get at. Not all games are equal in terms of scope, and Shadow of the Collossus is really not a very good choice to try to make comparisons to in this case. -- Grandpafootsoldier 16:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Many times, although I admit it's been years since I've played it. I do remember that the only possible thing you can say about Gray Death is going to be plot summary of DX, and if you're not saying everything that's in the Gray Death article in this article, then this article isn't complete. Half-Life 2 is rife with cruft, with tiny articles full of original research overanalysis of every plot point. I urge you not to follow that example. If you'd like a game with a much, much larger, more-complex story with fewer articles than this one, I suggest you look at Final Fantasy VII.
Now, go back to Gray Death. What does that article say that this article isn't going to say? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Really AMIB, that is very interesting. Well first, from what I can see, I seriously doubt Final Fantasy VII by itself has a "much, much, more-complex story" than Deus Ex. I also fail to see how 31 pages for this game in the series alone is "fewer articles" than the 18 for Deus Ex and 26 in total for both games. I also couldn't help but notice the Final Fantasy series template has a whole section devoted to such points of interest within the games as Airships in Final Fantasy and - well, well, well, look at this BIG no-no: a Final Fantasy Weapons List!
It seems to me AMIB, that you had better amble on over to that neck of the woods and start depositing liberal amounts of your patented Deletion markers and general annoying cleanup marks. While you are at it you can do the same thing to the "cruft-filled" Half-Life 2 page. Yeah, the one that just happens to have Featured Article status. Oh, don't worry, you're not required to do any actual improvements, as that is obviously too far below your illustrious self.
I (and I think most others involved) have seriously had quite enough of your obvious hypocrisy and bias (for whatever reason) when it comes to this topic, AMIB. Please either stop trying to act the policeman (which you are obviously very bad at), and help to actually improve this topic or just desist from editing it entirely. -- Grandpafootsoldier 01:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The Final Fantasy project is probably one of the most heavily mergist projects around, and Final Fantasy weapons is a merge target for dozens of stubs from more than a dozen games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
And Half-Life 2 is a fine article. It's the subarticles that all suck. I assume you want to make this a featured article; I do too. I just don't want to make a bunch of useless stubs or trivial-filled lists about every person, place, or thing in the process. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Are we trying to save page-space here? Is the virtual encyclopedia becoming too heavy to carry around? Somebody looking up the "Grey Death" wants to know about the Grey Death. I'd imagine they probably don't want to sift through 18 combined pages of Deus Ex information to find what they want to know about the Grey Death. I know I've looked up several topics (frustratingly unable to recall them right now) which have redirected me to some anonymous article which, half the time, has nothing to do with the topic in question. What's with all of this merging? Gamer Junkie 14:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone who wants to know about the Gray Death has either played this game and already knows what's in that stub, or hasn't and needs the context in this article. Either it's redundant or lacking in context. (It's actually both, although there are few readers affected by both.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
In this specific case I will agree with AMIB, though only for the Gray Death and Ambrosia articles. These two substances are so deeply intertwined with the plot of the game that it is difficult, if not impossible, to explain them without explaining the plot. As I said, in my opinion this only applies to these specific topics, not the rest of the Deus Ex articles. -- Y|yukichigai 18:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

My question remains unanswered. What does Gray Death say that this article isn't going to say? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I was simply using the Grey Death article as an example. I don't think I've even read the page myself so I couldn't tell you, although it has nothing to do with my point. I wish to know why we must cram every little scrap of information into as small a space as possible and then explain and clarify the credibility of every single sentence written in the articles that have been allowed to remain. Gamer Junkie 19:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Conciseness is key. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Conciseness is just another word for vague, which is the exact polar opposite of elaboration. The entire purpose of an encyclopedia is to explain a great many topics and subjects in detail. Therefore, I'd have to say that conciseness is not only not key, but entirely unwelcome on a site such as Wikipedia. Gamer Junkie 23:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Conciseness is using the fewest words to say the most information. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide an overview of many subjects, not explain them in detail; we're here to describe things in summary style, and WP:NOT still calls out articles that are nothing but plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. From the policy (emphasis mine): "Some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles, and since Wikipedia requires no paper we can give more thorough treatments, include many more relevant links, be more timely, etc." -- Y|yukichigai 18:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
How does that overcome not a repository of plot summaries? Additionally, what about WP:FICT counselling merging stubs that are nothing but plot summary up into the articles on the works themselves? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't, it doesn't need to, and is in fact secondary to the discussion. The point you were attempting to make was that Wikipedia should only be an overview of topics. As evidenced by the policy set forth in WP:NOT, that is obviously not true. Whether or not a given article falls into the category of "plot summary" or something similar is another discussion. -- Y|yukichigai 00:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I suppose you have a point, there. I guess I mean that Wikipedia should be an overview, and describing every tidbit of a fictional work, something that will only be a plot summary, doesn't serve that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
These are guidelines, nothing more. There is nothing against providing detail if somebody so pleases. The idea of providing information in a "concise" manner seems an entirely redundant requirement when dealing in terms of virtual space. Professional, neat, well-written and grammatically correct are all fair stipulations for the creation of an article. Balling articles into vague "overviews" is not. If we cannot find in-depth descriptions of something in an encyclopedia, why bother looking something up on Wikipedia at all? With a general idea of what I wish to know already, I'm hardly going to learn much more from a concise overview. Gamer Junkie 23:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You're discarding, out of hand, the reasons those guidelines were written. They were written to reduce redundancy and keep from duplicating, in toto, a fictional work that a handful of editors happen to like. If you want to document every single object and corner of your favorite games, there are other projects where you can do so. This project is an encyclopedia aimed at lay readers, and making articles that are nothing but overly detailed plot summaries does not serve that purpose.

I suggest we write an in-depth article on Deus Ex, sure, but Gray Death and Ambrosia (Deus Ex) and JC Denton and Paul Denton and The Collapse (Deus Ex) and the vast majority of these crufty articles don't stand up to in-depth analysis. The only things one can say about any of them are recapping the plot of the game in which they appear, and long-standing Wikipedia practice is to use plot summary to lend context to content that describes the real world. That is the long-standing compromise between "Normal encyclopedias would never have plot summaries" and "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia," and it's not going to be overturned because a couple of editors want to turn this project into something it is not. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed this discussion as I was hopping along and thought I would comment. I completely agree with AMIB's suggestions. The policy on Wikipedia is this:
"Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article."
We do not include everything in Wikipedia without a reason. This is also specifically stated at WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information point 4:
"Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes."
Guidelines such as WP:FICT and WP:WAF help us to satisfy the policy. If you disagree with the guideline then you need to come up with another solution that will satisfy policy. That being said, these guidelines are backed by a strong consensus, and cannot be debunked simply because they are "only guidelines". The are guidelines because they are not always absolute, but in this case we have given them context and shown that they apply to this situation. Because they apply to this situation and are backed up by a consensus, then consensus is in their favor. To dispute them further would require strong arguments that have not been made. -- Ned Scott 01:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I see I'm kind of late for a lot of this discussion, but as usual It's apparent AMIB has as usual failed to give a good reply to my original problem with him referencing Final Fantasy as an example to be followed. I seem to remember him lobbying quite vehemently for the deletion of Robots in Deus Ex, Weapons in Deus Ex, and Weapons in Deus Ex: Invisible War as "guides". Now he is also calling for the merging of JC Denton, Paul Denton, and various other pages into the main Deus Ex article because they are mere "cruft" and "plot snippets". Yet, in his opinion, page such as List of Final Fantasy airships, Final Fantasy bestiary, Final Fantasy items, and List of Final Fantasy VII terms, (among many others) and such character pages as Cloud Strife and Jenova are somehow perfectly fine.

Am I the only one who can see a blatant double standard here?

He also seems to act as if the chances of Deus Ex being chosen for "Featured Article" status will be somehow hurt by the quality and/or number of its off-shoot articles - which is clearly not the case. -- Grandpafootsoldier 01:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It was a mistake to bring up FFVII; I didn't realize how many crufty subarticles there were. *sigh*
No, it won't hurt this article's chances of getting to FA by making a bunch of crufty subarticles. I'm not sure where you're getting that I was implying that, but I'm happy to make myself clear. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Fine, but what the heck is wrong with those pages anyway? They are well written and provide interesting information about a game I have not played. What gives you the jurisdiction to say which article is "cruft" (I'm starting to really hate that word} and should be removed from this site?
That's what I have always liked about Wikipedia, it provides an amazing amount of detail about almost any topic you can think of. I personally think its not an improvement to just relegate every article about a subject of this kind to the format: Overview, gameplay, plot, critical reception. That just makes Wikipedia as bland and boring as any regular review site or encyclopedia. Why would I even bother checking it out here?
Wikipedia should be a unifying repository of knowledge, a place to go where you can information that is usually scattered across the internet and the real world. Yes, it should be well organized, yes it should be researched and backed up with fact, but it shouldn't have to conform to some narrow little bland ideal you and others on this site seem to have for it -- Grandpafootsoldier 02:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a unifying repository of knowledge, not a unifying repository of stories. It never has been the latter, and making it the latter is beyond its scope. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
"a unifying repository of stories" where the hell do you get that from? How is List of Final Fantasy Airships or Weapons in Deus Ex a repository of "stories"? As usual you have side-stepped my question.
And why do you feel it is necessary to remove the entire "Themes" section from the article? How is that "a collection of stories"? It is addressing an important aspect of the game? Really, AMIB are you actually capable of adding something to an article instead of just deleting every damn thing in sight? -- Grandpafootsoldier 02:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
As I said before, I completely agree with AMIB's actions and find them logical and a step in the right direction. You are the one who has failed to give adequate reasonings as to way these articles are except from strong guidelines and policy. He has not side-stepped your questions at all, but playing these stupid little games gets us no where. You want to get nitpicky with this, then that's your deal, but consensus is not in your favor, and it has been repeatedly established that consensus does not agree with you. It's very obvious that no reply will satisfy you. I understand that you do not like this and that you object, but we're not going to ignore policy and guidelines to make you, or anyone else, feel better. Not everyone gets to have their way. -- Ned Scott 02:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be getting yours. Where did you come from, anyway? I cannot recall a single instance in which you have made an edit regarding Deus Ex in any way, shape or form. Why are you even here? I also find it ironic that you would label Grandpafootsoldier as "nitpicky", as the only person doing all of the nitpicking regarding this article is AMIB. Do we even try to fix things here, or do we just argue, merge and delete everything we don't like now? It would be nice to see people such as yourself contributing to articles you APPROVE OF, rather than bickering endlessly, citing policy and repeating guidelines for the sake of removing or merging every article that you don't. Why waste your time in this manner? Obviously you believe that these articles are below par, but at least they are there, to be consulted by whomsoever wishes to read them. I believe that what you are doing contributes nothing towards informing those that use Wikipedia regardless of whether or not that information is fictional or non-fictional or falls under the stipulations of policy-makers. Deckiller, for your comment below, how does the fact that there are nearly 20 Final Fantasy titles qualify as relevant? Aside from FFX and FFX-2, those 20 titles are all standalone, so they should technically be on even shakier ground than Deus Ex in the eyes of Ned and AMIB. Deus Ex may only be two games, but they are titles (especially the first) hailed for their gameplay and deep and twisting plotlines. Game-of-the-year and 10/10 in hundreds of critical reviews. Quantity does not determine quality. I am a fan of both series, although it is absolutely clear that Deus Ex is a much more complex and deep title than any release in the Final Fantasy series. Gamer Junkie 00:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • In response to the above, the comment about 20 final fantasy games is completely relevent, as it is in response to the general final fantasy gameplay articles (airships, magic, etc: these articles cover the series as a whole; they chronicle those elements of the entire series). Additionally, quality does not necessarily mean notability, but that's beside the point. — Deckiller 00:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

First, there is no need to compare final fantasy topics with Deus Ex topics, since Final Fantasy covers nearly 20 games. Moreover, pages such as Final Fantasy items provide an overview; they don't list all the items. But that's beside the point. Final Fantasy VII and all the five paragraph character class articles are the only major cruft points in WPFF. The Deus Ex information should not be removed from the site, but it should be trimmed a bit. I think the best option is to create a Terminology of Deus Ex or a Story of Deus Ex page to combine all these plot elements. There should also be a substantial story section on the page, with subheadings for setting, characters, and plot. Final Fantasy X is a good way to treat Deus Ex; see the subpages for FFX for what I'm getting at. — Deckiller 02:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Also, the concept of lists is almost defensive: they are created as a compromise between covering a fictional story in a compressed, succinct, and tight manner, without having millions of articles that will just resummarize the plot. Furthermore, the list/merge format prevents the creation of said articles, and discourages cruft injection. I call them "cruft dams", but, when one plays cards right, one can turn them into great encyclopedia articles — if there's enough sources and scope (I.E. star wars and final fantasy) In the case of Deus Ex, it seems that the plots can be adequetely summarized in the three subsection format I mentioned above, with some subarticles if necessary. — Deckiller 02:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Third post; I just realized Deus Ex has two games. That is not enough material to merit so many subarticles. But let's take this step by step: first step: merge the organizations into one article (Factions in Deus Ex). Second step: if necessary, create a Gameplay of Deus Ex article, and most likely a list of characters article. Third step: merge all the info in the three bottom articles into the plot summary(ies). — Deckiller 02:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with some of what you are saying. Though Deus Ex and Invisible War are only two games when compared to Final Fantasy's 20+, they still contain a very complicated plot are very popular. It seems to me they at least require a few peripheral articles addressing its characters and other aspects of the list variety or otherwise.
Therefore I cannot understand why A Man in Black insists on cramming the whole topic into the main article, with the barest minimum mention possible given to all aspects.
[Edit] In reply to your last post, I do not think that Deus Ex's gameplay requires a seperate article. Also, with all due respect, given your apparent relative ignorance of this topic, I don't know if you are the best individual to be making suggestions of this kind-- Grandpafootsoldier 02:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I've never played Deus Ex, but it sounds like a similar scenerio to Xenosaga, which is a trilogy of games with deep stories. There are plot summaries on the main pages, and lists for factions, protagonists/antagonists, and so on. As far as ignorance of the topic goes, it actually doesn't matter; this concept has been used from everything ranging from Star Wars to Final Fantasy to Xenosaga. — Deckiller 02:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Deus Ex doesn't nearly have the depth of story of Xenosaga in that there isn't the amount of detail and backstory; the largest challenge in describing its plot is not the vast amount of backstory but instead the somewhat variable nature of its plotline, since there are several points where the story is affected by the player's actions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
So the question is whether that balances off; does the content in the forked discussions equal the content of a detailed backstory? Either way, it seems there will be enough content to warrent a few sublists IMO. — Deckiller 03:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I was going to respond to this, but there's nothing MIB, Ned Scott, and Deckiller haven't already said.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Literary and popular culture references

This section can probably be condensed into #Themes, but it needs to be linted for "fans noticed that X is similar to Y!" stuff. For example, Ambrosia could be a reference to something else that is referencing the drink of the gods, or it could just be a name that sounds nice.

Right now, it's just a list of things fans think might be intentional parallels (much like the rest of the sections tagged {{originalresearch}}), instead of things that reliable sources have described as parallels. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've temporarily restored the section, only to preserve the verifiable information so that it can be moved into the article as prose, if possible. We're not on a deadline here; if the article looks iffy for a while as information is reorganized and merged, so be it. I'd rather have a complete and informative article 6 months from now than a properly formatted, yet terse and topical article next week. -- Y|yukichigai 18:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I figured it'd be a useful as part of a rewrite, so that's why I tagged it as OR and moved it somewhere relevant. I'm not sure who removed it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Issues

This article is going to need some work before it reaches GA.

  • The plot section is the major issue at hand. The plot (Story) heading should contain three subections: Setting, Characters, and Story (or Plot). The most well-sourced "real world parallels" can go into the setting section (only a few though, no five paragraph disertations; any really detailed concepts can go into respective areas of the merged lists), with perhaps a sentence introducing them in the lead section of the article.
  • Let's remove the huge list of pop culture references trivia. If that information can be cited, provide an external link; otherwise, it's OR or trivial. Likewise, remove the trivia section.
  • Gameplay should be one section as of now.
  • Awards list needs to be integrated into the reception and criticism section (not all of them, just the key ones that relate to sites you are selecting to cite criticism from. The rest need to be axed.). Speaking of the reception and criticism section, after integrating the awards, it's a good idea to add some perspectives.
  • Many cases of biased writing ("due to its popularity" and "intriguing story" are classic examples).
  • Academic writing as opposed to succinct writing in areas ("a variety of different ways", "various concepts", stuff like that).

From personal experience, Final Fantasy VIII or Final Fantasy X-2 are probably the best models to follow. References are fine for GA-level, except for those OR issues discussed. — Deckiller 02:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Though some of your smaller suggestions are obviously correct (regarding bias, academic writing, etc.), again I must ask, given your ignorance of the subject, why you consider yourself qualified to be given such broad suggestions on other key issues, such as gameplay. It is not very wise to infer based on your experience with other games what is best for this particular article. -- Grandpafootsoldier 03:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, all my comments were organizational based; in other words, suggestions that have nothing to do with the actual content of the article. I stand by my suggestions. — Deckiller 03:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but organization often has a lot to do with how the content is best presented. Actually my main beef was in regard to your claim that "Gameplay should be one section as of now", which I don't really think is the best suggestion, as the gameplay in Deus Ex is quite complicated and warrants extra explanation. -- Grandpafootsoldier 03:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
That's why I used the term 'as of now'. Once the information is expanded, then you should determine if suborganization is needed. — Deckiller 03:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
In looking at the character information from the series, it might be possible to combine the characters section with either the setting or plot sections (depending on how you word the information or how you think it best fits in). Or, you can keep a seperate characters section, describing the main protagonists and antagonists of your story. I see a lot of instances of "setting and characters, plot" in lieu of "setting, characters, plot". However, this is only really done when little information available on how the characters were developed (designer interviews, etc). If you can find such information, you should be able to shape a character section with ease. — Deckiller 03:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't really think it is necessary to try to combine all character related pages with the plot section at this point. The main priority is to try to bring the main page up to a higher standard and I don't really think adding a "characters" section is necessary to that end. Overall, I am more inclined to think your second suggestion is the best, however. If you would like to see the basic kind of organization I was going for for this game, check out the Half-Life 2 page. -- Grandpafootsoldier 03:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Half-Life 2 has a ton of unnecessary, crufty subarticles that we just don't need here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, what I meant by a characters section was a section providing an overview of the main protagonists/antagonists, and some information on how the characters were created (the same info should be used in the setting). A list of characters in a seperate subarticle seems fine to me in this case. — Deckiller 03:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about its peripheral articles AMIB, I was referring to the main HL2 article. Anyway I have already heard your position, so there was no need to repeat it yet again. You just always have to get the last word in don't you? - Grandpafootsoldier 03:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed naming convention for sub-articles

It occured to me that we have no real naming convention for Deus Ex sub-articles. We have, for example, Deus Ex mods, Weapons in Deus Ex, Minor Deus Ex characters, etc. I realize this isn't exactly top priority, but wouldn't it make sense if we had them organized as sub-folder? Y'know, something like Deus Ex\Mods, Deus Ex\Minor characters, that kind of thing. It would bring a certain smoothness to the way the sub-articles are presented, clearly identifying them as sub-articles related to a larger main article. Or am I completely off base here? -- Y|yukichigai 18:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Can't, WP:NC#Do not use an article name that suggests a hierarchy of articles. -- Ned Scott 00:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Well that shoots that one down pretty quick doesn't it? Anyway, at the very least I think we need to have some sort of naming convention for sub-articles. If not slashes, then perhaps "Weapons in Deus Ex", "Minor characters in Deus Ex", etc.
I cannot believe I've gotten sidetracked by something so mostly irrelevant. Ah well, such is my brain. -- Y|yukichigai 09:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I've strike the "mostly" there. Sub-articles of a single-sourced work of fiction are really rather low on the scale of things important to an encyclopedia. The best thing to do would be to work on adding any parts of those sub-articles which actually warrant inclusion into the main article. Chris Cunningham 10:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deus Ex first-person view screenshot

I took a screenshot of the first-person view of Deus Ex:

image:DeusEx 2006-10-03 18-31-45-56.gif

Should we use it for the article? ThunderPower 22:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Yes, we should. Make sure you write a fair-use rationale for it, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing WTC towers

It might be worth double-checking the info on the missing World Trade Centre towers. I distinctly recall playing this game in early 2001 and the towers were visible on the skyline. After the events of September 11 a patch was released which fixed a number of annoying bugs and also removed the towers from the skyline. Of course, I don't have an original copy to double-check that myself and just me saying "hey, I remember X" is probably not authoritive enough for an encyclopedia. --BenM 11:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The version I have, the Game of The Year edition, doesn't have the towers, and it is dated June 2001.--Drat (Talk) 11:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, my version doesn't have them as well.--ZFGokuSSJ1 12:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I still have the original one as well, will check later, but AFAIR no towers were there. And GOTY also came out before Sep.2001. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 15:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I got a copy of Deus Ex bundled with a Soundblaster about 4 months after the game's release. The Twin Towers are not visible in that version, un-patched and patched. -- Y|yukichigai 18:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I recall that in an interview, one of the Deus Ex developers commented that the twin towers were left out of the skybox texture because of memory limitations in the Unreal engine. The in-game rationale is that they were destroyed in a terrorist attack before the events of the game. Spooky, since the game was released before 9/11 Qifan 19:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FPS/RPG conventions

I've put in the early leg-work on this section, providing at least a starting point for what I hope is a larger, more complete comparison and contrast. I'm searching for sourced statements, hopefully from the developers as they explain why they included cuch and such element while leaving others out. This is by no means a complete start, but it's a big leap from where things were when I started on the page. Consequentially 02:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

-Looks good! -ZFGokuSSJ1 02:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warren Spector's quote about the name

Can anyone find that 1up interview? I've searched the site, and tried using parts of the quote in Google search, and the quote has only turned up on Wikipedia and its mirrors. As the quote is still not sourced after several months, I'm removing it.--Drat (Talk) 08:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Shoudn't it be mentioned that no matter if Denton brothers' names were a reference to the Bible, these references became obvious in DX:IW? Apart from JC (ref. to Jesus Christ) and Paul (ref. to Paul of Tarsus) there are also Tarsus Academy (Paul of Tarsus again) and ApostleCorp. Even if the former two could have been coincidental, the latter rather could have not. 62.29.136.15 19:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Triva bad... why?

Over the last few months I've been seeing a lot of wikibusybodies loudly asserting that trivia section are bad and evil and should be converted to prose or outright eliminated... yet never explaining exactly WHY. So I ask you trivia-haters, why? What's the problem? How is it an improvement to, for example, take the informative, precise, and easily-readable 'Ton guest list and convert it to a vague, LESS-informative sentence? Clayhalliwell 16:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how changing the 'Ton guest list to prose as I have done has lost any of the important information. The only information which was not retained was the cities they were listed as having come from, which I cannot possibly see as being important enough to put in the article, especially since the locations really only were meant to confirm who the guests at the 'Ton were supposed to be. -- Y|yukichigai 18:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You're actually asking about three different things: trivia sections, bulleted lists, and trivial details.

Trivia sections are dealt with in WP:AVTRIV. Short version: trivia sections are bad because they tend to be dumping grounds for miscellaneous facts, which should be mentioned elsewhere in more-relevant parts of the article. In general, though, the facts in a trivia section shouldn't be deleted unless they're truly trivial details.

Bulleted lists take up a lot of space to say very little. Almost always, the info contained therein can be converted to more-attractive, more-compact prose. They also encourage the inclusion of lists of trivial details.

Trivial details need to be summarized instead of listed in exhaustive detail, in summary style. (This is reflexive; the details that are trivial are the ones so unimportant that significant encyclopedic understanding of the subject is not lost if such details are summarized.) Remember, our goal is not to list every single fact ever noted (particularly in the case where that fact is merely a story detail from a fictional word), but give an encyclopedic understanding and overview.

Does this help? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I should point out though, that while WP:AVTRIV says Trivia sections should be removed/integrated completely, the proposed policy being debated in Wikipedia:Trivia does not specifically say that Trivia-like sections should be removed completely. It does say that items of non-importance should be removed, but it does not say that a list of minimal-importance information is an outright no-no. It even suggests that such sections, provided they are filled with somewhat useful information, be named appropriately; in the case of this article, "Literary and popular culture references".
The key issue here is not that the information is being presented as trivia, but rather if the information is of any value and if it would work better for the sake of the article to be integrated into another section as prose. In this specific case I think it is evident that the 'Ton guest list works well as prose added to the In-game fiction section, particularly because the importance lies in what the information is, not how it is presented within the game. This may not hold true for other pieces of information, but in this case I feel it is perfectly justifiable. -- Y|yukichigai 08:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure that's really helpful to other people who share that opinion, AMIB. There is nothing specifically against trivia, Clay, just a few people who don't like it and would like to see it gone. Just keep the information factual and on topic without speculation and/or original research. I swear, AMIB, how do you ever actually get around to editing articles? You've read every damned guideline ever added in Wikipedia history. Gamer Junkie 01:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I only recently learned about WP:AVTRIV. The rest is just rational argument. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Rational? What's irrational about my view? Removing information from an encyclopedia, factual and relevent information at that, is irrational. Gamer Junkie 05:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Offering summarized overviews of subjects is the basic goal of an encyclopedia. You could add every single word of "Romeo and Juliet" to Romeo and Juliet and I would remove it and replace it with a prose summary; this is technically "removing information," but we're here to summarize, not retell. We summarize in lieu of doing many things listed at WP:NOT, such as repeating source material or retelling stories. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Now you're exaggerating. Nobody is adding the entire script of Deus Ex, and if they did, I would entirely agree with you. Trivia is relevent (and minute amounts of) information. Much of it on the Deus Ex page I was unaware of before reading it. Removing it just for the sake of abiding by some guideline, written by god-knows-who, is ridiculous. There are plenty of well-written and perfectly satisfactory articles containing trivia sections on Wikipedia. The fact this would be perceived as somehow detracting from said articles, frankly, infuriates me. Gamer Junkie 06:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soundtrack

The current article only mentions the soundtrack for Deus Ex only once. Since the soundtrack for DX is easily one of the best ever, I think there should be a small section about it. Would it be good for the article? -ZFGokuSSJ1 17:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can find some good sources so the information within the section is verifiable, I'd say not only yes but hell yes. I'm pretty sure the soundtrack received some manner of award or was at least nominated, though the specifics escape me.
There was also for a time a bit of information in the old Trivia section that stated that Warren Spector initially didn't like the music (or at least the main theme) for Deus Ex, but once he couldn't get the tune out of his head he decided to keep it. If you could find a source for that it would be perfect for a soundtrack section. -- Y|yukichigai 18:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a soundtrack segment to the page. It only has a basic track list and a couple other details, so if anyone has anything else they think should be added go ahead. -- Grandpafootsoldier 22:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I know the soundtrack is critically acclaimed, but the sources for that kind of suck. We can probably do better; I'll see what I can find. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging on Deus Ex page

I guess we had better the ball rolling on discussing the possibility of merging the UNATCO, VersaLife, and Majestic 12 articles into the main Deus Ex page - no matter how painful this is likely to be knowing A Man In Black's track record.

I for one am against it. Yes, the "Gray Death" and "Ambrosia" pages were kind of redundant, but I don't think it holds true of these three, as they help to give more detail on the organizations in question than the plot summery can, and give information about the NPC's encountered from each. -- Grandpafootsoldier 00:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Two points.
They're going to a level of detail far beyond summary. If someone wants to learn about the structure of UNATCO (for example) not only would Eidos like to sell you a game (they could use the money), there are many, many fansites who can speculate, offer analysis, compare Deus Ex to other works, and do all sorts of things Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia both can't and shouldn't.
As for the lists of various agents - I may later regret suggesting this - how would you feel about a "Trivial/Generic characters in Deus Ex" article, covering the robots, the generic MIBs, the soldiers, and so on? I'm not really happy about it, but it seems like a logical place to dump this sort of thing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
First, I must point out, as people have pointed out again and again to you, "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia", and as such should not be held to the standards of one in every minute case. Second, it seems to me well within the parameters of an encylopedia to "offer analysis" to a certain extent, and "compare Deus Ex to other works". I also don't think Eidos is going to loose a very large amount of money by Wikipedia having a detailed description of a fictional organization within a game they published six years ago.
As for your suggestion, that's probably a good idea to look into. Though I don't know how others feel. -- Grandpafootsoldier 01:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOT for plot summaries. We've been through this. I was also making the case that even when it's allowed, it's something we do poorly; we can't annotate the source, we can't analyze, we can't compare, we can't speculate. In addition to the fact that it's not and shouldn't be allowed, that level of detail isn't even a very good idea. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Without annotating, analyzing or comparing, the UNATCO article could be considerably long given the massive amount of in-game literature available on the organization, including one book which I believe is titled "A Brief History of UNATCO". This would not fall into the category of plot summary, as the development of UNATCO is not part of the plot itself, but rather happens beforehand. Currently... yeah, it's kind of a plot summary, or much of it is, but with a little tweaking the article could stand up on its own. -- Y|yukichigai 21:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Long, yes, useful, no. Backstory and setting details are plot summary in a different form. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll interrupt you right there. This is not your decision to make. Usefulness is determined by consensus, not by declaration. Let's see what can be done in terms of fleshing out the article first before calling it useless. -- Y|yukichigai 07:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't asserting any sort of fiat, merely restating my essentially unrefuted point. We can't write analysis without reliable sources (so not self-published fansites) doing analysis. Without analysis, we're just retelling the story in less-compelling form, and that's not what this project is here to do. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Well then I suppose a fleshing out of the UNATCO article (and others) will have to find some good sources then, or find some other way to make the article useful. And before you say, "there's no way to do that within Wikipedia policy," stop, because you can't possibly know that for sure. You can play the odds, but you can't rule it out completely. Let someone else take a crack at it, and if, eventually, they all fail, then go all merge-happy on the article. Remember, we're not on a deadline. No deadline. To reiterate, the amount of deadline-having-ness of this particular cleanup cannot be expressed as a positive number. -- Y|yukichigai 07:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I would be pleasantly surprised to discover that such sources exist, and it would negate the bulk of my objections. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
So these two atoms are sitting in a bar, right? And the first atom looks at the second atom and says, "Woah. Time out man. I think I just lost an electron." The second atom, obviously concerned, replies, "Are you sure?" The first atom thinks about it a second, the nods. "Yeah man, I'm positive."
This nice, friendly break to a slightly-heated, slightly-really-old debate is brought to you by Consequentially 02:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC).
As I've advocated elsewhere on this page, a page covering generic enemies would be rather useful. The story summary covers most of the information found in UNATCO, and can be tweaked a bit to reflect the information in VersaLife and Majestic 12. The only thing left on those pages would be generic characters. I suggest we create the article, and then merge Robots_in_Deus_Ex into it. Consequentially 02:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, you havn't read the entry in question thoroughly AMIB, here it is in full just in case:

Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article, or as part of a series of articles per Wikipedia:Article series.

Which seems to me quite applicable in this case, given the length and complexity of the subject in question. Also, for your other point, perhaps I did not make myself clear enough the first time. Analysis and comparisons seem to me to be quite allowable if they are backed up with solid, preferably sourced, information and are written in a non-biased manner.

Also, who are you to say how much information on a subject is a "good idea" or not? It is my view that, given Wikipedia's resources, if the information is presented in a easily understandable encyclopedic manner, and helps someone to understand the subject better, there should be no set limit to how much information someone is "allowed" to present. That is one of the things that makes Wikipedia great in my opinion. -- Grandpafootsoldier 03:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You might want to read the talk page of WP:NOT. There's quite a bit of discussion on that very line. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ending the article

I think it would be rather odd to end the article with the soundtrack section... Should we add a 'Post-release life' section (or something similar)? -ZFGokuSSJ1 02:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a "See also" section might be preferable is this case. -- Grandpafootsoldier 03:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
For more information on this, please view WP:LAYOUT, WP:BETTER and WP:STYLE. These pages provide detail information on this. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging of Mods article

A Man in Black, in his usual helpful manner, has deleted or merged the entire Mods article with absolutely no discussion on the subject whatsoever. Typical that he would just ram whatever he personally wants done through without any consideration for the views of others.

I would like the position of some other people (preferably those who actually have experience with the subject) before we just let this pass unopposed. -- Grandpafootsoldier 20:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That article was two parts advertising links, one part unsourcable supposition, and one part useful content. The links really need to stay gone, unless some mod is a subject of exterior commentary. The unsourcable supposition was the UnrealEd 2 stuff and the "the Deus Ex mod community keeps growing!" The rest...well, I just merged it. Splitting it was probably a mistake. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
No discussion, no notice, just did it. Poor form, AMIB, even for you.
I am going to revert the changes and restore the article. If you feel there is a lack of citations, please use the {{fact}} tag in the appropriate places. As far as I know sources exist for all of the information in the article, including the growth rate of the community. (Or existed for the latter, and thus may need to be removed) -- Y|yukichigai 23:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I highly recommend you read both WP:BOLD and this enlightening quote from Jimbo:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.

It's especially tacky to see a revert from you, Yukichigai, given that this is one of the links I removed.

Please add any sourced information to this article, and we can split it off if and only if the sourced info is too much to fit into this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

1) Mention of Shifter was included in the Deus Ex article back in the day by someone other than me. I noticed and added a link to the mod, since one was lacking. That is, in fact, how I got started on WP.
2) Sub-articles with specialized lists of links are permissible under WP policy, exemplified by numerous mod-related articles, such as List of Half-Life 2 mods, List of Half-Life mods, List of Call of Duty mods, List of Battlefield 1942 mods, etc. etc.
3) Either AfD the article or leave it alone. -- Y|yukichigai 23:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The article should not be AFDed, as it has been merged. Please add sourced info to this article, and we can split it if it becomes necessary. As for the links, we should link mods about which there is commentary in reliable sources independent of the mods themselves; anything else is advertising. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

GAH. Please stop rapid-reverting this without warning. The article was originally split in order to encourage sourced info to be added, and undiscussed page moves make it difficult to coordinate this activity. I've just added a comment to the (now-orphaned) split talk page and it's not going to be seen because people insist on doing rapid reverts without discussion. Don't do this. Chris Cunningham 23:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, a list of responses
1) Merging cannot be used as a loophole to the AfD rule, particularly when no notice was posted. This is, true, a sketchy part of policy, but nonetheless there. Especially because you yourself already nominated the article for deletion, then blanked it, effectively violating the rules of AfD themselves.
2) You have violated the Three-revert rule twice already, with a third no doubt occuring while I write this. While we do get into arguments over guidelines versus policy, this is policy and you are violating it. Even I know that. -- Y|yukichigai 23:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

WTF? I reverted my own incomplete AFD nomination. This isn't some bureaucracy where half-filed paperwork is somehow binding. I considered sending it to AFD, then I realized that a good chunk of the article is salvagable and would benefit Deus Ex. I dumped the long unsourced claims about UnrealEd2 and the community, all of the advertising links (seven of which were not even complete projects) as advertising as non-notable mod projects, then brought the remainder of useful content here. Now, if there's some part I deleted you think you can source, please pull it out of page history and source it, but we don't need a bureaucratic AFD nomination to delete linkspam and unsourced info when nobody at all wants the page history deleted. (Such an AFD is likely to end with deal with it on talk anyway.)

Now, what, exactly, did I do to harm these articles? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You removed significant amounts of content without discussing the matter first. You neglected to involve the other editors in the process. You wholly violated the guidelines set forth in WP:BOLD (the flag in which you so often drape yourself) by failing to use the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You directly violated Wikipedia policy, twice, contrary to the Three-revert rule. You circumvented the requirements of AfD by merging the information at the last minute, and did so without sufficient notice to other editors.
Sadly, none of this is new behavior for you, and based on what I've learned from a number of policy articles I am highly considering opening a formal Mediation request, not just for this article and the related Deus Ex articles, but for your conduct on Wikipedia as a whole. -- Y|yukichigai 00:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed two paragraphs which were completely unsourced and apparently unsourcable, as well as a number of advertising links, including seven incomplete projects and your personal site hosted on Googlepages. I suggest you spend less time yelling at me for cleaning up random speculative I-heard-it-somewhere nonsense and more time finding sources for things which can be sourced. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Had you read my previous responses you would have found counter-points to each of the points you raised in this reply. You edited in bad faith and neglected to involve the Wikipedia community in your efforts. The blame is wholly yours to bear. -- Y|yukichigai 00:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
All you claimed is that other articles have these same problems; I'll get to them later. Sources for anything you want to retain in the article, please? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
And as for reverts, please don't get on a high horse, Yukichigai. I reverted three times, which is probably two reverts too many, you reverted four, with each revert replacing a link to your personal site. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


I'm a bit disappointed to see the same basic issue rehashed every fourth subject on the talk page, always involving the same arguments, and always reaching the same conclusion: none. I understand people get testy about their pet projects -- I'm guilty of that, too -- but this is bordering on a level that is patently ridiculous. I've spent ten years involved in the speech and debate community, and this kind of "discussion" is what we refer to as "two ship passing in the night." Neither side is willing to accept that the other has a legitimate position, and attempts to reach the middle ground are thwarted by a refusal to accept anything but your own original ideals. Last I checked, we're trying to work towards a complete Deus Ex article, secure the Good Article nomination, and move on from there. That's going to involve give and take -- please, let's attempt that.

From what I understand, A Man In Bl♟ck is sifting through the series of Deus Ex articles with two things in mind:

Is the content verifiable?
Is the content encyclopedic?

And then I see the rest of you coming in and attacking him for his methods and behaviour, not his intentions. I see no evidence that his behaviour is malicious, and after looking at the edit histories and respective disagreements, I'm confused by the comments made against him.

Early on in this thread, AMIB specifically asked Y|yukichigai to cite "any sourced information to [the] article," and to recreate the page only if there "is too much to fit into this article." In an attempt to clean up the family of Deus Ex articles, he is merging content from small, stubby articles and placing them within our core article. He is deleting that which is not sourced, and that which is not encyclopedic, both of which are in line with Wikipedia policy.

The response from Y|yukichigai was that "merging cannot be used as a loophole to the AfD rule," and a tangential mention of the three-revert rule. From my standpoint, these not only assumes bad faith, but fails to respond to his original request. You are assuming that AMIB wants to destroy all Deus Ex content, and ignoring the beliefs on which he bases his edits, deletions, and merges. Unencyclopedic or unsourced information does not belong on Wikipedia. It dilutes the quality of the project, and damages our claim to credibility.

And then the process begins again, with the same accusations being leveled, and each side repeating what it said the first time around. Again, Y|yukichigai claims to have responded to AMIB's arguments, but such is not the case. Attacking the methods by which he makes his edits is not a legitimate cause to revert his edits. If there is anything to discuss here, it should be why the information was removed, not how.

Why is the discussion we should have had yesterday, before AMIB made the change. There was no warning, no notice, nothing. It just happened. That's bad ettiqutte. That is why we are discussing the how. -- Y|yukichigai 04:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
This is fundamentally wrongheaded. Nobody needs permission to improve an article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The why is the most important part. If the content cannot be defended as verifiable, notable, and worthy of inclusion, then it doesn't matter how he removed it. Unless the article can be improved to meet the necessary criterion, the only thing accomplished by this kind of discussion is the identification of personality differences. Consequentially 04:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Now. With that said, I hope that this external perspective will stop your bickering and let us get back to work. I agree with AMIB here. Unencyclopedic or unverifiable content should be removed, aggressively, until it can be sourced. This includes half-finished mods or mods with a limited community. We don't publish articles on half-finished novels, do we?

I'll jump in here. I'll have more to say in response to your reply tomorrow, but I'm rather tired and in the meantime here's a quick reply: "We don't publish articles on half-finished novels, do we?" Yes, we do. We even have a template for it. -- Y|yukichigai 03:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a profound difference between an established sequel in a multi-million-copy selling chain of revolutionary children's novels and a Deus Ex modification package. That, my friend, is a straw man. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the last Harry Potter novel will be notable, verifiable, and so on. How does the same stand for the mods? Consequentially 04:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
You raised the comparison, not me. -- Y|yukichigai 04:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
This is non-responsive. Are you admitting that at least some of the information that was removed does not meet the criteria for inclusion into the encyclopedia? And it that is true, why is a sub-article with limited information superior to a sub-section in the main article with the same information? Consequentially 04:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

And we certainly don't publish articles about blogs, web sites, etc. with limited communities. His attempts to merge what content does meet the criterion for inclusion in the encylopedia into the main Deus Ex articles are not harmful, malicious, or any of the other thinly-veiled implications that you have tried to attach. They are simply something you don't agree with, and I'd really appreciate if everyone stopped treating it like its the end of the world. Consequentially 03:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

Speaking of sourcing, we really need to shore up the quality and relevance of our sources. Using the numbering in this version...

  1. This is a reference that will rot. Can we do better to establish the best-selling nature of the game?
  2. Probably okay; Metacritic is used in many articles.
  3. No problems.
  4. Probably not the best source but uncontroversial info. It'd be nice to have a better source, bit it isn't critical.
  5. This Gamespot review should be a solid source for a great deal of this article.
  6. Can we cite the PC Gamer where this was originally published, instead of the author's blog?
  7. Game dialogue citations are better than nothing, but can we cite secondary sources instead? Especially in the case of the endings; some review has to claim that there are multiple reviews.
  8. "
  9. "
  10. "
  11. "
  12. "
  13. "
  14. Probably okay; fansite, but it's an interview, which usually gets a little more leeway.
  15. Ideal ref.
  16. Same as #14.
  17. Less than ideal. This is an archive.org copy of a personal site that doesn't even mention Deus Ex at all.
  18. "
  19. Duplicate of #14. We need to lint for duplicate refs and combine them.
  20. Adrenaline Vault's review is a good source.
  21. Dupe of #5.
  22. Dupe of #20.
  23. Good ref, terrible use. Why are we citing a listing of the game as one of the 25 most memorable games of all time to back up the claim that the game is "slow and snoozy"? This does not reflect the intent of the article, I would think.
  24. Fine.
  25. Fine.
  26. Fine.
  27. Fine.
  28. Fine.
  29. Fine.
  30. This is a link to a list of GameFAQs fan-made lists. This doesn't cut it as a source, especially since it's redundant.
  31. Who the heck is Flicker Gaming? This is probably not needed.
  32. Press releases are less than ideal, but this is basic and uncontroversial. Bear in mind that this reference does not back up the claim that Midnight Sun was included.

Plus, we need to use citation templates, like {{cite web}}. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This isn't all the refs, but it's a good cross-section of the problems we need to solve. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] weapons?

what the hell happened to weapons in deus ex???!!?!?!

It was deemed "unencyclopedic" and deleted. Gamer Junkie 23:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It was merged as the result of this AFD. It wasn't deleted at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I'm thinking of another "Weapons In..." article. Gamer Junkie 01:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Source for some Deus Ex info

I just remembered this quite long article (about 8 pages) over at Gamespy.com that was written in part by the actual team who worked on Deus Ex and its sequel, called the "DX 1 Continuity Bible". Though I have just skimmed through it, it seems like a really good source to use for info on the development of the game (which Consequentially mentioned as being needed), and pehaps for some of the smaller related articles (if we decide to keep them that is).

Here's the link:

DX1 Continuity Bible

Wow. That's an excellent article! Superb find, man. I'll try incorporating what I can into the article, but it's overflowing with information that can be used in the entire Deus Ex article series. This might also come in handy, although you might already know of its existence.

[1]

Seven or eight interviews with game designers/writers. Consequentially 02:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Methods of beating obstacles

I made an image that shows the methods of getting past obstacles in Deus Ex. Anyone care to put that in the article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Methods.jpg ThunderPower 16:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picky, picky, picky.

Hrm.. This is odd. For all the complaints of "cruft" that AmiB has lodged against the articles of Deus Ex.. He hasn't said a damned peep on the FF pages. "Airships in Final Fantasy"? Explain how thats any more valid then Robots in Deus Ex? It elaborates an equally menial detail, and yet those strange evasive responses and deletion markers haven't left a mark on those pages. Why not target Classic Doom Enemies? Enemies in Doom 3? How about an article about the damn BFG-9k? What, does cruft only matter if you can have an easy time deleting it? -Durandal- 04:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not like I'm silent over there. I've just been working on other stuff, including Mega Man and Pokémon stuff (where I've had to deal with an annoying sockpuppeteer, argh.)
This is rather a red herring, though. Yes, those articles are also problematic. Yes, they should probably be merged. Why are you bringing them up on the talk page for Deus Ex? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Give him a break. AMIB is only one man (in black, lol) fighting against the cruft. He's just concentrating on a couple of items right now. Cruft is a lot easier if it goes uncontested, sure. He could definitely work faster if it wss uncontested, but as it isn't, he has to stop, argue, and argue until consensus is reached. Hbdragon88 21:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a better idea, Hbdragon? If you see another way to sort out these arguments, then by all means, please enlighten us. Gamer Junkie 22:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
As I've never played the game before, I don't consider myself qualified to sort out subtle cruft. I'm just offering my own two cents on why AMIB hasn't gotten to everything Durandai is asking him on - because he's just one man. Hbdragon88 06:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • As an aside, Airships of Final Fantasy covers a much more general topic, so it's not as much of an issue (though it's a quick solution for the time being to have lists). — Deckiller 11:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More praise

Next Generation Magazine called Deus Ex the greatest PC game of all time when it first came out. Is this worth noting (if we can find a source other than my memory)? --Marco Passarani 02:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Most certainly, just so long as you can cite which issue, etc. they said that. Almost any such praise is a worthwhile addition. -- Grandpafootsoldier 03:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/u/Talk%7EDeus_Ex_5c48.html"