Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team Chaos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete the merge option was discussed immediately prior to this AfD on the article talk page and rejected. Gnangarra 11:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Team Chaos

Team Chaos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No independent references given for the subject. The external links given at the bottom of the article are entirely for the game Total Chaos, which has it's own article (the homepage link for this programming team being broken.) Merge proposal met with hostility from two new users, so thought I would bring it to articles for discussion. I'll also note that the two card games listed under 'remakes' are in no way, shape or form remakes of this piece of software. Marasmusine 00:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Attention Moderator User Marasmusine the original proposer of this article for deletion now states "My proposal is a merge, not a delete". Therefore please remove this from AfD without further ado. SuperfrogJumps 09:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, except you keep blocking attempts at any discussion on a merge. Still, I don't want to be accused of a bad faith nomination, so I won't mind if the moderator wants to move this discussion elsewhere. Marasmusine 09:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    Merge will not work because the resulting article would then be self-contradictory and would be utterly confusing. Let me give you an example: the Total Chaos article talks about using the undo button and capturing creatures but those features don't even exist in Chaos: Wizard War I. Every game produced by Team Chaos has its own unique features, flaws, quirks, monsters, spells, method of customisation and so on. Merging just won't work because the subjects of the articles are different. GreatGianaSister 06:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep the article needs work, and that's for sure. But don't delete it, it's too much to Merge, and seems to big to condense well after reading swiftly through it. I'm wanting to see some more verifiability though, and some footnotes would be nice. Kopf1988 03:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Every article on wikipedia needs improvement, including this one. So improve it! I find it totally hilarious that Marasmusine has lost his temper and proposed to delete the article when Team Chaos just released a major new game at Christmastime, is mentioned on various Amiga news sites in the last 90 days and Team Chaos is in this month's issue of Amiga Future Magazine which currently seems to be winning the "Best Amiga Magazine" poll on Amiga.org. Smooth move Marasmusine. GreatGianaSister 06:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
My proposal is a merge, not a delete; since you wouldn't allow the merge proposal tag to stay up for even a day (along with other maintaince tags and even this CfD tag), that's why I've brought it to Articles for Discussion.
Let me make my proposal again; the entirity of the Team Chaos page talks about the Total Chaos series of games (and provides no references for Team Chaos themselves). Why not merge that information into the Total Chaos article? It's not uncommon to have a single page represent a series of games; Sangokushi for example. The Team Chaos article shows that the games have the same basic gameplay, but with each iteration improving on the graphics and features, so should be resonably easy to set up (especially if the 'Rules of the game' section is trimmed down.) Marasmusine 07:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Naturally, if there is a magazine article on Team Chaos then that needs to be linked on the page (despite all my 'smooth moves', I'm not psychic.) Marasmusine 07:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep This should never have been listed for delection. User is holding a grudge. Merge is inappropriate and would produce mass incongruity. SuperfrogJumps 09:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per nom. There is no real need for this article when the parent article not only exists but would be significantly improved by the inclusion of content from this one. Orderinchaos78 10:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Because the nominator is confused. Next subject: The merge idea is stupid because Chaos: Return of the Wizards has different rules than Total Chaos which also has different rules from Chaos: WWII which also has different rules from the next game they make. StoneGiant 12:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Well when the bulk of the article is a table that says 'The entire Total Chaos series', with each successive game having 'significant new features' over the last, and there's a paragraph that even outlines the common gameplay it's pretty easy to see how I might have got 'confused' over thinking that the Total Chaos series was a series of similar computer games. I'll also note that all the independent references only refer to Total Chaos: Battle at the Frontier of Time; There's nothing about any of the other games (Unless that Retro Gamer review is one of the other Total Chaos games), or about Team Chaos themselves. Marasmusine 14:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Low notability article, does not warrant a speedy but the article fails WP:NN.Tellyaddict 16:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - A redirect with a couple of merged facts is probably warranted though. All of the secondary material available is about Total Chaos, there's not much about Team Chaos itself. A short section or a few sentences about who created the game should be all that is necessary in the Total article. Wickethewok 21:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect per Wickethewok. Also non-notable. Realkyhick 22:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability is very marginal and the fact its being supported only by SPAs is significant. EliminatorJR Talk 00:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
You have falsely accused me of being a SPA. That makes you a troll. GreatGianaSister 01:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
He just means your edit summary shows mostly edits to the articles in question, please don't take it personally. Marasmusine 15:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Added link to interview with Team Chaos leader. SuperfrogJumps 02:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Except you can't read it without extracting the file. Needs to be posted in text format on the web somewhere to be a valid more useful link. EliminatorJR Talk 19:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What? Why? Web resources are more convenient, but it's certainly not the case that a source needs to be on the web in plain text to be "valid". Most of our best sources (traditionally published journals) are not online at all, in fact. — brighterorange (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, I realise this, but to be honest I was trying to help the nominator - "valid" wasn't the right word to use. But it wouldn't take long to copy the text file to somewhere more accessible. EliminatorJR Talk 12:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I downloaded the file in 2 seconds on my WindowsXP machine. Then I single clicked on 'open' the file in the FireFox downloads window and found the interview. You don't really need to 'extract' anything on a properly configured WindowsXP machine. At first I was tempted to copy & paste the whole interview into the wikipedia but it is copyrighted. I could make use of the Fair Use provision of the United States Copyright Act to copy & paste a quote or two if you really want me to? GreatGianaSister 02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • YAY Suprerfrog! Thank you so much for finding that interview! I thought it was lost forever when Amiga Arena went down! GreatGianaSister 01:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Added 2 links to the 2 major Amiga news sources: Amiga.org and AmigaWorld.net about Team Chaos having released yet another game. GreatGianaSister 01:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    I don't have any problem with the archived interview. I've arranged the external links into subject (and removed the dead link to the 'home page' and the google search results link.) There's plenty of reference there suitable for the Total Chaos page, but still not much to justify a seperate Team Chaos article. I'm not sure about the notability of the references.
    I've also raised an issue on Talk:Total Chaos; if that page not ment to represent the whole series of games (and not just one game) why does the infobox show release dates from 1986 to the present (and the opening sentence confirms this)? THankyou for any clarification. Marasmusine 08:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    The Total Chaos article is meant to be about the Total Chaos series of games only. It is not meant to be about Chaos: Wizard War II (which I noticed you deleted the link out of the article) nor is it meant to be about Chaos: Return of the Wizards. The problem is that if we cram in those extra games then it sounds simple and easy doesn't it? But then ... you come to realize that the whole article then needs to be rewritten with lots of IF-THEN statements or other form of comments mucking up the article such as "This paragraph does not apply to Chaos: Wizard War II" or "blahblahblah except in Chaos: Wizard War II in which case yadayadayada". I sure as hell am not going to try to go through and fix all that, if it is even possible. StoneGiant 12:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    It's not so bad when you realise you don't have to go into details about the rules and spells etc, in fact the more consise there the better (see WP:NOT). In fact there's not much to say about the first two games anyway, as there's very little verifiable information out there about them. I'm sure it can work. Marasmusine 15:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Malevolent Edits by Marasmusine: Marasmusine has damaged the Total Chaos entry numerous times over the months. He is always very careful not to add anything extremely useful, unless you count paragraphs of false information which must be undone. Let us look at some of his edits:
  • [Here he destroys the entire table of contents]. Look at the start of the article. There is no table of contents anymore. Click on "Older Edit" and you will see a beautiful Table of Contents. The article appeared in this unprofessional damaged state for weeks until someone undid it.
I'll stand by that edit, and what I said in the summary: (WP:NOT; rm playing instructions, vanity, some informalities etc. Also probably no need for the full spell list.) Marasmusine
Was just scratching my head over the 'table of contents' there; it was automatically taken out after I tidied up the headings - I didn't deliberatly introduce a noTOC template or anything. I still think my revision was better. Marasmusine 15:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • [Here he just wantonly deletes Total Chaos] out of the Amiga Games article. There are 75 games in that article he could have deleted but didn't. He/she clearly has personal issues against this particular game and/or its developers. He/she edits other articles about games but does not behave this way against them so he is not just randomly vandalizing things, but targeting two specific articles. Its almost as if she is the ex-wife of one of the developers or something. StoneGiant 12:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, the edit summary; didn't see the point in listing one AGA game, especially as it seems to suggest that none of the other games could be AGA. Marasmusine 15:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh my! well... I wasn't going to say anything... but since he has a history of bullying the article: His real name is Duncan and he is the developer of a game similar to Total Chaos called Chaos Wars.
    Here he explains the name Marasmusine and mentions his game and
    here he offers his game for download with screenshot. He clearly suffers from jealousy issues and conflict of interest. SuperfrogJumps 13:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, that's right, I'm have an interest in the original Chaos and wrote a remake of it. I also have an interest in Total Chaos as a result (although you deny the games have anything to do with each other "false statements he sneaked into the article" were your words when I added the Chaos references.)
    I think anyone looking at my all my edits to that article will see that I've had an interest in editing the article for clarity, neutrality and adherance to WP:NOT. Marasmusine 15:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    Also, the continuous hostility I've had since I first put up the merge proposal is beginning to wear me out a bit. I'd just ask you to read Wikipedia:Etiquette, thanks. Marasmusine 16:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Marasmusine is a Wikiterrorist. He is also what is referred to as a "BS Artist". I predict he will never stop trying to talk his way out of his vandalism. I change my vote to:
  • Keep, protect article from deletion for 1 year, disable User:Marasmusine account permanently and court-martial him for conduct unbecoming a Wikipedia author. If Wikipedia has any professional standards at all it will make an example out of Marasmusine's sneaky vandalism. GreatGianaSister 02:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Please be aware of No Personal Attacks, an official policy on the English Wikipedia, and note that Wikilawyering is looked down upon by the community. Orderinchaos78 10:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The above is very hard to sort out with the warring going on, I'll have a go. If I haven't summarised someone's contribution, it's because I believe the person's original comment spoke for itself.
  • Marasmusine - Merge or Delete - per WP:ATT (no independent references) and possibly WP:N. Seems to have originally favoured a merge per this discussion, but the merge tag was removed several times (correct me if I'm wrong), so it was brought here.
  • Superfrog - Keep
  • GreatGianaSister - Keep - "Every article on wikipedia needs improvement, including this one. So improve it!" Argues against merge as every game Team Chaos produces is different and the resulting article may be contradictory.
  • jossi - Merge/redir
  • Kopf1988 - Weak Keep
  • Orderinchaos78 - Merge/redir
  • Tellyaddict - Delete
  • Wickethewok - Delete
  • Realkyhick - Delete
  • EliminatorJR - Delete
Based on the above the consensus appears to be delete on the grounds of notability and attributability (which replaces WP:V), two key Wikipedia policies. Several of the points and discussion areas above defending the article's continued existence seem to concern areas which wander into original research, cannot be verified by any means against independent secondary sources, or what Wikipedia is not. Interviews with the creator or link lists don't actually satisfy the requirements. Orderinchaos78 10:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.