Talk:Deus Ex/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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)

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)

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)


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)


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)

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)

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)

Removal of image

Unless anyone objects I'm going to remove the "ambrosia canisters" image from this page. Not only is it not really adding anything, it's taken from another site and should be replaced with a self-taken shot anyway (as should a couple of the other more useful pics). -- Grandpafootsoldier 10:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Screw it, I'm just going to remove it for now. I'll leave a copy here in case anyone still really wants it. -- Grandpafootsoldier 05:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Linux?

Someone added Linux to the list of supported platforms for DX. Now, I know that there are companies who are working on it, but I haven't heard about a completed Linux port for the game. It can be played via WINE, but that's a port of the Windows libraries rather than the game itself. Can anyone provide a link to a finished port of the game? Chrismith 23:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Brrr, Loki Games must be so dead cold by now. I remove Linux from the platforms since they never finished it (and I am not aware of any other companies that worked on the project) -- lucasbfr talk 05:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I added it because I thought it was implied here that it had been released in 2001, but I guess that was just a projected release date. I guess I should have checked around some more first. -- Grandpafootsoldier 09:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Put up or shut up time

Okay. It's two months later. Nobody has come up with a single reference for the various Deus Ex organization articles, or even bothered to try to clean them up. This article now has a lengthy, detailed, useful plot summary, to which these inferior, incomplete plot summaries can now safely be redirected.

Rebuttals, after months of neglect on these articles, need to come in the form of useful references which are not direct observation of the games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all, as far as a "useful reference" goes this seems to fall into that category quite nicely. The only reason I haven't been able to fix those articels up is because whenever I've had the chance to get on Wikipedia (which until a couple weeks ago hasn't been that often) I've been working on cleaning up the main page (which I think should be the priority at this point). Also, as for the plot summary, while it is lengthy, it is by no means "detailed" (it shouldn't really be anyway as it is a "summary") and is probably going to be trimmed more in the future. I don't see any problem with having some peripheral articles in addition to cover some of the plot points to a greater extent. -- Grandpafootsoldier 07:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
That's a (revised for public consuption) version of the design documents for Deus Ex, written by the creators of Deus Ex. The commentary is useful, but the plot summary is otherwise a recap of the plot of Deus Ex. Is there anything useful or interesting in that article which...
  1. ...can't fit into this article?
  2. ...pertains specifically to one of the organizations in the game instead of the game as a whole?
Uselessly confrontational tone aside (augh I need to knock that off), that's what we need to have an article on a fictional thing. You split a fictional concept off from the work in which it appears if the concept is widely discussed as a subject independent of the work(s) in which it appears (e.g. King Arthur) or there's so much referenced information that we split it off for navigation reasons. John Galt, despite being extremely important to Objectivists and literary discussion, doesn't have its own article because any discussion of John Galt is inherently discussion of Atlas Shrugged. (Well, Scottish novelist John Galt has his own article, but not the character of the same name.) The same applies to JC Denton, as well as the various groups in Deus Ex.
This is repeating WP:FICT, though.
If you want a standalone article, go find so much referenced (and not to direct observation of the fictional work(s) itself) information that it can't all fit in this article, or find some examples of a part of the game being discussed without being a discussion of the game itself. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that you've at least attempted to discuss this with your fellow editors, AMiB, which is more than I can say for your current butchering of the Resident Evil Outbreak character articles for your upcoming merge without the slightest inkling of discussion. I had been talking about such things regarding yourself with another editor not one day before you'd started. Each time I begin to feel I've been overly harsh, you go and do something like go back on your word, which was, if I recall correctly, to leave the Outbreak character articles out of your merging crusades. I suppose we should be grateful you'd at least bother consulting us regarding Deus Ex. Gamer Junkie 08:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
This is neither my talk page nor a Resident Evil-related talk page. Herring is tasty, but I throw the red ones back. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Hilarious. Gamer Junkie 08:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, as you can see if you read the article it depth, it is not just not just a "recap" of the plot of Deus Ex. It adds a bunch more info for the overall story that couldn't be included in the game for time/budget reasons, and which I think are worthy of mention in the articles. So, in answer to your two questions, yes and yes. Additionally, I could not find what you said about spliting off articles anywhere in WP:FICT, here is what is says to be sure:

1. Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article.

2. Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. The list(s) should contain all characters, races, places, etc. from the work of fiction, with links to those that have their own articles.

The difference between 'major' and 'minor' characters is intentionally vague; the main criterion is how much non-trivial information is available on the character. Some books could plausibly have several dozen major characters.

3. It is useful to add redirects to the article page or list of minor characters, from anything that's listed in there.

4. Plot summaries should be kept reasonably short, as the point of Wikipedia is to describe the works, not simply summarize them. It is generally appropriate for a plot summary to remain part of the main article, not a lengthy page of its own. In some cases, sub-articles and lists are created when the potential for an encyclopedic coverage is hindered by the recommended length guidelines of one article. Please see the Making good use of Wikibooks and Wikisource section below for guidance and examples.

Also, if what you said is true, than such FA articles as Link, or even the article on the main page, Torchic, shouldn't be allowed either (but I think I've pointed that discrepancy out before at least once). -- Grandpafootsoldier 20:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Link has far too much info to fit into the series article, and it's a pretty poor article to boot. Torchic, again, appears in a half-dozen works; where would you merge it? Organizations which play a role in one act of one single game are fundamentally dissimilar to these two widely-appearing, more-popular, more-widely-discussed things.
Both #1 and #2 counsel merging here unless there's too much encyclopedic material (and encyclopedic material needs, at the very least, to meet WP:V and WP:OR and not simply be recapping personal observation of the game). So come up with some encyclopedic material that doesn't fit into this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Link is a "pretty poor article"? You mean the one which is currently rated "FA"? Sorry, but I accept the position of Wikipedia as a whole rather your than your personal opinion. Additionally, a lot of the organizations mentioned appear in both games, not just "one act of one single game", and the popularity of a media franchise is in no way a reason to decree it should have less page space devoted to it (if there is available info).
As for your next point, I'm pretty sure if you read my last posts you will see I have already answered it. As I don't really care to get into another never-ending circular argument with you where I have to answer the same point with the same answer over and over again, it would be helpful if you did that for efficiencies sake. - Grandpafootsoldier 23:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh. Link's article got FAR'ed and improved. This is neither here nor there; a handful of secret organizations that have a supporting role in a single game are dissimilar to the protagonist of a long-running, widely-known series.

Come up with some encyclopedic material that doesn't fit into this article. That's the point of WP:FICT. When you have that, make an article. Until then, leave the redirects. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Your point: "If the subject is featured only in one game, the article shouldn't be separate". Right?
But, then, the articles need merging, not deletion. It is question of organization - one game, series of games, series of articles, single article, individial articles. We may merge them into "organizations in Deus Ex". Would it fit? CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 15:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Really, if the quality of the Link article is "neither hear nor there" than why did you accuse it of being sub-par in the first place? I've already answered you're points of needing "encyclopedic material", the articles importance, and having a good exterior source, but as usual AMIB you don't have a coherant response to them, so you just ignore what I say, give the same points again, and do what the hell you want to. I have to ask, who in their right mind allowed you to become an admin in the first place?
In response to CP/M's question about the issue of their prominence, I've already answered that earlier in this discussion (but of course AMIB chose to ignore that), nearly all the organizations play a significant part in both games (Deus Ex and Deus Ex: Invisible War), not just a "supporting role in a single game" as AMIB says. On a practical level however, I'm perfectly fine with creating an "Organizations in Deus Ex" page, but I don't know if it's pratical length-wise, and I can't really see why it's really necessary at this point anyway. - Grandpafootsoldier 01:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
This is A Man in Black's RFA and he did not get any oppose votes at all anywhere. I think those are main roles for the organizations in the two games too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.85.180.43 (talk) 05:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Personally, I think that my RFA isn't really relevant. I'm not laying down the hammer here; nobody is going to get blocked by me over this, and no articles are getting deleted or protected.

The Link article used to be a bad example. The new article is a good example of when to split an article. When there's that much non-lot summary info to say about the Deus Ex organizations, we'll split them off. ¬_¬

I redirected the articles because I felt that this article already had plenty of plot summary. Was there some plot summary that needed to be merged here? Because, right now, there's nothing at all but plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

(2All: Yes, really, adminship isn't relevant here, neither he is open to recall nor AfD nominations are direct use of powers, although one deletion seemingly was).
2AMIB: Have you read series of articles for other, mostly console games? They have separate articles for each single character or location, and appearing in just one game, not entire series. These articles contain as much information as the game itself. Of course, they have more people to stand for them. What we have here is a series of pretty concise summaries on the key organizations, some of them appearing in both games. I understand your adherence to bureacracy, but, please, remember that in Wikipedia guidelines serve the editors, not the other way around, and the precedent represents live consensus of the large community, not the opinion of a bunch of people enjoying procedure creation. We are being much less verbose and much less spaced out than many precedents; in some sense, we ask for less; but please understand that you can't shape all the Wikipedia according to your vision, especially the vision completely incompatible with the most of actual content creators and editors. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm confident in the ability of the Arbcom to deal with out-of-line administrators but not confident in the ability of users to distinguish between editorial and administrative action. (For example, anyone can nominate whatever they want for AFD, as long as it's in good faith.)
Existence isn't precedent on Wikipedia, because anyone can write anything. WP:FICT is the relevant consensus on this issue: such articles should have sufficient encyclopedic content sourced to reliable sources such that that content couldn't go in the article for the fictional work itself.
We're going in circles here, but the main question is unanswered. Does anyone have any verifiable content other than plot summary? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
(I understand you have good reasons not to be open to recall. Just noted to others that therefore it isn't relevant. BTW, I'm not sure if any admin on that category was ever actually recalled.)
Existence might not be a precedent. Passing not just AfD, but sometimes FA nominations is. Being improved and accepted by community is. Just take a look outside, there is consensus among actual editors (not only law/bureaucracy geeks) that such articles are to stay. If you disagree, it would be more practical to start with the most "violating" ones, not with the least defended ones.
And, if you want to delete/blank articles, please gather consensus on this specific instance, not just some reference that someone, somewhere formed some guideline, which neither is a policy nor gives clear description these articles fit. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 15:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude, are you completely blind? I've already given a source which includes more info than is included in the game plot summery for the organization pages, and I have already shown that they IN NO WAY violate WP:FICT (which you nevertheless keep on citing to support your argument over and over again). If you are going to continue to beat this issue into the ground please come up with something new.

As CP/M said, this form of topic organization is completely normal on Wikipedia, and the ONLY reason this is an issue at this point is because with the relative lack of people working on these pages, you feel you have a better chance of ramming through your way of doing things. Really, at this point you should be the one to put up (a good argument) or shut up. -- Grandpafootsoldier 04:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, is there anything useful or interesting in the linked source article which...
  1. ...can't fit into Deus Ex?
  2. ...pertains specifically to one of the organizations in the game instead of the game as a whole?
If no, then WP:FICT counsels that all of the encyclopedic info from the daughter articles be merged here. Since the daughter articles are all plot summary and this article needs no more plot summary, the only merge needed is a redirect.
Basically, if the organization of the NSF is so unimportant to the game that it doesn't bear any mention in Deus Ex, then why on earth is it important enough to give the organization its own article?
This form of topic organization is completely normal on Wikipedia when there's encyclopedic info in the daughter articles. If there isn't, they need to be merged or redirected. This is what WP:FICT counsels, as this is a clear-cut, typical example of what WP:FICT was created for. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I really don't understand how you can completely blow off what I have been saying the entire time in answer to your argument - it's almost like I'm trying to reason with a robot with only one prime directive. *Sigh* Fine, yet again I will put foward my same position on the same subject in answer to the latest interation of the same argument you have used again and again. Yes, there is useful, interesting, and encyclopedic information which can't fit into Deus Ex, and pertains to one of the organizations in the game as well as the game as a whole. Thusly, they do not violate WP:FICT IN ANY WAY. Additionally, the NSF is mentioned in the Deus Ex article so that is a false argument.
Finally, will you please stop redirecting the pages in question until AFTER this discussion has finished? Thank You. -- Grandpafootsoldier 07:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason I'm blowing it off is because these arguments have been answered, time and again, for pretty much every single fictional subject on Wikipedia, and WP:FICT is the result of those discussions. If it's just plot summary, it needs to be merged, or just redirected if no article benefits from that level of detail. If there's some encyclopedic content not sourced to the game itself, then it needs to be merged unless there's too much encyclopedic, sourced content to fit in another article.

There is zero info other than plot summary in these articles. They need to be merged if we need plot summary in another article, and redirected if we don't. This is WP:FICT in a nutshell.

So. Where's the sourced, encyclopedic info that isn't original research based on direct observation of the games? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Right here as I showed you at the very beginning of this (as usual) very round-about discussion! This article goes into much more detail then is evident from direct observation of the game, info which can not be reasonably fit into the main article. As for your charge of them only being "plot summary", how are they any more so then the examples given HERE in WP:FICT? A lot of them seem to be just "plot summary" as well. What makes Anakin Skywalker or Noonien Soong different than UNATCO other than their higher profile?-- Grandpafootsoldier 02:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there any info in that article worth having that doesn't fit into Deux Ex? I might've said that, but I don't recall the answer. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The entire article. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 12:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, since included in that article is the entire plot of Deus Ex described point by point, I don't think that's really much of an answer. I would suggest trying to use it to source Deus Ex, and then source other articles if warranted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

WEAPONS!!!!!

I created the Weapons in Deus Ex article, and since it was merged into this one, it has disappeared!! it was made much better by other editors and users, and it was useful and deserved a page of its own!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.41.97.192 (talk • contribs).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/u/Talk%7EDeus_Ex_Archive_6_d557.html"