Template talk:Metal Gear series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.	CVG Portal
CVG To-do: edit  Gaming Collaboration of the week: X-Men vs. Street Fighter Expand: New CVG Articles, List of Nintendo trademarks, Normality, Pac-Man World 2, Operation Flashpoint: Elite, Call of Juarez, Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar, Ford Street Racing, Betrayal at Krondor CVG Peer Review: Super Transformation, Turok: Dinosaur Hunter, Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games, Yoshi, Black Isle's Torn, Rise of Nations, Kirby (Nintendo), PlayStation 3, Mega Man Zero 4, Luigi Cleanup: Shiny Entertainment, Age of Mythology, Serious Sam II, Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, Ted Price, Betrayal at Krondor, Little Fighter 2 Merge: Current Events (Update needed!) / Deletions / Essential articles / Workshop / Magazines Assess and Prioritise articles (Log)

The new colour scheme isnt really working for me. I like the blue.. :) - UnlimitedAccess 11:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Same here, the new green is a bit garish. Amren ^(talk) 15:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

In that case, I'll change it back to blue. I wanted an olive green color scheme, since that's a standard military color, but it doesn't quite work well with what I wanted. Jonny2x4 19:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 "Other games"? 2 New Template? 3 Template 4 Metal Gears, seperation of spinoffs and Acid series - A Man in Black

[edit] "Other games"?

The movie doesn't fit there. I say we change it to "Non-canonical". After all, Twin Snakes isn't canonical; the original Solid is.

Non-canonical might work, you could just change it to plain Other

†he Bread 23:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Twin Snakes has the same story as MGS, MGA has its own canon of sorts, the movie might end up being canon (stranger things have happened), Portable Ops might be non-canon...let's not fiddle with "canon" and "non-canon" in the template, and stick to "Main series" and "Other". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Portable Ops is canon, But The Movie isn't a game; I think Other or Other Works will work

†he Bread 01:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with "Other"/"Others". And Portable Ops should be put between Metal Gear Solid 3 and Metal Gear Solid 4.

[edit] New Template?

It has few information. The other one was a lot better. Can someone change it back?

Plain and simple, the new one sucks, no offense to those who changed it. I'll change it back, but just watch unitl it's changed back again again.

†he Bread 02:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding MGS4, MGSPO, and the Metal Gear article...

The MGS4 and MGSPO article just aren't very good, and this is a series with a tradition of headfakes. Portable Ops could turn out to be a story fork or something even weirder, and MGS4 is a long way off and a lot can happen in that time. They're not essential to the other core articles because there's just so little to say in the way of verifiable statements.

As for the Metal Gears article...why? All you need to know to understand any game's article is that it's a bit robot that shoots nukes, because that's all you know until the final act of each game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

How did this happen? How did someone manage to get away with transforming a perfectly good template that summarised the series' chronology, characters and setting nicely into this simplistic, clunky, badly-planned piece of crud?

So the MGS4 and MPO articles aren't perfect. Fair enough; it's because they haven't been released yet. But they are going to be released. So why is this a valid reason for altering the series template? The series' articles looked far more professionally written and set out when the template carried more detail and was planned properly. Now it makes the articles look amateur. Can we not get this changed back?

GODDAMNIT! Stop editing the damn template! Somebody put it as it was and lock the article, because this starts to seem like vandalism to me. It was good enough like it was before, full of information and with all the most important articles present. The Metal Gear series is more than just the list of the games - it has a story good enough so that the template shows the articles about the story!

Man this is becoming tiring. Does the guy even READ the discussion? People are choosing this one, he has no right to impose himself over us all who prefer the old one.

Please come join the (lengthy) discussion on standarizing the appearance and use of navbox templates for game series at WT:CVG#Navboxes yet again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You COULD have put "Metal Gear Solid 4" in the template, couldn't you Man In Black?...

There are lots of templates about videogames that haven't been changed; why MGS's, that a lot of people seem to prefer and hasn't given anyone trouble?

[edit] Template

The "simple" template isn't good enough; this one is THE one, so stop changing it. If you need to put it back the way it was, just copy this:

I tried to integrate a list of Metal Gears in the template. What do you think? I personally think it looks good.

I really prefer the simple template. --Tristam 17:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If you read the discussion aboce, you'll see the others don't seem to.

Oh and, apparently, users are having a discussion about generalizing the templates. Personally I think it's a bad idea, but hey, I'm not even an user, I'm just an ordinary guy who just wants to help a bit. But there are games series that are a lot more complex than others, and the Metal Gear series are an example. A person can't find every information about it in the "newer" template, but the "older" one has all the info needed.

Is there any reason why I'm actually navigating through the MGS content on Wikipedia through this discussion page about a template than through the actual MGS pages themselves? The one I'm seeing looks slapped together in a few seconds. At least the one above is clearly organised, and has every major starting point for searching through content on it.

[edit] Metal Gears, seperation of spinoffs and Acid series - A Man in Black

There's technically been no violation of 3RR, but let's face it, you've done it. I have nothing to say about separating the Acid series, but the addition of Machinery I do.

There's no reason to remove it. You claim the Machinery list is a "minor fictional-object article". Untrue. Metal Gears are the "star of the show" - it's the center of nearly all of the games. How is that minor? It doesn't have as much importance as the characters, but it surely has importance. Contrary to what you claim, the article isn't easily accessible from the appropriate places. Although it is linked on most of the pages, every Metal Gear-related article links to the Metal Gear (series) article. So why not remove it? :)

I also recall the original "standards" you wrote allowed for weapons and items. What changed your mind? Regardless, your standards are pitiful. Who knows why you want centered text, which any average design-student would strongly be against. Although there needs to be standards, and good ones, you've gone on the wrong track. The current "standards" don't cater for a lot of articles. Remember, it's not a "bare-bones" box. If directly-related articles exist, they're worth linking. If not, the articles should be deleted or merged. Of course I don't mean loosely-related articles like Hideo Kojima should be linked, but Metal Gear (weapon) should.

I won't even ask for a "consensus" on these kind of things, because most people don't have a clue. I just want your judgment on the situation. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey you stole that "Star of the Show" thing from me. But I agree it's a bit hypocritcal from AMIB, asking for his judgement as if he's the "Big Boss" (No pun intended it just came into my head as I wrote this) of Metal Gear articles is a bad idea he already thinks that. I'm reverting for now. †he Bread 02:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a minor fictional-object article. The Metal Gears themselves aren't significant subjects of commentary in the real world, nor are they significant to the vast majority of the games (pretty much all but MGS2) save as a MacGuffin and a final boss. Lastly, and most essentially, there's no need to read the Metal Gears article to understand the game articles or the series article (which are the core of this article series).

There are lots of articles we could cram into this box based on the fact that they're important in the fictional universe; Solid Snake, Big Boss, Revolver Ocelot, and The Patriots all come immediately to mind. If we add this and those, however, we're back down the road to a kitchen-sink template, linking to everything in Category:Metal Gear and its subcats. I think a better solution might be to add a proper link to the Metal Gears article to the main list of characters, to be honest.

As for centered text, that's a point I'm largely indifferent to, as long as we have a standard appearance without unnecessary metadata, unnecessary links, or problematic appearance hacks (hide/show comes immediately to mind). I'll freely admit I'm not Captain Design; I picked centered text only because it explicitly encouraged a flat (as opposed to hierarchical) arrangement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are very few. Those articles are featured in the character list, making it redundant. What do we have left? Metal Gear (weapon), soundtracks, Close Quarters Combat and Outer Heaven. That's besides the point I was going to make in this message - since when are you allowed to break the 3RR rule? I've seen 5 reverts now. How is that allowed? Aren't you a fucking admin? --TheEmulatorGuy 02:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

He's an absolute fucking disgrace of an ADmin. He left me a message about how many reverts I've done, I always try to keep to 3RR but not with AMIB, he breaks the rules then changes them so that he can. I'll continue to revert

†he Bread 04:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Whenever anyone is planning to civilly refute my points, I'll be watching. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

We've tried civilly, but as per usual you ignore us, play your smug little game, and sooner or later you'll get some other person who wants to treat WP like a bureaucracy from that P.O.S. CVG project to help you out. Also your points were bollocks to begin with.

†he Bread 07:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your point AMIB, is you're unwilling to accept a consensus. You must have it your way - regardless of how "civil" we act. Remember The Twin Snakes? Although I agreed with your merge decision, consensus was to split - you didn't want any of it. Let's take a look at the templates. Very little agreed with your standards. Yet you just had to use them. You were unable to reach a good consensus and kept your template. They had a terrible design and completely disagreed with what an infobox was. I've said it before - if an article related to the entire series shouldn't be linked, then it shouldn't be an article. Alongside that, you break the rules and are clearly not civil (we're not the only ones to swear about the template matter) - you're a poor admin. Your basic ideas are good - kill cruft and keep standards - but you fail to do it well. --TheEmulatorGuy 08:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

if an article related to the entire series shouldn't be linked, then it shouldn't be an article.

This is an interesting argument, and speaks to a fundamental disagreement about what navboxes, lists, categories, and umbrella articles (such as Metal Gear (series)) are for.

The point of a navbox is not to link every single article that may be related to each article (something I think we all agree on) or even every article that is related to the bulk of the articles linked in the template. Instead, it's to link to a series of articles: a group of closely-related articles, describing individual parts of a larger subject. Theoretically, an article series could be merged together into a single article if this were a paper encyclopedia.

Moving away from an ideal "What should we include?" to a more-pragmatic "What should we exclude?" we should err on the side of excluding odds and ends unless they're critical to understanding the larger series. The characters umbrella list is on the outside edge of what's valuable; it isn't strictly a part of the article series, but it provides a useful way to offer access to a half-dozen articles without having to cram a half-dozen links into the template. The Metal Gears article has all the problems of the list of characters, without offering the utility of being an umbrella article. I feel it should be excluded for the same reason Solid Snake is excluded; certainly important and relevant, but not a part of the series of subjects (it's not a Metal Gear game) and not required for understanding of the larger series.

As for the rest, I'm not willing to deal with personal issues here, and I try to make a practice of ignoring personal abuse. Feel free to discontinue wasting your time with it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A note to the worlds worst admin, I can't revert anymore because I like to keep to 3RR but why does it have to look good in your resolution when it looks (even more) like shit under my resolution, when did your needs outweight that of the majority, oh that's right you ignore the consensus

†he Bread 04:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not optimizing it for my resolution. The second line is going to break in some resolutions, and not break in others. With a linebreak, you always have a short additional line, which looks bad. Without a linebreak, you have a short additional line in some resolutions, which sometimes looks bad. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

So you're trolling for a Template that's gonna look bad either way? I believe that was said from the start, that it looks not good that is

†he Bread 07:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that the name "Machinery" is not entirely correct. If you want to name it "Machinery", then put all the machinery that appears in the games - the M1 Tank, the Hind, etc. Or get a new name, like "Metal Gear and Related Weapons", or even dividing those in two. I'm gonna divide those in two as an experience; if you want to change, change it, but don't put "Machinery" back, is not entirely correct.