Template talk:Tekken series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Characters

Alright, I don't think there's any more use for the Major/Minor characters links. I've made a template to go along with the Soul Series template, character-wise. Sharpevil 21:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-Bosses

I feel the current format and the selection of characters in the "Sub-Boss" section is a bit awkward. Many of those characters haven't been merely sub-bosses since as far back as Tekken 1. In addition, more recent sub-bosses, such as Orge and Devil Jin, are in the Boss section. Personally, I don't think the Sub-Boss section holds any purpose and the characters listed should be integrated back into the regular cast. King Zeal 16:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The main reason I changed it was because it was all in any old order. As I said, Ganryu was in misc and Wang wa in main characters. It didn't make sense. As it is now, I have seperated them into 3 groups. Main characters (Paul, Kazuya, Marduk and the like), sub-boss (below main characters - Wang, Armor King etc) and boss characters (the cheesey bosses such as Ogre, Jinpachi and Devil). I agree that sub-boss is a bit of a weird catergory, but the sheer amount of Tekken characters means the list needs to be split up. Finally - the misc. section for one of characters and relitively unknown characters (this section would be updated after Tekken 6, for example if Roger Jr wasn't a time released character in T6, he would then be dropped into the misc section)--Mr.bonus 17:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem I have with this reasoning is that your basis for the change seems a little subjective. Your idea of what a "cheesy" or "relatively unknown" character needs to be clarified, because Eddy and Jun are quite well known and rather popular. By contrast, Lili and Dragunov are new, but hardly all that well known. I personally don't think splitting the cast into so many categories is necessary, as a simple distinction between charactera playable in the latest version of the game (Tekken 5: DR, at present), characters currently dropped from the roster (such as Jun, Combot and Miharu) and Bosses/Sub-Bosses should suffice. Other than that, being technical about who the "main" characters are will result in having the Mishimas (Kazuya, Jin and Heihachi) in one category and nearly everyone else in another.
Just my two cents. King Zeal 18:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I have put the groups together according to Dark Resurrection (the latest version). The main characters are the ones that have always been selectable from the beginning and don't share moves. The sub-bosses are the 'fake' characters that started off without their own movesets and had to be unlocked or time released. And the popular characters such as Jun, who may have been a main character (Jun was in Tekken 2, have been dropped and should be 'relegated' into misc. I think it all makes sense really. And as I've said, there are too manty characters to have in one big group (eg, all 33 characters from Dark Resurrection in one group). --Mr.bonus 22:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, whether or not characters share moves is irrelevant. Lee Chaolan, Kuma and Anna Williams may have started the series as mere clones of other characters, but have evolved to have their own unique movesets. It just seems outdated to have them in a "sub-boss" category when A)They haven't been sub-bosses for years and B) They've developed as unique characters. I don't understand why having a big group is a problem. It's not hard to navigate, and it was even put into alphabetical order. Really, how confusing would it be for someone to find "Jun" by looking right after "Jin"? Like I said, I just don't think the Sub-Boss category is necessary. King Zeal 12:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
What about if we renovated the box to include a section for "Current" characters (as of T5, or even T5:DR should we be so generous as to include Armor King)? The rest, that's to say, characters no longer featured such as Michelle, Ogre, and the like, could get a "Past Characters" section (of course, the name could most likely use some changing) whereas folks like Jane and Dr. Abel are part of miscellany. How's that sound? Gerk 07:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
That's almost exactly how it WAS. I personally think that makes sense. Keeping into account someone who may have only played the latest game in the series, wouldn't it be simpler for them to look up their favorite character (ex: Armor King) by looking at the general roster rather than an obscure "Sub-Boss" category? They wouldn't know why he's in that category in the first place, since they wouldn't have played any of the six Tekken games preceding Dark Resurrection. Once again, I just don't think it's all that necessary. King Zeal 12:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. Shall we get to work? ^_~ Gerk 19:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I think all of you are being silly buggers. This doesn't amount to anything and the petty argument doesn't hold any relevance. I've changed the template myself to something more simplistic. without all the stupid semantics. -ZeroTalk 12:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
While I appreciate your opinion on the matter, Zero, I could have done without the slights. King Zeal 12:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. The character group wasn't the biggest problem. It was that some games were excluded and the order was all wrong. But now, the order is insane as they aren't alphabetical (eg/ Asuka is first, but Anna is half way down). As for Zero, I'm sick of your immature attitude. Me and King Zeal were having a discussion between our selves and you have to jump in and act like a superior being and tell us to shut up. I was wondering how long it would be before the self proclaimed leader of the Tekken pages forced his way in. Silly buggers...Cheeky tw@t --Mr.bonus 16:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you may have a point. I can precieve how my intervention can be interpreted as unintentionally offensive and I have retracted it accordingly with my apologies.
As for my proclamation of leadership over these articles Mr. bonus, I do not recall ever saying this and this serious accusation is very difficult to believe. Are you claiming my aspiration to simply do what I think best for the encyclopedia did not exist...? -ZeroTalk 00:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could just divide the group into an active roster and inactive roster based on the last game that has been released?Thequickbrownfoxjumpsoveralazydog 15:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't really see the necessity. The current list is fine. King Zeal 17:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tekken 6

Why isn't it part of the template? - The 4th Snake 19:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to add it but then the change was reverted after I did it. SuperSonicTH 15:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I did the same. That's why I asked.- The 4th Snake 19:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Appearantly, the culprit is a Wikipedia user known as A Man In Black. I'll put Tekken 6 back on the template.Michael Mad 13:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have a release date, it hasn't been shown in playable form, and Tekken 6 may not even be the final name. The article is nothing but summarizing three trailers. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? It's a Tekken game so it should be in the template. If the game gets renamed, it can be changed. For now, Tekken 6 should be kept in. - The 4th Snake 19:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Namco has recently made a site for Tekken 6, so it will probably be the final name of the game: http://www.tekken-official.jp/tk6ac/ - Aphasia83 19:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Plus, they made a logo for it. The logo looks nothing like any others so it isn't a simple edit. Why go to the bother of making a logo if you're going to change the name? - The 4th Snake 20:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the speculation about the logo and site aside, I don't see why it shouldn't be on the list. Completed or not, trailers or not, it's currently the official game for the next installment of the series. King Zeal 20:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it's going back on the template.Michael Mad 08:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for Namco to advertise, and right now, this non-article is not necessary for the understanding of the other articles. It's nothing more than vapor at this point. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a little more than vapor. Arcade version of Tekken 6 is announced to be released in 2007. Namco is a notable company, and Tekken is a notable franchise. Screenshots of the game have already been released, press releases in Japan have already been released as well. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a high bar to separate vapor from substance. It just needs a final name, a release date, and to have been shown in playable form. The name is so we have something to link that isn't "Untitled project". The release date is so that we know the game has actually been solicited to distributors and stores. The playable form is so that the article is composed of something other than promotional material.
Right now, Tekken 6 is nothing other than press releases and summaries of promotional trailers. That's not an article; that's a paraphrased advertisement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
6 belongs in the template, period. The game should be in the template now, not later. Blind reverting it isn't helping matters. The article's quality shouldn't determine if it makes a template or not. If that was the case: templates would be changed non-stop because of people thinking articles are bad and not suitable for a template. That's not how templates work. RobJ1981 05:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
6 doesn't belong in the template, period. Aren't bland assertions fun?
It's a standard that keeps projects that have not yet demonstrated any notability and have no hope of being the subject of encyclopedic articles out of navigation tools intended to direct readers to core topics. A game that exists in trailer form only is not a core topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, a playable version was shown at some game show already. And Namco announced the arcade version for 2007 and the PS3 version for 2008. And the Tekken 6 official website has been put up at Tekken official. The two new characters have already been announced. A week or two ago, I wouldn't have supported it, but the press releases by Namco just came out, and the website just launced. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Where was it shown, was it under NDA, and why isn't this in the article? If there are articles about the game (contrast with articles about what Namco is saying about the game), then resolves the bulk of my qualms.
As for the rest, a year isn't a release date (nothing but a year is pretty much just "We're planning to release this game at some point"), but no amount of Namco saying "Please pay attention to us" makes this an article instead of an advertisement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and there is a Wikipedia article on Tekken 6 that does not fit deletion criteria and that has been linked to from related Wikipedia articles, so Tekken 6 is already a subject of encyclopedia articles. An upcoming game in the Tekken series is clearly a core topic to the series. All sorts of projected events have articles as well, and the fact that they could potentially be altered doesn't destroy their notability. As long as it is NPOV and follows all policies, you cannot call it an advertisement. All released game articles can be interpreted as advertisements as well; in fact, they contain much more information publicizing the games' features, acclaim, etc. The name and release date are not the most important aspects of an upcoming game. As long as there are reliable sources reporting the projected release of the game, we know that it exists. To build hype, the company could withhold the official name until the release date. Really, they could never give the game an official name, and it would still be notable. Even release dates can be changed last minute. The most important thing here is navigation, and not including it makes navigating/reading/editing harder for everyone. Pomte 08:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
No, a game in the Tekken series is a core topic. An upcoming game will be a core topic. This is the distinction I am drawing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
An upcoming game with non-trivial details and currently under heavy discussion is already a core topic. Pomte 08:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Heavy discussion in what reliable source? The linked IGN article paraphrases statements by Namco or Namco staffers, largely intact. "Namco (or a producer/developer/director/etc.) said such-and-such." There's a line between a preview (where someone is relating experiences with an incomplete game) and rephrasing an announcement, even if game sites do a bad job of making that distinction. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It may not be discussed in reliable sources yet, but that's to be expected. The article doesn't require reliable sources in order to be added to a template it directly relates to. The heavy discussion in non-reliable sources demands that this game be added to the template. This is a practical issue, with no policy on it that I'm aware of. There's nothing inherently wrong with publishing a rephrased announcement. Pomte 09:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
So, how are you claiming that it's notable when there isn't any possibility for commentary in reliable sources? "The subject of commentary in reliable sources" is the definition of notability.
I'm aware that subpar articles are cobbled together from promotional material early in the life of a game, before it is shown in playable form. It's just that a project that exists in speculative and promotional form (not yet a released game) isn't a core topic for the series of games that actually exist. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
If you don't think the subject is notable, then you should propose deletion. The consideration of the future continuation of a series of games makes it a core topic. If you link the concept "core topic" to N and RS, which are requirements for all articles, then you should attack the article itself, not the template. Pomte 09:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It's sufficiently notable to squeak past AFD. It's insufficiently notable to be a core topic, part of a strongly-interlinked series of related subjects. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I just reread what you wrote and choked.
To build hype, the company could withhold the official name until the release date.
That's the problem. As long as we're talking about something about which the developer can withhold information, there's only one, primary source, and the article cannot become encyclopedic or a core topic. You bring up released games; we can write articles about, say, Tekken 5 without once parroting a Namco press release or analyzing promotional material. People have played that game and written about it. We can reference articles people who have played the game have written about the game, instead of referencing articles that are nothing more than what Namco wants people to know about their game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with you if all the content was taken from Namco directly. However, I don't see how information, reported through sources like IGN, Gamespot, or any other gaming news site would be considered advertising. Especially considering that a live interview is the primary source for the information. King Zeal 14:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
What in the article is sourced to an IGN/Gamespot/whatever article that isn't itself repeating Namco's statements? I read the linked reviews; they're entirely "Such-and-such developer said..." "Namco said..." and so forth. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
So? It's a news-related link. It's parallel to an article about the Iraq War that contains quotes or official statements by Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld/etc. talking about the supposed "purpose" of the war. The article isn't promoting the game any more than that article would be promoting their statements. It's simply recounting what was said. King Zeal 08:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Dissimilar case. There are many different sources of commentary on any war larger than a fistfight. In this case, there's one source, a primary source with an interest in concealing information for their own benefit and making optimistic predictions in the guise of factual statements. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the dissimilarity. For example, Bush makes a statement about why the war was started. MSNBC then speculates about other possible motives--none of which can be proved or disproved. Likewise, IGN.com starts speculating about the verifiability of Namco's claims, also speculation, as it can be neither proved nor disproven. In either case, the people in control of the event are the only ones who can make any claims. However, the media and the public CAN comment on or speculate about what has already been said or released. In this case, that includes "official statements" and video trailers. King Zeal 09:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
This analogy isn't applicable. Clearly, there's a war going on currently. There are many different sources of commentary on that war. Contrast this with Tekken 6; this is a game that has been announced for the future. The only current event is predictions about that game. Game navboxes are for articles about games, not articles about predictions about a game. Does this make sense? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
How do we know about the war? One reason is because of footage that has been shown to the general public. What if all we had was verbal testimony talking the war, no matter how many people claimed that it happened? If there were absolutely NO physical evidence for the war, would that be acceptable by Wikipedia policies? Like, if ABC News reported right now that 50 eyewitnesses saw Christ walking down Main Street, would Wikipedia allow that? The reason I ask this is because there's actually physical evidence that proves the existence of the war. Likewise, there is a visible game trailer that proves the existence of this game. I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with your conclusion. Even if the game is canceled, the name is changed, or it turns out Namco was pulling one hell of a hoax, that doesn't change what can be seen. King Zeal 19:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
What Namco wants people to know is what everyone knows right now, and withholding access to that information is censorship. If it says "some guy said X" that is not going to brainwash people into thinking X is true. The Tekken 5 article was written after its release, so understandably no promotional material is mentioned. But for Tekken 6, these promo facts can legitimately remain to detail its history. This discussion is going off on a tangent. The list of games in the template is most likely interpreted as all existent games in the series. Upcoming games definitely exist, and the lack of them in the list misleads people into thinking there is no such thing as Tekken 6, or there is no article for Tekken 6. The template is "Tekken video games", not "Tekken videos games that have been named, release date given, and reviewed". Pomte 09:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, welcome to Wikipedia, where we censor peoples' advertisements right off the project. You're right. It is censorship. We should rightly censor articles on promotional material from templates about games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
If you are against the promotional content itself, then delete it directly from the article. The template is a separate issue. Pomte 09:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I think a vote should happen, seeing as A Man in Black seems to be the only one that wants it off the template. One person shouldn't control the template, period. Wikipedia: the encyclopedia for everyone to edit, remember? RobJ1981 17:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Were you planning to address my arguments? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Controlling templates needs to end. Tekken 6 belongs in the template, period. As do other confirmed games for other templates. So what if it hasn't appeared in playable form or whatever you feel is "correct" for listing in a template or not. It appearing now, rather than later: isn't a big deal. It does absolutely no harm to list it now. RobJ1981 05:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Why does it belong in the template period? Were you planning to address my arguments in opposition? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The trailers are a verifiable source that a game of Tekken 6 exists in some form. Yes, it is released by Namco themselves, but Namco is not likely to drop Tekkn 6 this far into development, nor is Namco going to go under anytime soon, so the likelihood of the game being released is pretty much 100%. You argue that it's advertising, but it is no less advertising if they release an actual release date, and it's no more advertising than games that have been released. In fact, you can argue that it is more like advertising for released games. As for the name, they call it Tekken 6, and there's no reason why it would change. Tekken, Tekken 2, Tekken 3, Tekken 4, and Tekken 5 exist, so the vanilla name Namco calls the game, Tekken 6, is also very probable. The game is already notable because it falls into the category of software developed by a notable company, Namco, and is obviously one of their core products. You're an admin, so you should look at your edit history on the template and you should very well know that you violated WP:3RR. There is obviously currently consensus on having it on the template. Personally, either you nominate the page for AfD, or I will put this up on RfC. Both will get objective input on the subject. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
And that form is a series of short film clips.
The most important point of the three is, again, that the game has been shown in playable form. This isn't an AFD argument, where prognostication and association can squeak things by; the question is, does someone have to read this article to understand the context into which the other articles fit? Seeing as this is a future game, which fits into a context that doesn't even exist yet, no, they don't.
This will be an important part of the Tekken series. It isn't yet. Arguing that it will be important misses my point that it is not now important. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
How come Final Fantasy XIII is ok to be on the Template:Final Fantasy series then? There doesn't seem to be anything released but what Square revealed either. I'm sure there are tons of other things included on templates that haven't been released. Why is this one singled out by you? I know that just because it exists en masse doesn't make it acceptable. Even looking at Wikipedia:Navigational_templates/Entertainment_and_fiction#Games, there's a bunch. And I can't find anywhere where it says unreleased games shouldn't be place in navigational templates, nor unreleased games being advertising. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
In addition, I just looked at the Template talk:CVG Navigation. There's clearly no consensus in leaving off unreleased games. In fact, it's two people (you and El Cid) that think unreleased games shouldn't be put in templates. It sure sounds like there is a bigger consensus towards leaving it on the navigational templates, like there is a much bigger consensus here to leave Tekken 6 on the template. I'm readding it as I see no reason and no policy against the inclusion of unreleased games on navigational templates. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, for the other templates with upcoming games.

As for the discussion that led to the current standard, it's in the WT:CVG archives. The discussion at Template talk:CVG Navigation is much more recent and mirrors this one, in that it hasn't much moved past the "It should be included, period!" stage. Excluding upcoming games that had never been shown in playable form was a pre-existing, project-wide consensus. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Tekken 6 should be on the template. As long as it has its own page, which has become quite developed over time, I see no reason why it should not be on the template. Also, according to IGN, Tekken 6 may well be in a playable form sooner than first thought. Michael Mad 09:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Kuma (Tekken) has its own page, which has become quite developed over time. "Pages that exist" isn't a reasonable standard for inclusion in a template. As for IGN, there's a difference between the prediction of something happening and that thing happening. That's my whole point. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I made a poor arguement on my last post, but Tekken 6 should still be on the template. I along with others believe that this game should be on the template. You were, or still are I believe, in a similar edit war concerning the Resident Evil template. I'm not going to revert your edit. Instead, I'm just going to wait and watch for any additions to the template concerning Tekken 6 by other users, and then watch as you delete those additions and then see those changes reverted and so on and so forth untill someone is blocked from editing. Either that or we finally have a vote on the subject at hand, as suggested earlier by another user.Michael Mad 22:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


You're all going about this the wrong way. The point of a template is convenience. This way you don't have to search for links or simply guess that an article exists, putting in what they think might possibly be a name for a page. Put quite simply, Tekken fans who don't go in depth editing the Tekken area of the wiki, like I am, or was two days ago, would prefer the convenience. For example, I didn't even KNOW there was such a thing as Tekken Card Challenge, and if I hadn't had the idea to go around seeing what needs to be edited, I'd not know of it right now. I'm now going to go add this to the template as an act of kindness to average Tekken fans like myself who may not know of its existence. It's a small template. A few things isn't going to kill it. There are so many people here that if it needs to be changed, it will be changed within a day. Welcome to the wikipedia, the place were everyone goes to learn about something they're interested in. We need to do this whatever way more people want. This means a vote. The vote will be removed in one month, at which point we should leave it to be semi-permanent until:

A. A new name is announced for Tekken 6

B. A release date is announced, and the current name is confirmed

C. The game itself is released.

At which point there should be no reason for any argument. Anything amounting to "My argument is good enough to override what people want" is discouraged, but I have no power to stop you. Please be warned that your comment will likely be taken as trolling unless you bring new official information to the table, rather than more argument. Please don't take this the wrong way. I'm not trying to play god. (or in this case, mod) If more people want it than not, however, we'll know, and there will be no excuse for any vandalism. I'm full aware that wikipedia is not a democracy, but if you are one stubborn person against many others, it is comparable to continuously deleting an article on the holocaust because you do not believe it exists. This makes you a troll, and in most people's eyes, a vandal. If this continues if a clear vote to accept the game is established, we will hopefully be able to keep you from editing the template. We can't continues in the way we are generally supposed to because while no verdict is being reached, one person is getting his way. This is Tekken, not a holy war. If people appreciate additions, it won't kill you to let them have them. It's a matter of convenience. Sharpevil 21:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voting to Accept Tekken 6


Votes to accept: Votes to decline:

Sharpevil
King Zeal
Aphasia83
cmsJustin
Pomte

This is not how things are decided on Wikipedia. Sterile votes are frowned upon. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither is going against consensus. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. This poll is only serving to prove that you are vastly outnumbered, as well as a troll/vandal. I went a bit god mode-y yesterday, so I think this is fair. The wiki rule of no sterile votes was likely created to discourage decisions made based on close votes, not unanonymity. Unanymonymity... That should be a word. Sharpevil 19:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, a troll and a vandal? Is your argument so weak you have to resort to namecalling? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. I have some trouble getting my thoughts out, and was actually editing that out of my entry before you came and posted. I did not mean it as name calling, but simple definitions of your behaviors. You are trolling people, such as you are trolling me right now, and you are vandalizing the article by going against an otherwise total consensus.Sharpevil 19:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not trying to start arguments for the sake of arguments/disruption, or damage this project. It can be easy to forget that someone who disagrees with you is motivated by a good-faith desire to improve this project.
Speaking of which... - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


If you are insinuating that I am not motivated by the will to improve the template, you're wrong. I don't think that's what you're saying, but I figured I'd throw this out there. Regardless, I entered the talk page because I wanted to know why Tekken 6 is not on there. You've given a lot of technical reasons, but I think that overall, it seems too late for you to go back on your decision with your pride intact. I know that I would not go as far as you have only to give up, but that does not make it right. To take the discussion's harshness down a notch, I'll start with this. What is the Tekken template for? Please don't sidestep my question. I'm not accusing you, but I've had many fruitless arguments with people who do that. Sharpevil 19:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expectations

Sharpevil touched on a point that has been raised a few times, and never really expanded upon. There's an argument that it frustrates expectations to not find an upcoming game on a navbox, and I've found it troubling because I can't really refute it. It's also troubling because it leaves a question unanswered: "At what point are people going to expect to see an announced-but-in-development game in the navbox?" It would have been ridiculous to add Tekken 6 to this navbox as soon as the next-gen concept footage was shown at E3 2005, for example. What quality has this project gained, in the meantime, that generated the expectation to see it in a navbox? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hype ;) —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 19:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Hype is a terrible reason, but that does not mean it is a horrible thing. I personally believe that pages on upcoming games should be added to nav boxes as long as it contributes a convenient source of information on a game. After all, the purpose of wikipedia is quick, convenient, easy to access information. At least, that's what people use it for. Sharpevil 19:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'd say that the minute an actual demonstration of gameplay was revealed, it became fair game. While a mere announcement, tech demo, or cinematic can be refuted as an actual "game in development", that's a bit more difficult to say for a game with an actual demonstration of gameplay. King Zeal 19:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hype isn't a quantifiable reason, more to the point. Anyway.

How do you define "an actual demonstration of gameplay," though? Have any of the Tekken trailers shown any of the menus, or the damage bars and such? Or are they just "action footage"? How can you draw the line between "action footage" and demonstrations of what they hope the game to look like?

Expanding this beyond Tekken a bit, consider Metal Gear Solid 4's largely cinematic trailers, whose implications in gameplay aren't exactly clear. Is that "an actual demonstration of gameplay"?

The old standard was that someone had played the game and reported on it, which you can judge objectively. (Either they played a build of the game or didn't.) Ideally, we'd have a new standard that was equally as objective. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't the entire purpose for this, though, to avoid "advertising" for a game in progress? Since we need to strictly define whatever standard we go by, I'm curious to know why having someone "play and then report" a game qualifies as "objective"? It strikes me as dangerously akin to an infomercial that stops and asks people on the street to takes the difference between Food Product A and Food Product B. For example, 1UP.com recently got to do a hands-on report of Ninja Gaiden Sigma. What did their findings tell us? Not much that we didn't already know, except that Milky "can't wait to buy the game". While Milky may be a member of the gaming press, why should I trust his opinion moreso than the woman who liked Roast A better than Roast B? King Zeal 20:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Play-then-report is objective proof that the game has been shown in playable form, and unless the preview sucks (1up and IGN, looking at you) it gives us some reporting other than promotional statements by the publisher or speculative statements by others with which to build an article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
That's fine if the goal is to help build the article. This is about navigation. If the game is cancelled or indefinitely delayed for some reason, that's fine. Then, the game, for all intents and purposes, is dead. King Zeal 20:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, now we're sidetracked onto the hows and whys of the old standard, which is a rehash of above. Let's see if we can't draw a new line, one we can define objectively but has more inclusive (within reason) bounds. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well and good as this argument is, you are completely avoiding the point. Nobody wants Tekken 6 in the navbar because it "Showcases gameplay objectively". They want Tekken 6 in the navbar for the same reason they want Tekken 2, or Tekken 5: DR. So all wikisurfers can have easy access to the pages for corresponding Tekken games. People want information on Tekken 4, so they go to the Tekken 4 article. It only makes sense that people would be hungrier for information on a Tekken they haven't played, like 6. The Navbar provides easy linkage to information on all Tekken games, and I'm glad it's there. There is absolutely no bad side to having Tekken 6 in it. It doesn't even make the navbar any bigger!

Please, keep in mind that there are more people browsing these articles than those who edit them. There are Tekken fans who don't know anything about Tekken 6 at all yet. Sharpevil 20:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree that it would have been a bad idea to link Tekken 6 immediately after the E3 2005 next-gen footage was shown? If so, sometime between then and now Tekken 6 crossed some line, clearly. We need to identify that line. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't, though. I was not alerted to the existence of Tekken 6 until a good deal after E3, when I stumbled upon the wiki article while bored. That in itself is a perfectly good reason for it to be on the navbar. Sharpevil 20:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying "Let's exclude it." I'm saying "Let's explore why we're including it." At what point between E3 2005 and now did it become a good idea to include Tekken 6 in this template? Why? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that the footage at E3 2005 was a tech demo, where the recent footage is an official trailer. —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 20:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
What's the difference? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The tech demo made absolutely no mention of what the name of the game was, what features it would have, or when it could be expected for release. The E3 2006 video gave us a name, but nothing about features or a release. The February trailer, however, showcased many features that would be included within the game itself, as well as a (albeit broad) schedule for release. The thing I don't see is how a report that tells me "I'm some guy and I just played Tekken 6" would be any more a confirmation of a playble game than this trailer. King Zeal 20:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
"From the Tekken 6 article: "In February of 2007, Namco released a third trailer. This new trailer featured actual gameplay footage of Tekken 6..." —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 20:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't help your argument any. Those are my words you just quoted. In fact, based upon the outcome of this discussion, I may have to go back and edit them. King Zeal 20:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, how do we know it was actual gameplay footage of Tekken 6? (Hah, edit conflicted; the implied point was "Wasn't it a Wikipedian who wrote that originally?")
It may sound like I'm simply being argumentative, but think about the controversy from E3 2005 over whether the PS3 videos were "gameplay footage" or not. It seems like we're dancing around a definition of "gameplay footage" here, and I'd like to nail it down.
Now, as for the E3 2006 announcements, I think a good start is the fact that there were more-concrete claims made about Tekken 6 than simply "It's Tekken X+1. It's coming out someday." Does everyone agree that E3 2006 was the point at which Tekken 6 became a subject worth mentioning in the navbox? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I could agree with that, though I certainly can see why it would be arguable. King Zeal 20:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The point is that today, it is notable enough to be in the navbox, and that is the kind of common sense that should be used in all game navboxes. —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 20:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but why? What quality does it have that it didn't have after E3 2005? When did it obtain that quality? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's it. Tekken 6 being in the navbar does not and should not hang on whether or not this is gameplay footage. That's unrelated, and should remain so. The reason that Tekken 6 wasn't in the navbox after E3 2005 was either that the wiki article was a stub or people were too lazy to add it. The very fact that any information on Tekken 6 has been released is enough to put it in the navbox. It doesn't hurt you for Tekken 6 to be in the navbox, so the question should be "Would it help anyone to put this in the navbox?" And the answer is yes. I don't understand why you keep dancing around this. Sharpevil 23:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This is what I understand happened. The first trailer was released demonstrating how detailed the game will be on PS3, when the PS3 was still in developement. At E3 2005, another demonstration was shown which disappointed people, because the graphics were subpar compared to the first video demonstrating the capabilities of the PS3. At E3 2006, a new trailer was shown, up to par with the first. Also, Namco has already announced the two new characters and already has footage of the two. And Namco announced a 2007 release for the Japanese version of the arcade. The third trailer is also the first official trailer released. And the official Tekken 6 website is up and running. The official trailer also has a lot more than just CG quality; it has what looks like practice mode fighting. Since E3 2005, more information than "the game is in development" have been released, thus, I myself drew the line there. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
So which of those things you listed put this over the line, so to speak? I'm not arguing the yes or no, I'm asking when and why. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure where I draw the line, but in a short period of time, they released the third trailer showing what appears to be actual gameplay without health bars, announcing the new characters, announcing 2007 arcade release, and launching the website. Although if I really had to pick, the 2007 release would probably put it ahead of the rest, considering it's projected to be this year, instead of them saying it's in production a few years ago.
In other words, I wouldn't have supported the addition of it onto the template before February 2007, as there was nothing remotely concrete save for that it is in production. Now it's been given an actualy time frame with details and proof that it exists outside of CG. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay...AMiB, you don't seem to be arguing that it doesn't deserve inclusion in the navbox anymore. It seems that, instead, you are now trying to determine how you can set a precedent for other articles. Am I correct? If I am, then that would mean that you agree that a line has been drawn. The fact that we haven't yet determined where that line is becomes a completely different discussion altogether. Frankly, if you DO agree that an unclear line has been drawn, then I fail to see the importance in making it clear, except to establish precedent. But, wouldn't it be best just to leave well-enough alone on this, and, should this argument come up in future articles, simply settle it on a case-by-case basis? King Zeal 04:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've tabled that in the hope of finding a standard that we can actually talk about. I can't very well argue against an unarticulated argument, and who knows? I might be convinced. It's what happened last time someone articulated an argument for a standard that wasn't "When a game was announced."
The reason I want a standard is because of things like Untitled Halo Project. What happens when a convention rolls around, Namco shows off a little bit of footage that might be from an upcoming game, and we're back at E3 2005 all over again? Are we going to link Untitled Tekken project just because the article exists, edit war from the trailer's release until the game is released, or are we going to use the experience with this to set a reasonable standard?
I don't think that the line may be as clearly traceable as it ideally could be. But, I'll take a shot and narrowing it down a bit.
Basically, this whole thing comes down to information. The E3 2005 trailer gave us absolutely none of that. All we could discern from it was that a Tekken game was in the works. We knew nothing else besides that--not even a name. The E3 2006 trailer, however, at least provided a name. That, right there, is when I would think the game deserved inclusion in the navbox. Now, on the other hand, Untitled Halo project may not have a name, but we have plenty of information to go off of besides. We know that Peter Jackson is involved, we know that it takes place in the canon Halo universe, and all that other stuff found within the article itself. That's FAR more than we knew about Tekken 6 when it was still unnamed. King Zeal 11:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
As for Wirbelwind's reply, I was kind of worried it was a gut call. "What appears to be actual gameplay" is purely subjective (and even less helpful for games in other genres where the gameplay changes tend to be gross modifications, instead of fine-tuning), the rest is just a gut call on the amount of details they've released, and a release date of a year is something pretty much everyone does, even early on. I was hoping it was something that could be objectively determined. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I seriously don't understand the point of this whole conversation. Sharpevil 19:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Continuing from Zeal's response...

So, what information was key? The name? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's what I think is difficult to sum up. Basically, I think that if there's enough information within an upcoming game article to warrant its own page (as opposed to just being a stubby section in the "series" page), it should be included in the nav box. What's the point in having a page for it, but not including it? I understand your concern for potentially cancelled titles, but that seems like a cart that's been placed before its horse. King Zeal 11:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
And any cancelled games can quickly be removed. —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 12:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
So it's fairly pointless to leave it out when it doesn't hinder anything. Sharpevil 16:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/k/Template_talk%7ETekken_series_67b5.html"