Talk:Weapons of Resident Evil 4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Weapons of Resident Evil 4 was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. No action was taken. Please see the archived discussion for further information. Discussion ended: 20:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC) |
 |
Weapons of Resident Evil 4 was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||
|
||||
 |
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. | |
| Low | This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. | |
|
VG To-do:
|
||
Contents |
[edit] Weapons of Resident Evil 4 getting a straight A?
Transcluded from here.
The assessment guidelines notes recommending: "Note that while the formal process for attaining an A-rating is currently not active, it is recommended that at least two assessors agree on rating an article as A-class before declaring it as such."
So Weapons of Resident Evil 4 gets a straight A from just one assessor? With all respect, with statements like "Unlocked upon beating the game on Normal difficulty, the Chicago Typewriter is a Thompson submachine gun with a maximum firepower level of 10, making it the automatic equivalent to the Butterfly. This weapon has unlimited ammunition", "The Handcannon is a .50 Magnum with a maximum firepower level of 99 when upgraded", "The rocket launcher is a one-use weapon that can be bought from the shop for 30,000 pesetas"; how did this article avoid violating WP:GAMECRUFT or WP:GAMEGUIDE? "Game Over Online Magazine applauds the game's 'welcome additions of a scoped rifle, the mine launcher from Resident Evil 3, a submachinegun, and a one-shot rocket launcher'" is a notable statement? While it is not violating policy, what about the large chunk of a quote in the Creation section; couldn't it be written into prose? Is this the standard of a "near-FA" quality game article? 220.255.4.132 (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd tend to agree with you on that, this article is not A-class standard. At most, its B-class - if only because of its sourcing - but that table is brink on game guide material, the creation section needs to be points backed up by specific lines in the quote rather than simply the block of quote, and the last few sections could use merging into a single "cultural impact" section with appropriate sub-headings. That, plus the fact that the article's relevant information is more suited to the main game article than a separate forked-off article and the relative disregard for the external links policy, in my view doesn't even make it close to A-class. Krator's usually quite good with the articles I've seen him assess, but this one certainly is a blip on his radar, especially with the lack of any comments for the assessment given its high rating. -- Sabre (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree most of the content should be merged into the main article since only the chainsaw is notable on its own. 220.255.4.132 (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree that the content should be merged. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree most of the content should be merged into the main article since only the chainsaw is notable on its own. 220.255.4.132 (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, I'd note that since "the formal process for attaining an A-rating is currently not active", it only takes 2 people to assess if it's requested here, otherwise it's an ad hoc 1 person assessment like it is everywhere else. --PresN (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to re-assess this anyone. To explain a few things:
- When assessing an article for the first time, I sometimes ignore the 2-people A-class thing, and rarely leave comments, as PresN says above. Most of my first time assessments are done via AWB anyway.
- When assessing this article, I considered both B and A, and decided to go for A, even though it was a bit high. It was the kind of problem this article has that made me go for A. See below.
- The usual thing that separates A from FA is the prose. Gaming jargon, general copyediting, etc. A-class is, IMHO, when all the information is there, fully referenced, without POV issues or guideline failures. I thought there was not much more to the topic than the content of this article. Note that this point is probably the most controversial: I recently proposed Toki Tori for A for the same reason, which was rejected.
- I'm usually not in for a fight about ratings (not here, at least), so it doesn't matter much if anyone feels like changing it.
User:Krator (t c) 00:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I agree with the assessment as A-class. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I think your opinion carry little weight to the A-class with regards to you being the primary contributor to this article. 220.255.4.132 (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- The fact that I devoted so much of my volunteer time to improving this article, whereas you have not done so at all, suggests that my opinion does matter. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- None of the weapons listed in the "gameguide" In-game weapons section has proven their real-world notability. The sole exception being the Chainsaw and the controller bearing its likeness. The article's title is incompatible with those contents appropriate for Wikipedia (meaning the Chainsaw). The point you brought up is indeed controversial. It seems to imply that an article with all possible "information" can be A-class even if it isn't notable and goes against several policies. (Transcluding this topic to the article's discussion) 220.255.4.132 (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- The article survived the AfD because many editors correctly believe that the material is notable and passes all of our policies. I have seen no convincing evidence or argument otherwise. Persisting in calling it "game guide" is dishonest. The article's title is totally consistent with Wikipedia in that it is a sub or spinoff article of the main Resident Evil 4 article. There is no identifiable controversy in Krator's accurate and fair reasoning. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Though I appreciate your support, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, you may indeed be biased as the main author of the article. On a different point, our friendly Singaporean IP-editor above does have a selective perception of what is suitable and what is not. All but one of the sections of the article are unquestionable, and the other is necessary as a summary, and to provide context. If I understand this correctly from the focus on the 'chainsaw' as only 'good part', he appears to believe that only things made of 'stuff' are worthy of articles. This would make WP:MATH very unhappy :) User:Krator (t c) 08:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- The article survived the AfD because many editors correctly believe that the material is notable and passes all of our policies. I have seen no convincing evidence or argument otherwise. Persisting in calling it "game guide" is dishonest. The article's title is totally consistent with Wikipedia in that it is a sub or spinoff article of the main Resident Evil 4 article. There is no identifiable controversy in Krator's accurate and fair reasoning. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Actually, something seems fishy with the IP. I am not sure what to make of this one, but please check this IP's edits: [1]. It looks a lot like a registered user who is disgurntled over the Weapons of Resident Evil 4 article being kept and is now editing with an IP instead. The other edits from the IP being on such articles as List of D.Gray-man episodes and List of characters in Ben 10 make me think it is one of the ArbCom parties, maybe one of those who participated in the AfD: [2]. Anyway, the IP just tagged two other IPs as well, which have also edited character related articles or made anti-game guide edits: [3] and [4]. From the above two IPs, see for example, [5] and [6]. Undeniably the same editor has used these three IPs and the specific game list and character article material targetted is consistent with either some of the involved ArbCom party related editing, and the style of writing and specific interest in the Weapons of Resident Evil 4 article strike me as someone who participated in the AfD and is disappointed in the result. The fact that those three IPs I listed had edits that focused on episode, character, and what they perceive as "game guide" material seem consistent with either certain registered editors who typically go after episode, character, or "game list" articles with a degree of intensity as well. Considering the tremendous gap in the main IPs edit history to all of a sudden focus on this one particular article in various talk page discussions does not strike me as a non-regular user. Were I to draw a connection between the IPs, consider, for example these diffs:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Both the IPs have an issue with certain kinds of content they consider "game guide" and indicate as much in edit summaries and on the Video Games Wikiproject. In any event, notice that the block log of this IP: [9]. You'll see that the first IP has made an edit to that IP: [10]. Even if the similarities of the IPs are coincidences, then it looks like that editor may be IP hopping to evade a three month block. Also, look at a similar IP in that range with a block through next month: [11] and also [12]. Compare with this IP: [13]. Both similar IPs edited The Evil Spartan's user talk page around the same time. Finally, another IP in the same range has been blocked indefinitely for proxy and socking: [14]. Something of a disruptive nature seems to be going on from whoever is editing from these IPs:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I do not believe in conspiracy theories. User:Krator (t c) 17:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not much of a theory. The same editor is clearly editing off of various IPs two of which had extended blocks and one an idefinite block. I apologize if this is not the best place to post this evidence, but it appears as if we are dealing with someone evading blocks and I am not sure if we are supposed to indulge such editors? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I do not believe in conspiracy theories. User:Krator (t c) 17:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Krator, while I'm satisfied there is no irregularity with the grading system but the article contents don't match what is expected of the grade given (in fact, now this discussion is turning towards the notability of the article itself rather than your awarded grade). I believe you misunderstood my comments on the chainsaw. With a title like "Weapons of RE4", the article is expected to show why those weapons are notable. Maybe they affected the development of some other games, maybe players remember the game because of the weapons, maybe they caused controversy, etc. I'm pretty sure you know this and what the article has presented to illustrate this. The current article does not do this. The reception section consists of one-sentence bites which praise the weapons on a generic scope. The creation section focuses on the weapon system and contains a few sentences. The bulk of the article consists of a gameguide Weapon section which states how much you can buy a weapon for, how you can unlock them, the stats of their firepower, etc. This is the issue I am having with. The weapons aren't proving their "Wiki-worth" so as to speak. It would be like "List of Weapons in Counter-Strike". That is why I said only the chainsaw did. It stood out from those generic weapons with its controller spinoff. 220.255.4.134 (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fortunately, the article's contents match what is expected by the grade given and the article indicates why the weapons are notable multiple times. The current article does exactly these things and a statement of facts regarding the weapons is not one is in a game guide. I happen to own a game guide on this game and the weapons table looks NOTHING like the pages in the game guide. The article presents the "wiki-worth" with flying colors. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Le Grand, do you even know what is a dynamic or shared ip. So now you preach making Wikipedia exclusive to only those with static ips, and blame the actions of an errant ip sharer on the whole pool? You're simply trying to divert attention on the article since you don't have substantial arguments at all. Go ahead and bring it up on WP:ANI. Either you don't understand why some of those ips are blocked and some aren't, or you are deliberately misintepreting the data to advance some agenda. You don't understand what the policy on gameguide is (what is your defence for the Weapons section). You don't understand why it is inappropriate for you to defend its assessment (go ask regulars at GAC/FAC and refer to Krator's comments). The article wasn't kept because overwhelming numbers stated good reasons for it to be kept, but rather they thought they saw promise of more notable content (prompted by your addition of sources and bringing up the chainsaw, compare to the version up for AfD then) which could have made a good article. However this isn't the case for the reasons pointed out above. The article's content can be merged into the main article itself without any issues at all, and make the presentation of the Resident Evil 4 topic much better in Wikipedia. 220.255.4.134 (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- You are admittedly jumping from one IP to another, which tends to look suspicious to other editors, especially when you have used IPs that have been blocked for sockpuppetry recently. It is entirely appropriate to defend something that I volunteered time to work on against someone (all we can go with are the IP edits) who has seemingly not made any constructive edits, but rather target material inaccurately referred by the IP hopper as "game guide" when the material does not provide a walkthrough of the game and is not "how to" in nature. If you do not wish to be accused of anything by using IPs used heavily for vandalism or by going from one IP to another in the same discussion, then I encourage you to create a stable account. Sincrerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for showing your ignorance and biasness in assuming I deliberately jump ips or go around vandalizing user talk pages and articles. Go read up on dynamic ips, policies and the admins' discussions on them until you understand what them, how they're handled and why wikipedia allows anonymous editing. Constant assumption of bad faith contradicts wiki's guideline to assume good faith. Again you show ignorance or are deliberately twisting things around in stating the article isn't gameguide. So "There is a short delay before firing, making the rocket launcher impractical against faster enemies", "This explosion is powerful and has a wide splash damage radius, making it useful against both crowds of weaker enemies and stronger single enemies" doesn't tell players when and how to use them? "Although unsuitable for destroying doors or shelves, it can be upgraded to increase its chance of a critical headshot by 500%", "It can only fire one shot at a time, making it difficult to dispatch larger groups of enemies." doesn't tell them how to use this weapon? "Unlocked upon beating the game on Normal difficulty, the Chicago Typewriter" doesn't tell them how to unlock this weapon? "The rocket launcher is a one-use weapon that can be bought from the shop for 30,000 pesetas", "Its firepower level is 13.0. When completely modified, its firepower reaches 50. To balance out its firepower, ammunition is rarely encountered" doesn't give useless info to readers? Claiming all the weapons are ridiculous since only the chainsaw is mentioned as an impact in real-world. No other weapon is mentioned as such on its own (Butterfly, Typewriter, rocket launcher, etc; where's the talk on them, what's their impact, etc). You're just blindly and fanatically defending your own work instead of fixing the article up to what people had expected. I'm done with this section since I was seeking an answer to the grading system and I got it. It's pointless talking to you to get the article fixed up since you are blind to what's wrong and a fanatical defender of gameguide (per policy) contents, and constantly assuming bad faith to legitimate concerns. Bye. 220.255.4.134 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- You are clearly using multiple IPs to participate in the same discussion:
- It's no assumption, it is obvious and it is on IPs with large numbers of vandalism warnings if not outright blocks. I own a game guide for this game; the section os dramatically different from what is in the game guide. You do not know what you are talking about and your criticism of Krator's deicision is totally baseless. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for showing your ignorance and biasness in assuming I deliberately jump ips or go around vandalizing user talk pages and articles. Go read up on dynamic ips, policies and the admins' discussions on them until you understand what them, how they're handled and why wikipedia allows anonymous editing. Constant assumption of bad faith contradicts wiki's guideline to assume good faith. Again you show ignorance or are deliberately twisting things around in stating the article isn't gameguide. So "There is a short delay before firing, making the rocket launcher impractical against faster enemies", "This explosion is powerful and has a wide splash damage radius, making it useful against both crowds of weaker enemies and stronger single enemies" doesn't tell players when and how to use them? "Although unsuitable for destroying doors or shelves, it can be upgraded to increase its chance of a critical headshot by 500%", "It can only fire one shot at a time, making it difficult to dispatch larger groups of enemies." doesn't tell them how to use this weapon? "Unlocked upon beating the game on Normal difficulty, the Chicago Typewriter" doesn't tell them how to unlock this weapon? "The rocket launcher is a one-use weapon that can be bought from the shop for 30,000 pesetas", "Its firepower level is 13.0. When completely modified, its firepower reaches 50. To balance out its firepower, ammunition is rarely encountered" doesn't give useless info to readers? Claiming all the weapons are ridiculous since only the chainsaw is mentioned as an impact in real-world. No other weapon is mentioned as such on its own (Butterfly, Typewriter, rocket launcher, etc; where's the talk on them, what's their impact, etc). You're just blindly and fanatically defending your own work instead of fixing the article up to what people had expected. I'm done with this section since I was seeking an answer to the grading system and I got it. It's pointless talking to you to get the article fixed up since you are blind to what's wrong and a fanatical defender of gameguide (per policy) contents, and constantly assuming bad faith to legitimate concerns. Bye. 220.255.4.134 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- You are admittedly jumping from one IP to another, which tends to look suspicious to other editors, especially when you have used IPs that have been blocked for sockpuppetry recently. It is entirely appropriate to defend something that I volunteered time to work on against someone (all we can go with are the IP edits) who has seemingly not made any constructive edits, but rather target material inaccurately referred by the IP hopper as "game guide" when the material does not provide a walkthrough of the game and is not "how to" in nature. If you do not wish to be accused of anything by using IPs used heavily for vandalism or by going from one IP to another in the same discussion, then I encourage you to create a stable account. Sincrerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I grasp your point by now, and I think it would be foolish to continue this discussion any further. Thank you for your observant attitude and swift notification here, that's why transparent processes are nice. User:Krator (t c) 23:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Failed "good article" nomination
Upon its review on April 13, 2008, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:
contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}}, etc, or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, {{huh}}, or similar tags
thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.
This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Epass (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- There are no such tags on the article as indicated above, so I am somewhat confused. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- He probably means the merge tag. --Mika1h (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then I do not uderstand why he did not say: "There's a merge tag"? He, however, asserts that it includes but is not limited to "cleanup", "wikify", "NPOV," "unreferenced," "fact," "clarify," and "huh." That is simply not true. There are no such tags on the article and many of these tags would not even make sense on it anyway, especially say the "unreferenced" tag (which again is not actually on the article) as the article contains a whole host of inline citations. As for the merge tag, please note that it was placed by an editor well over a month ago and this editor has not edited since around the week of adding that tag. In the discussion that we had about it, the consensus was clearly to keep the article rather than merge (Magioladitis, TTN, and ZeroGiga were for merge; Kung Fu Man, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, Masem, ShadowJester07, The Prince, and Ursasapien were for keep; Judgesurreal777 was somewhat neutral): 6 for keep, 3 for merge, and 1 neutral. Thus, consensus has been to keep the article and not merge since 28 March 2008 when anyone last posted in that discussion. That discussion in effect can probably be archived. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- He used Template:QF-tags, that's why all those tags are listed. --Mika1h (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Which is problematic, because it suggests there's issues with the article that no on has actually suggested. The article does not contain any clean up banners, and again, the merge discussion has been inactive for a couple of weeks, was initiated over a month ago by someone who hasn't edited in over a month, and was more to the effect of keeping the article separate anyway. Moreover, the article has continued to improve with new text, references, and a new image since the merge discussion was initiated back in February. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- He used Template:QF-tags, that's why all those tags are listed. --Mika1h (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then I do not uderstand why he did not say: "There's a merge tag"? He, however, asserts that it includes but is not limited to "cleanup", "wikify", "NPOV," "unreferenced," "fact," "clarify," and "huh." That is simply not true. There are no such tags on the article and many of these tags would not even make sense on it anyway, especially say the "unreferenced" tag (which again is not actually on the article) as the article contains a whole host of inline citations. As for the merge tag, please note that it was placed by an editor well over a month ago and this editor has not edited since around the week of adding that tag. In the discussion that we had about it, the consensus was clearly to keep the article rather than merge (Magioladitis, TTN, and ZeroGiga were for merge; Kung Fu Man, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, Masem, ShadowJester07, The Prince, and Ursasapien were for keep; Judgesurreal777 was somewhat neutral): 6 for keep, 3 for merge, and 1 neutral. Thus, consensus has been to keep the article and not merge since 28 March 2008 when anyone last posted in that discussion. That discussion in effect can probably be archived. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- He probably means the merge tag. --Mika1h (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Merge is different from cleanup. So a merge banner is not a cleanup banner. Also, WIAGA says that "proposals to split or merge content" does not mean the article is unstable. I think we should file a GAR. --Kaypoh (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- The case was agreed at GAR, but there isn't much that GAR can do about an inappropriate quick fail beyond suggesting renomination. I've removed the failed GA tag, so that you have a clean slate. Before renomination, I suggest checking out the lead, per the guideline I link. I'm sorry that no one closed the GAR discussion sooner, but there was a backlog at GAR. Good luck with the renomination. Geometry guy 20:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ref cleanup
The refs in the article need some formatting and cleanup. This includes, but is not limited to:
- Inconsistent date formatting
- Missing publisher
- Inappropriate italics (for example, IGN shouldn't be italicized)
- Missing accessdate for web references
- Repeated footnotes that could be combined
{{Cite web}} might help with some formatting and missing information—you might consider using it. I would also suggest using short-form references for the Bradygames guide, and it's quite bulky to repeat the entire reference 15 or so times. It might be nice to get this cleaned up before the GA assessment begins. Pagrashtak 16:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] actual weopons
why does someone keep deleting the weopons section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenday21 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is not a really good reason for doing so, but it has been discussed to no consensus here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
