Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sega/Archive 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| ← Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Sonic characters
Can we please just get these character articles organized and done with? No matter how much false optimism you put up, they do not meet our community standards and they are not going to improve any time soon. Seven character articles and seven lists should be the goal. It's going to be done at some point, so you may as well do it now. TTN (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Don't you ever learn TTN, no one wants the articles deleted and merged, (well some do, but the people who want keep them out number them a million to one).Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- None of you want them merged. If it were actually possible to set up a situation where only people that don't regularly edit fiction could comment, it would be pretty much unanimous to make these actually encyclopedic. TTN (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Percisely, friend. None of THEM want the articles merged, but on this site, merge is about consensus. It should be everyone's decision to suggest a merge or not, not the decision of one person forcing the guidelines on other people. That right there does encourage good faith. ZeroGiga (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Consensus is global, not local. Just because a small group wants something does not mean that they have an actual consensus. Unfortunately, the whole dispute resolution system is junk and there is no place with enough people to actually comment at once to help solve this problem. TTN (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- If a world without fiction existed then the world would be a pretty dull place.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- That has nothing to do with my statement. Anyways, these are fan articles as they stand, and they need to be fixed. If you could let go of your fan instincts for a little bit, you'll see that nothing would even change anyways. The one shots will still be covered (just not in a list format). The merged characters will have the same level of information and they will not be any less notable. I've never understood they idea that just because something doesn't have an article that it is somehow isn't important. They only thing that it will do is actually help make this a legitimate project rather than one of the many fan gatherings around here. TTN (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- These articles have just as much notability as any other article. It shows what SEGA has made. It is real world information about the games from an in-game point of view.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Notability is shown through the inclusion of reliable sources in order to provide a real world view of the topic. Notability is not shown through your personal opinions or your misinterpretation of what is required. To be considered notable, they need information like development and reception information. Only the main seven have any chance of that at this point in time (and maybe only three of them are definite). TTN (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- You'll never learn will you, no matter what you throw at people, no matter what hidden corner of Wikipedia you find, people will stand up to you and fight you, and then you go in all guns blazing when things don't go your way, (which is what got you suspended in the first place). And this discussion has been had about 4 times already and it's always lead to the same thing; people want the articles to stay the way they are, so face fact. Now could you end your monologue please, I have plans for the rest of the weekend.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- You're taking this a bit too seriously. You also seem to forget that they only reason why the articles have stuck is because people would rather pretend that they're actually getting something done (the FICT discussions) rather than trying to actually apply that to something worthwhile (Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard). I really suggest that if you like your plot summaries, original research, trivia, and fancruft that much, you should really take up editing at Wikia. If they don't have a decent Sonic or Sega wiki at the moment, you can easily get one created. That way, you can have an article on every single minor thing down to a pallet swapped enemy. TTN (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I already know a Sonic wiki. But that's not the point. We've had this discussion again and again and again. And the articles have always been chosen to stay the way they are. The only thing that's changed is more games have been released featuring the characters and new info has come to light.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Again, the only reason that they have stayed is because of certain circumstance making it impossible to actually get a real discussion going, not because of any a consensus or because the articles are good. You seem to think that because this is a project (with only five active members, its more like a dead taskforce) it has some sort of authority. TTN (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Let's see, you've held this discussion at Talk:List of Sonic characters, WP:Video games and WP:Sega all with the same result. What does that tell you? It tells me that no matter where you host it people will think it's a bad idea.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- As I said, it's impossible to get a discussion going. Not one regular member commented on the actual discussion that I opened. It's hit or miss over there. I mean, right now, a handful of people are discussing the inclusion of two sentences in an article. After that, there is nowhere else with enough people to make any difference. TTN (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the consensus on the VGproject page was merge.Bridies (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm no good with matters like these. Wait till the head of the project is back, you both live in America so you should be awake at the same time.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Let's see, you've held this discussion at Talk:List of Sonic characters, WP:Video games and WP:Sega all with the same result. What does that tell you? It tells me that no matter where you host it people will think it's a bad idea.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Again, the only reason that they have stayed is because of certain circumstance making it impossible to actually get a real discussion going, not because of any a consensus or because the articles are good. You seem to think that because this is a project (with only five active members, its more like a dead taskforce) it has some sort of authority. TTN (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I already know a Sonic wiki. But that's not the point. We've had this discussion again and again and again. And the articles have always been chosen to stay the way they are. The only thing that's changed is more games have been released featuring the characters and new info has come to light.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- You're taking this a bit too seriously. You also seem to forget that they only reason why the articles have stuck is because people would rather pretend that they're actually getting something done (the FICT discussions) rather than trying to actually apply that to something worthwhile (Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard). I really suggest that if you like your plot summaries, original research, trivia, and fancruft that much, you should really take up editing at Wikia. If they don't have a decent Sonic or Sega wiki at the moment, you can easily get one created. That way, you can have an article on every single minor thing down to a pallet swapped enemy. TTN (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- You'll never learn will you, no matter what you throw at people, no matter what hidden corner of Wikipedia you find, people will stand up to you and fight you, and then you go in all guns blazing when things don't go your way, (which is what got you suspended in the first place). And this discussion has been had about 4 times already and it's always lead to the same thing; people want the articles to stay the way they are, so face fact. Now could you end your monologue please, I have plans for the rest of the weekend.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Notability is shown through the inclusion of reliable sources in order to provide a real world view of the topic. Notability is not shown through your personal opinions or your misinterpretation of what is required. To be considered notable, they need information like development and reception information. Only the main seven have any chance of that at this point in time (and maybe only three of them are definite). TTN (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- These articles have just as much notability as any other article. It shows what SEGA has made. It is real world information about the games from an in-game point of view.Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- That has nothing to do with my statement. Anyways, these are fan articles as they stand, and they need to be fixed. If you could let go of your fan instincts for a little bit, you'll see that nothing would even change anyways. The one shots will still be covered (just not in a list format). The merged characters will have the same level of information and they will not be any less notable. I've never understood they idea that just because something doesn't have an article that it is somehow isn't important. They only thing that it will do is actually help make this a legitimate project rather than one of the many fan gatherings around here. TTN (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Percisely, friend. None of THEM want the articles merged, but on this site, merge is about consensus. It should be everyone's decision to suggest a merge or not, not the decision of one person forcing the guidelines on other people. That right there does encourage good faith. ZeroGiga (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- None of you want them merged. If it were actually possible to set up a situation where only people that don't regularly edit fiction could comment, it would be pretty much unanimous to make these actually encyclopedic. TTN (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I will look at them again in about a week, too busy to do anything major at the moment.Bridies (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Do whatever the consensus is. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- And that would be to merge them into a state where they would be considered encyclopedic. Or do you, against everything you know, believe that four people can override the community? TTN (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- There never is consenus with you TTN. You will not accept the fact that people want the articles to stay the way they are.Fairfieldfencer FFF 11:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please read over some of our policies and guidelines relating to content. Those are consensus, not you. TTN (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- TTN you won't listen. We've had this discussion. The articles are staying the way they are.Fairfieldfencer FFF 12:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- TTN, the guidelines are not written in stone. They are to be interpreted in various ways; that's why we have people who are inclusionists such as Fairfieldfencer and deletionists like yourself. If this were not the case, then everyone would be forced to edit in one particular manner and there would be no room for multiple philosophies. While the guidelines are consensus, your view on how they should be interpreted is not consensus. I would have thought that the blocks against you and the ArbCom sanctions against you would have taught you that. My belief is that these articles that you talk about are worthy of note and worthy of their own articles because they are notable enough, and don't use the "it's not established" argument with me. I've turned articles that were at AFD for deletion due to notability issues into worthy articles, one even making it to GA status. If it can be established, then articles should stay the way they are until it is established. Plus, I would say we have a reasonable consensus here to make a strong argument against your opinion in this case. \
- By the way, the Sega Project has a new task force for dealing with these articles and the rest of the Sonic series. Fairfieldfencer has been working very hard to clean these articles up. So there is a cleanup effort in progress, if that's your beef.
- I also want to apologize to Fairfieldfencer, ZeroGiga, and everyone else because I was unable to be on here over the last couple of days, but I am back now. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 16:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Speaking of Afds, there's one going on right now and TTN's involved. Here's the article. Julie-Su I put it in the scope of the Sonic Task force to help it before something like this happened.Fairfieldfencer FFF 16:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is a difference between two people interpreting guidelines in different ways and one person following them, while the other ignores them. The notability guideline is very clear in what these need. There is no way to interpret it in a way that allows these to stay in their current condition. If they can be improved, it needs to be shown (i.e. "Put up or shut up"). It is beyond the point where your opinion has any impact on the claim. Also, the two people who have actually stated an opinion in this discussion and the one other in another discussion is hardly an overwhelming consensus capable of overriding a guideline. I really doubt that a taskforce of a project that has like four active members is going to have much of an impact either, especially when FFF has very little grasp of what is required. TTN (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- TTN you won't listen. We've had this discussion. The articles are staying the way they are.Fairfieldfencer FFF 12:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please read over some of our policies and guidelines relating to content. Those are consensus, not you. TTN (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- There never is consenus with you TTN. You will not accept the fact that people want the articles to stay the way they are.Fairfieldfencer FFF 11:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- And that would be to merge them into a state where they would be considered encyclopedic. Or do you, against everything you know, believe that four people can override the community? TTN (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
We can dispute the guidelines all we want, but that won't improve the situation. And while FFF may struggle with putting out good arguments for what he desires, he does everything in good faith and does improve articles (I've seen it myself in articles I've had no hand in) and I'd like to commend him for that. He does have problems with sourcing, but what he does improves articles, so I'm not going to argue with how he goes about his work here on Wikipedia. Anyway, TTN, it does take time to find reliable sources, especially for what we're looking for here, considering a lot of internet sites are unreliable fan sites filled with made-up fancruft and the reliable sources about real world information are usually buried under the cruft. Personally, although I am a big fan of the series and I'm also a moderate inclusionist myself, I do have a distaste for fancruft. I've already just about taken care of one of your problem articles (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flicky (bird) (2nd nomination)), so you won't need to worry about that one if consensus directs otherwise. Unfortunately, I'm somewhat busy this summer and don't have very much time to edit. Before we discuss this any more, TTN, can you please inform me what your merger plans are? I have read your last plans, which are still in our archive, but it has been a couple of months and I want to be informed of any changes. By the way, this project may only have a couple of active members, but that is more than several other projects. It doesn't take many editors to change a lot of articles, it takes just one. I am a little disappointed that many of our editors are fairly inactive around the project, but many of them do good faith work around Wikipedia (not all, I do acknowledge that there are some who do none at all). There's more to the history of this project that could probably explain a lot of that, but I'm not going to go into it, since it's irrelevant to the current discussion. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 17:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
