Talk:Mega Man Xtreme 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
No This article is on a subject of no priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:

[edit] Merge proposal

Gareth (Mega Man) and Berkana (Mega Man) are nothing but plot summary of this game (and OR-ish description of his personality). As they are dupe content and per WP:FICT, they should be merged here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really. They do contain information concerning the character's personallitys. To be honest, any character page is going to contain plot information from the source they came from - but its pretty hard to give more detail when a character's only appeared once. --ACE Spark 01:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Heres a suggestion. Someone alter the background histories to sound less like a plot summary of a game. Could look better. --ACE Spark 01:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Augh, please don't. The personality sections are wholly unsourced and wholly unencyclopedic, and we don't need background history for a character appearing in one minor spinoff MM game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course its "unsourced". That's the most mindbogglingly stupidest thing I've heard from an editor. They're derived from observations made in game, although its posible I could source them from citations made from quotes in game. Ethier way, its no problem.
Unencyclopedic..? I'm not so sure. It gives insight to the character and its motivation. In Joseph McCarthy, silly, perhaps. Not a fictional character. In any circumstance, its widely done across many articles in this vein I don't see a reason to contest it at this point. -Randall Brackett 02:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
They're conclusions derived by the author? That makes them original research. The fact that it is common in many articles doesn't mean that it's a good idea; it's something that needs to be fixed on sight, and "personality" sections are conspicuous in their absence in the fictional character FAs. Plus, you know, WP:OR is policy and all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Please stop wikilawyering.
Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.
Sums it up. In addition, the section was derived from the Mega Man Network, a reputable fan site in analysis. I'm not concerned if a good idea or not. Its neutral, describes the character and can be sourced if need be. I actually said it would be if this were a different subject, but this is not the place to quibble about policy. -Randall Brackett 02:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can't source it, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

This isn't wikilawyering, and this is a canonical example of "new analysis or synthesis of published data".

As for "Mega Man Network," I don't think that qualifies as a reliable source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Take it to WP:OR, then. I've verified it can be sourced so I've no idea what you are talking about. Although this isn't really germane to this conversation, which is the discussion on the merges. -Randall Brackett 02:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean, "take it to WP:OR"? It's not a process page.
As for "verifying it can be sourced," you've linked to a URL squatter page. Not much of a source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
They've moved the website. I need to fix the URL: http://megaman.retrofaction.com/ -Randall Brackett 02:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
How is that site a reliable published source? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
How is it not...? They provide daily updates on the source in question, they have various interviews with the creator of Mega Man and Capcom officials and the data has been verified as acurate by a large number of players. They also poseessed lexicons, encyclopedias and other referennces. In 2004, I believe, they experienced problems with the servers and lost this, instead pouring the effort into the forums and other places.
It doesn't matter if it can be sourced or not form their website. I need only to add cites using quotes from in-game. Similar to referencing in Final Fantasy-related pages. The source is merely to verify that we documented the data from them, not as a source the data is verifible. I said bring this to WP:OR because you're wikilawyering about policy instead of the work at hand. The pont is I did not do it and as such is not original research. I'll make cites later (need a story FAQ; I no longer have the game). -Randall Brackett 02:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Referring you to WP:OR and demanding that you use reliable sources for something I see as crufty speculation isn't Wikilawyering. It's being courteous before deleting unsourced information on sight.

As for the merge, these are minor characters appearing in only one work. I don't see how WP:FICT doesn't apply. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You have confused me there. When did I say WP:FICT did not apply? -Randall Brackett 03:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
You didn't. ACE Spark implied it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)