Talk:Characters of God of War/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Listing Gods as bosses in the bosses sections for the games

I know that they are already listed in "The Gods" section, or with Zeus the "Main Characters" section, but if you were to look at it from a different standpoint, not listing them under the bosses sub-section, makes it look like, for instance, there's only two bosses in God of War. So what I have done, I have listed the bosses of the games and just put in their description saying to look at so and so section. That way if a reader would just skim through the page and bypass the Main Characters and The Gods and Titans section, they would see who the bosses are, and if they want the description, they'll know where to look. JDC808 (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Oracle

Why isn't the oracle from the 1st game listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.7.201.91 (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot about her lol Is there any others not listed? User:JDC808 (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Medusa as a boss

Added Medusa as a boss for GOW1. She's the only green gorgon in the game; is the only one assigned a name; must be defeated in a one-on-one fight to proceed in the game; and her death is brought up in GOW2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.129.66.88 (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Greek mythological characters

I think we should create a new section on the page and list Greek mythological characters that aren't currently listed, like Medusa and Euryale, since these games are based on Greek mythology. JDC808 (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Edit semi-protected}} Constant back and forth revisions between unregistered IPs. It would be best to semi-protect the page to stop edit warring. JDC808 (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Please see WP:RFPP to request such protection. Thank you.   — Jeff G.  ツ 19:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

New section on page

Is anyone opposed to a section that would mention references to other Greek gods or people from mythology? It could be titled "Characters referenced from Greek mythology" or "References to other characters in mythology" or if someone can think of something better. JDC808 (talk) 02:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Everything mentioned must be game specfic. These are not fan pages where editors can dabble and insert sections based on their own POV. There really isn't anything else that needs to be added. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is that? Who are you to make such a claim? There's no reason not to add references to other Greek mythological characters as these games are based upon Greek mythology. Grant it, these would not have the description like the role characters do, just something very short, or even all summed up in a paragraph.

"There really isn't anything else that needs to be added." This statement is false. You cannot claim this and more info can be added, especially if another game happens to be made. JDC808 (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Titans defeat

The mention of Epimetheus and Oceanus being defeated keeps being taken out due to "no proof" and micro-detail". Maybe this could be said of Oceanus but it is clear Epimetheus is killed. Poseidon is shown knocking into him and causing him to fall in the sea and them a whirlpool appears with one of Poseidon's levitations shoots out. What more proof do you need? Its certainly as definite as Kratos "killing" Persus. And "micro-detail"? It would be for the plot of GoW overall but it is not "micro-detail" for the characters themselves. LittleJerry (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This keeps getting removed because it's "unclear" or "micro-detail". Oceanus is a little harder to determine if he's killed, but the fact that we can see Hades pulling him off of the mountain with his Claws and then Hades jumping down after him clearly shows Oceanus was defeated by Hades. It wasn't the other way around since Kratos fights Hades soon after. Epimetheus is completely clear like you said. Poseidon dive-bombs him right through his chest and then the leviathan forms out of the whirlpool where Epimetheus fell.

I would also like to bring attention here to the comic characters. This page is for the characters in God of War which the comics are apart of. It was also claimed that the comics are an unrecognized canon. Where is the proof for this claim? JDC808 (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

We can add the facts. Nothing more. There's a mention of what happened to one Titan. The fate of another is speculation and cannot be proven. The statement about a "failed assault" is sufficient. There's no need for anything else as nothing more can be proven. It is micro-detal and not really important. As to the comic characters - that adventure is NOT mentioned as being part of the game chronology. It would be equally inappropriate to mention characters featured in a GOW novel that do not appear in the games. It is important to distinguish between canon and non-canon. The comic series can by all means have a separate page, but it is separate and should not be confusing. Try to also leave out the repetitive language ("as seen in") and wonky grammar.

And yes, of course a new game will mean new characters that are added with time. We are just not there yet. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 06:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, it is imporant information for the characters themselves. We are not writing a summarized plot of GoW 3 here. Explain how Poseidon killing Epimetheus is "speculation" but Kratos killing Persus isn't. LittleJerry (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The best solution here is to say that they were "defeated" by said gods. Defeated doesn't necessarily mean killed. For instance, in God of War II, Kratos defeated Zeus, but he did not kill him. This is also not micro-detail as we do not explain how they were defeated, we are just saying that they were defeated.

In response to your (Thebladesofchaos) comment on the comic characters, who exactly said that this page is ONLY for the video game series? If an article for just the comic's characters were made, it would be far too short for Wikipedia standard and would be challenged and eventually asked for merger into this page. This page does not have to be exclusively for the video game series. The comic characters can be mentioned here too and sectioned as such. JDC808 (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

As one editor is slowly slipping in information that is in doubt and the additions themsevles are poorly worded, they have been reverted. Note there is no proof of what happened to most of the Titans, and it makes no sense to state "X was driven down by Y". Poor grammar aside, it is an attempt for absolute literalism that is unnecessary. The assault on Olympus was unsuccessful, with the Titans repelled and Kratos falling into the underworld. This is fact. It is easier to just say "X particpated in the failed assault on Olympus" without trying to fixate on what is a nebulous fate for the Titans. The "driven down" part is very odd: by that logic we should be adding "Kratos struck Perses with the Blade of Olympus in his right hand". It is simply unnecessary. Thank you. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

How is "driven down" any more "odd" or "poor worded" than "driven back". Down down is better because they were climbing a mountain. Your edits are bizarre. You reverted back mention of Perses being killed yet you are so adamant in not mentioning Epimetheus' death even though it is made as clear as Perses'. Either we mention all the titans (onscreen) death or none. If one titans should be said to be "driven back" then so should the others as all three of their "deaths" are ambiguous. The consenus is to mention the fate of the other titans. So its being reverted back. LittleJerry (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I think you need to read Wikpedia's policy on civility ([1]). To judge by your inappropriate comment here ([2]), blunt comment So its being reverted back. and action on this page ([3]), some work is required.

Why are you bringing that up? I crossed those out because I was finished doing those tasks. There's nothing uncivil about it. LittleJerry (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That aside, the edist are not bizarre. Rather, as stated above it is a simple tidying of the grammar that should also reflect the story to the degree that it is known, without being obsessive about micro-detail. "driven down" makes no sense, period. I've altered the text yet again to reflect what is known, and also altered the statement re: Perses to be fair. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said, it is not "micro-detail". We are not writing a summarized plot of God of War 3. If we have to mention these characters at all then we should mention the major things that happened to them. Epimetheus being taken down by Poseidon may not be important for GoW overall but it is important when discussing the character himself. Also if you're against speculation why put that it was a "failed" assault. LittleJerry (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thebladesofchaos, there is no speculation here. It is clearly obvious what happens to Epimetheus, Oceanus, and Perses. You are taking this way out of proportion to try and say that it's speculation because you didn't see every detail of their end result. As I stated before, it is best to say they were defeated. Defeated does not necessarily mean killed, it just means they were defeated.

And on the subject about the failed or not failed assault, in terms of the Titans, their assault was failed, however, Kratos' was not. Even though he fell to the Underworld, he ascended right back up Olympus killing any opposing gods until he finally kills Zeus, thus making his assault a complete success.

LittleJerry is completely right in regards to the micro-detail. These character pages are to briefly summarize the characters and their roles in these games, not to write summarized plots of the games. To say these Titans are defeated, killed, or whatever, is not micro-detail, it is just saying what happened to this particular character, which by the way is not mentioned in the plot summary of God of War III. JDC808 (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Think it through. Kratos and the Titans launched an assault that failed. Period. Kratos fell to the Underworld, was depowered and had to run a huge gauntlet to return to Olympus. This was a future time and in a different context. On this occasion, Kratos is seeking Pandora. As to the Titans (and this is becoming tedious), the best thing to do when in doubt and there is disagreement is simply leave it out. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There were still a couple Titans climbing Mt. Olympus after Kratos fell to the Underworld and Gaia made it all the way to the top to interfere in the final battle. Like I said before, the Titans' assault failed, Kratos' was a success. Kratos was seeking Pandora to open Pandora's Box to defeat Zeus (which he did) which is why he lead the assault in the first place.

And you are the only one who is in doubt and is disagreeing. You've always been in doubt and disagreed upon it because I'm pretty sure you're the editor who formerly edited under the IP 125.7.71.6 (and if you aren't, then my mistake) and doubted and disagreed then (I think there was one other IP that also doubted and/or disagreed, but I haven't seen them edit in a while so they're pretty much out of the picture, unless they randomly pop up in the next few days). JDC808 (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added the term apparently to the description, as that is a convenient way of relating what may (still grey) have happened. It is a fair compromise, and should end the fascination with micro-detail. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Again there is no "apparently", their defeats are made clear. You are the only one in doubt. How is being drive bombed and have a whirlpool and leviathan forming where he fall not clear to you? LittleJerry (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Latest addition fine. Hooray. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. This is finally settled. You're comment there, however, seemed a bit condescending as if you're the final judge of the situation. I would also like to state that this isn't micro-detail, it's simply saying what happened to the character. It would be micro-detail if we explained that Epimetheus was dive-bombed by Poseidon, causing him to fall off the mountain to the sea, where a whirlpool formed and a leviathan formed from the whirlpool. JDC808 (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Enemies and Creatures section

I don't disagree with having a section that lists the mythological enemies and creatures found in the series (since this is based on Greek Mythology), but I do disagree with naming every variation of, for example, the Minotaur. I think we could have the section titled "Enemies and creatures" or "Enemies and creatures from Greek Mythology" and list just the different creatures that appear from Greek Mythology, but not every variation of them or each game (if it's specific to a game, we can make note of that). For example, the section could have an opening stating:

Having its roots in Greek Mythology, each God of War title features various creatures from the mythology appearing as enemies throughout each game. The creatures from Greek Mythology that appear throughout the series include:

Then the Minotaur could be listed as:

• Minotaur: A creature with the head of a bull and the body of a man, this enemy appears in various forms in every installment in the God of War series. One of the more prominent variations is in God of War. This creature appears as "Pandora's Guardian", a boss in Pandora's Temple. The 20-foot tall Minotaur with impenetrable armor was found in the portion of the temple dedicated to Hades guarding the tomb of the Architect's son. It was placed there as a final test to anyone who had made it that far through the temple in an attempt to claim Pandora's Box. Pandora's Guardian is killed by Kratos after chipping away its armor and impaling it with a ballista to a door. Common enemy Minotaur's that appear throughout the series have similar characteristics to each other (e.g. carrying an axe). Some are more brutal and bigger than others, and some may even have armor. JDC808 (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If that's how you want to do it, then it may work. Off topic of this, the characters from the comics were also removed. Rtkat3 (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I also agree that comic characters can be listed here. If you want to go ahead and sum up the different characters like I did with the Minotaur there, go for it. We'll see how it turns out. JDC808 (talk) 06:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The last effort was a separate page and it was duly deleted by consensus. Can't "back door" the same information onto another page. Too fannish and subjective. Focus should be main characters. Bluerim (talk) 04:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Which last effort are you referring to? My suggestion to this (since this series is based on Greek Mythology and we should give credit where credit is due) is like I said above, don't list every single version of a creature, only mention the different creatures and have the creatures summed up like I did with the Minotaur there. JDC808 (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Did some reading. There was a List of the Monsters that was previously deleted. Too subjective and unnecessary. Bluerim (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay. The reason it was deleted is because it probably listed every variation of the creatures, correct? What I'm suggesting does not. I'm suggesting put the creatures that appear with a brief summary, but not every variation of the creature like how Rtkat3 was doing. Even if we had one paragraph that said something like, "Having its roots in Greek Mythology, the God of War series features various creatures from the mythology. These include the Minotaur, Cyclops, Gorgons, etc.... JDC808 (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It's still minor and fairly irrelevant detail. Better saved for Rtkat3's web page on the subject (if they have one). Games as a rule just mention the major players. These things should read like a piece of prose, not a game guide. Bluerim (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with JDC808 on this one. The visitors of Wikipedia should know the creatures like how he wanted it just like how they listed the creatures in the characters section for Dante's Inferno. Rtkat3 (talk) 3:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's what you were referring to: List of characters in Dante's Inferno (video game). JDC808 (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Another article we could take note from is Characters of Halo. It has a "Good Article" rating. JDC808 (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Not really. All the articles I looked at have the voice actor listed immediately afterwards, with plot points then following. Cast always receive upfront credit for their roles. That aside, there are some other mistakes. Nothing in the expanded lead actually tied directly to the article (a list) and simply repeated information that belongs on the linked series page. If someone can find information (e.g. a commentary) about the supporting cast, then that would be ideal and entirely appropriate. The trick is to have all information remain relevant to the article itself.

I like the idea of an image of the Olympian gods, bur that's not a good choice, as they can't be seen clearly and the leviathan is irrelevant.

Characters can only be added once they have appeared in a published game - prior to this it is speculation. As far the descriptions go, the same old same old applies. No casual speak and no mention of trivial details such as what helmet a character may be wearing. It's not important.

So my message is by all means add, but add correctly.

Bluerim (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay. What articles have you been reading? I've been taking notes from articles with a "Good Article" rating (e.g. Characters of Halo and Characters of Kingdom Hearts which neither lists the cast upfront). Where is the Wikipedia policy that states for character sections, the "cast always receive upfront credit for their roles."?

Again, the lead is taken from articles with a "Good Article" rating, more specifically, Characters of Halo. "Nothing in the lead tied to the article?" Are you kidding me? Everything there ties to the article. I'm not sure where exactly you're referring to when you say "If someone can find information (e.g. a commentary) about the supporting cast, then that would be ideal and entirely appropriate. The trick is to have all information remain relevant to the article itself." If you're talking about Hercules and Perseus with their voice actors previously playing the characters, the reason they were chosen is because they previously played the characters. It's stated in the "making-of" on both God of War II (for Perseus) and God of War III (for Hercules).

If you can find a better image, please do so. As for now, it's what we got and you can see them all. The only one hard to see is Helios. "Characters can only be added once they have appeared in a published game - prior to this it is speculation." That is false. If you read over the Characters of Halo page, it lists characters who only appeared in the novel. If there's casual speak, by all means, fix it. Trivial details can be mentioned, depending on the information.

As the article stands right now, I'm going to request to have the article Peer Reviewed to see what they say should be done. JDC808 (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Good. I think the overall problem is that you are trying to base the article on a flawed model of another article. Once the structure has been defined, the rest should be easy. Bluerim (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I am basing it on an article with a "Good Article" rating. Do you not understand what that means? It means an article has went through the process for Wikipedia to deem it a Good Article based on the criteria within the article itself. Both Characters of Halo and Characters of Kingdom Hearts have both met the criteria to be rated a Good Article. I asked politely for there to be NO major edits to the article until the Peer Review has finished. You disregarded this and changed it anyway. Let the Peer Review go through before any more edits are made. JDC808 (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Not all good articles are necessarily good - it is a subjective decision. Once again, your additions are in question. It is all your work and opinion need to be assessed, and as such you need to stop editing as it is now reflecting ownership. The article should stay in original form without any of the proposed material, which as indicated has many flaws. Bluerim (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think is "good", articles that have received the "Good Article" rating receive that rating based on a consensus because they have met the criteria to be rated as such. Its not just one person saying it's a Good Article and the article gets that rating. Subjective or not, Wikipedia policy decides what "Good Articles" are. If you disagree with how Wikipedia decides this, take it up at Wikipedia:Good articles. You're a fairly new editor. You need to learn what the policy's are. There's no ownership here. As you can see, me and Rtkat3 get along fine with editing this article. We've had a few disagreements, but they've worked out easily. Sure, there may be flaws in the article, and that's what the Peer Review is for. I'm trying to help and push the article forward (which is why I requested for the Peer Review) and you're pulling it back to an old format that had disagreements in the past. I stopped editing this page because of the many disagreements and took a break (the absence of new games also helped). JDC808 (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits (as of June 17, 2012)

Bluerim. In your version, you are greatly reducing the lead. Have you checked out the character page that was suggested on the Peer Review? My points about the lead have been made in response to you at the Peer Review page, so I will not restate them here unless I have to go into further explanation.

Comment: Bad link by the way. The article requires a link to the series page - that's it. Here we are talking about characters from said universe, and as such must provide the link.

Response: Fixed link. That's not necessarily true. The link is provided in the very first sentence of the page. Like I stated at the Peer Review page, have you checked other featured or at least good character pages? Apparently not, because apparently, you're checking one's that probably haven't had a Peer Review to try to get to a good or featured article.

The opening passages provide a clear, succinct description of the characters' purpose, without listing all the games, which is completely unnecessary. There's a link to the series and a nav box. The main attraction here is Kratos - a few action figures aside he's the only one that gets press, but I did list all your links in a more comprehensive list that covers every conceivable item produced thus far. I think that's fair. Bluerim (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

In some of the character descriptions, you are taking away parts of their role. For example, Hera. Though she didn't appear in Betrayal, she has a role in the game, just like Morpheus in Chains of Olympus. He did not appear, but he had a role in the game. In regards to Hades and Oceanus. The information you're removing is valid information to keep. Once we have a "Concept and creation" section on the page, we can move that development info there. Until then, lets keep it with the characters. In regards to Hercules' and Perseus' voice actor info. That's also valid information. The reason the voice actors for the two were chosen was because of their previous portrayal of the characters.

Comment: I can readd what is truly relevant. As to the C & C section, if you create it, no problem. There's also no source to verify the apparent affiliation voice actors have with their characters. Bluerim (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Response': What's not relevant? Please provide, specifically, what is not relevant. There's also no "apparent affiliation" for the voice actors. Play the games and read the credits. They're all there. I'm not the only one who has to provide sources by the way. And for the record, I had sources for the voice actors, but IMBD is not a "reliable" source according to Wikipedia policy (even if all the info is correct).

There's no need to reduce a lot of the information. Like I said earlier, have you looked at the character page suggested on the Peer Review? If you look at that page (and the Halo character page that I've referenced before), you'll notice the characters have a lot of information about them (both game plot wise and development wise). So there's no need to reduce their information, unless there's some crazy micro-detail, like if we explained in detail both battles Kratos had with Charon.

Comment: There is a great need to reduce the information when it is presented poorly. Have a close read of the sections for Aphrodite and Hades. Bad grammar (e.g. "left unslain" ?) and info best keep to a fan site (e.g. Hades' changing appearance).

Response: If it's presented poorly, then fix it. You don't have to reduce information to fix language. How is "left unslain" bad grammar?

Changing "Other characters" to "Other characters (comic series and video games)" is unnecessary because the article is majority video game characters, and there's comic characters mentioned before this section (six of the gods and the chaos giant). JDC808 (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment: There is when unnecessary qualifiers are added in the text. A bracketed mention to distinguish the comic characters is important. It can be added to other sections.

Response: What's unnecessary about the "qualifiers"?

One more thing: the Halo page doesn't have anywhere near as many images, and certainly doesn't feature one right on the opening text. That image is unclear and unnecessary. Further to this, I'm moving the image of Hercules further down. I like the image of the Fates, but there are too many squeezed in there and the weakest are the mother and daughter shot, which I'm pulling so the article doesn't look clogged, which was the case.

You mean Halo page? The only reason why I got the images was 1.) it was suggested on the Peer Review and 2.) there's no images (at least that I can find) with a group image of the characters. What is unclear about the image? The only thing I can think of is Helios (which isn't that big of a deal). Like I said on the Peer Review page, if there's a majority vote to remove, then okay, remove. If we can find (or make) a better, group image, that would be the best solution. JDC808 (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hope that helps. Bluerim (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you had better start to take note of what of being said. This insistence on your version - lock, stock and barrel - is both worrying and tiresome. If you can't even acknowledge the need for an opening link and see how much of what you added is still in the lead in a more formal, expansive form without resorting to a list, then we're in trouble (on that note, if you want more of a mention about the other characters, find some sources!). That's before the informal and often fannish information in the body of the text. Bluerim (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I have taken a look at what's being said. There is absolutely no need for the link that you're arguing for BECAUSE it is already linked in the very first sentence of the lead paragraph. You're practically over-linking AND no other character page list that I have come across puts the link as your suggesting for the very reason I have stated for why it's unnecessary. I completely disagree that the lead your arguing for is more formal and is in no way more expansive. The lead that I am arguing for is very similar to the lead used on the Halo characters page (which has a Good Article rating that you seem to not understand). Again, I AM NOT the only person who has to find sources. You claim that I "own" the page, then you tell me to go find sources like I'm the only one that can. I'll state it again, IF there is need of correction to language then fix it, but you do not have to reduce information in doing so. It's not a hard concept. If you disagree with whatever language I'm using, you have every right to fix it because that's what Wikipedia's about, but like I said, you don't have to reduce information.

We do when it mixes tenses and is both in and out of universe in the same paragraph. And yes, if you add copy then you have to back it up with sources. If you can't, it must be removed. Bluerim (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

No you don't. You never have to reduce information to fix language. If I add copy? What? And your statement: "If you can't [back it up with sources], it must be removed." is not necessarily true. If the statements are attributable, then they don't necessarily need sources. Again, I AM NOT the only person who has to find sources. There's been times where I've read an article and something wasn't sourced and I was unsure about the info so I found an article that backed the info up and added the source myself. You can do the same. I get the impression that you want to edit these articles, but you don't want to put the time in to try and find and contribute sources. JDC808 (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I admit I'm here because Bluerim asked me to have a look over this issue. I have found one fairly major issue regarding the images though, not only are they rather excessive, WP:NFCC states that use should be minimal, but none of the images seem to have valid fair use rationales. "n.a." is simply not valid, you need to fully rationalise their use here on an individual basis (see Wikipedia:FURG). As they are, they are WP:SPEEDY candidates, I suggest rectifying this asap. Яehevkor ✉ 15:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

When uploading the images using the image uploading tool, it red bullets information that is required. I filled out the red bulleted information and did not see lines for where the "n.a" has appeared on the image file after uploading. These can be fixed. The only reason why I got however many images was because it was suggested on the Peer Review to get more images. Maybe I got a couple too many. That's fine, we can remove a couple. JDC808 (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

RFC

One editor is arguing that the header for this article should be this:

The characters of the God of War series are organized below by their group of origin or role. Loosely based on Greek mythology, the series, is a saga with vengeance as a central theme. The protagonist is Kratos, the former God of War, who although the initial ally of the Olympian Gods becomes, with the aid of the Titans, their greatest foe.

The character of Kratos has received positive critical reception, being described by reviewers as a "sympathetic antihero".[1] The success of the multimedia franchise has allowed for a range of marketing opportunites, and as such the character is also associated with other products, including action figures (with several other characters also featured in the produced line),[2][3] artwork, cell phone skins, clothing, a comics series, film, food proudcts, [4] a novel, sweepstakes, toys and game consoles.[5][6] Game Guru claimed that "Practically anyone, even if they hadn't played any of the God of War games, would know about Kratos."[7]

I am arguing that the header (which I have used the Characters of Halo page as an example) should be this way:

The characters of God of War are organized below by their respective role in the fictional universe that is loosely based on Greek mythology. The multimedia franchise's central story revolves around the Spartan warrior, Kratos, who is on a path of vengeance to rid himself of the nightmares of murdering his wife and child and the betrayal by his father, Zeus. The Olympian Gods, as well as the Titans, play a major role in shaping Kratos' attitude towards the gods and eventual destruction of Mount Olympus. Beginning with Santa Monica Studios' 2005 video game, God of War, the franchise expanded to include the sequels God of War II, God of War: Betrayal, God of War: Chains of Olympus, God of War III, God of War: Ghost of Sparta, and the upcoming God of War: Ascension; the novel, God of War; and the God of War comic series.

God of War's commercial and critical success has led to large amounts of merchandise featuring the franchise's characters to be produced. Kratos, the most visible symbol of the series, has been heavily marketed, with the character's visage appearing on slurpee cups[1], t-shirts[2], and PlayStation Portable[3] and PlayStation 3[4] consoles. Other merchandise produced includes several sets of action figures, produced by NECA[5] and DC Unlimited[6]. God of War's characters have received varying reception, with the character Kratos being well-received by critics.[7]

I believe the second version is much more informing and better suited for a "Good" or "Featured" article than the first version listed (that's not to say there aren't strengths and weaknesses in both).

Also, could you take a look at the differences between this version and this version of the article. The first version gives some characters a very minuscule summary of their role and leaves out information regarding the characters role/contributions to the series. The second version gives a slightly more expanded summary to their roles and tries to not leave out information regarding the characters role/contributions.

Thanks. JDC808 (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. The "Concept and creation" section is not in either of the two versions linked as it was added afterwards. JDC808 (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

There have been a few issues here. I have to say that the Halo article JDC808 refers to isn't all that "good" either. My principle argument against listing all the games is that there is a link present in the very first sentence and a nav box. It just seems a tad fannish and repetitive to provide another list. Beyond that I would also add that my suggested version actually makes a more encompassing statement re: the available product, and adds a qualifier re: other characters. I also added all the products links offered in the second version. This first version is also formal and encyclopedic in tone and avoids some of the awkward words and phrasing presented in the second version.

With regards to the actual text, my argument is for information, but not informality (e.g. Aphrodite) and the addition of fannish trivia (e.g Hades). The other editor is constantly attempting to add in-game information (e.g. what abilities are gained from certain NPC's) that clashes with the more clinical out of universe view. Such tidbits are again fannish and not encyclopedic, deserving instead a special mention in Gameplay on individual pages. With respect to all, the article should ideally read like a piece of prose as opposed to an entry on a fan site.

Bluerim (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Bluerim, just because you don't consider the Halo article to be good, doesn't mean it's not. From your statement, you still do not understand what it means for an article to be "Good" or "Featured". By Wikipedia's standards, the article is Good. On the page at the top right below the search bar, you'll either see this symbol, , or this symbol, . The green circled one means the article is a "Good" article, and the star means it is a "Featured" article. The articles receive one of the two ratings for meeting a set of standards. The Halo page has met the standards to be a "Good" article.

I explained the reasoning for the games being listed. Where are the awkward words and phrases for which you believer there are? Those abilities are apart of the characters role/contributions to the games. It's one of their two main reasons for being in the games. It would be fannish if we explained every detail to how Kratos gains the abilities. Instead, it's saying he got the ability from so and so. What's informal about Aphrodite? Is it because of the sex mention? If you didn't know, she's the goddess of love and sexuality. It makes perfect sense to mention that she seduces Kratos. If you look at character pages that are "Good" and/or "Featured", they go further into explaining the character than what you're wanting to do with this page. JDC808 (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to point out the fault in your last edit summary. You've claimed ownership issues with myself, however, in your last edit summaries, you reverted back to your version and stated that the article should be locked until matter is resolved. This basically says to me that your version is correct and that no one should edit it until your version is proven right. JDC808 (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It is your additions that are being reviewed. As such, they must be placed on hold and assessed first. Please do not revert again. Another user has already had to be consulted on your insistence on a fan image that has since been deleted. Also note that simply because an article has been reated "Good" or is even "Featured" doesn't necessarily mean it is perfect. Take Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle, which at time of writing is the Featured Article of the Day. Without even glancing at the main article itself, it is evident that there is casual language and a number unsourced opinions present. The articles are rarely written by professionals, and as such they require constant scrutiny.

Please remember that this is not the place for a war of words. Opinions have been offered. Now allow others to comment. Bluerim (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is both of our additions that are being reviewed. That statement just further elaborates what I said earlier about your edit summary. I did not revert your last edits to this page as I am waiting for comments from people who've never edited this page. Actually, that image has not been deleted. It is currently orphaned. That image is no different than you or I creating it with our own tools and uploading, which Wikipedia encourages. It is still evident that you don't understand "Good" or "Featured" articles. Sadly, we have gotten into an argument here before others could comment. I will respectfully ask that you also allow others to comment. This argument wouldn't have happened if we both allowed that. JDC808 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Editor Bluerim is arguing that the header for this article should be this:

The characters of the God of War series are organized below by their group of origin or role. Loosely based on Greek mythology, the series, is a saga with vengeance as a central theme. The protagonist is Kratos, the former God of War, who although the initial ally of the Olympian Gods, becomes their enemy when betrayed by Ares (for causing the death of Kratos' wife and child) and Zeus (revealed to be Kratos' father and fearful of his rise to power) in turn. Kratos is obstructed and occasionally aided by a host of classical monsters, heroes and Titans and several supporting characters created to advance the story.

Commencing with Santa Monica Studios' 2005 video game, God of War, the franchise expanded to include the sequels God of War II, God of War: Betrayal, God of War: Chains of Olympus, God of War III, God of War: Ghost of Sparta, and the upcoming God of War: Ascension (2013). The franchise has also expanded to include the limited six-issue God of War comic series and the God of War novel.

The character of Kratos himself has received positive critical reception, being described by reviewers as a "sympathetic antihero".[1] The success of the multimedia franchise has allowed for a range of marketing opportunites, and as such the character is also associated with other products, including action figures (with several other characters also featured in the produced line),[2][3] artwork, cell phone skins, clothing, a comics series, film, food products,[4] a novel, sweepstakes, toys and game consoles.[5][6] Game Guru claimed that "Practically anyone, even if they hadn't played any of the God of War games, would know about Kratos."[7]

I believe the lead should be more like this (which I have used the Characters of Halo page (GA article) as the model):

The characters of the God of War series are organized below by their respective role in the fictional universe that is loosely based on Greek mythology. The multimedia franchise's central story revolves around the Spartan warrior, Kratos, who is on a path of vengeance to rid himself of the nightmares of murdering his wife and child. The character eventually kills Ares to become the new God of War until betrayed by his father, Zeus – the King of the Olympian Gods. The Olympian Gods, as well as the Titans, play a major role in shaping Kratos' attitude towards the gods and eventual destruction of Mount Olympus. Throughout the series, Kratos meets and kills various characters and creatures from the mythology, as well as exclusive characters to the series.

Commencing with Santa Monica Studios' 2005 video game, God of War, the franchise expanded to include the sequels God of War II, God of War: Betrayal, God of War: Chains of Olympus, God of War III, God of War: Ghost of Sparta, and the upcoming God of War: Ascension (2013). The franchise has also expanded to include the limited six-issue God of War comic series and the God of War novel.[1] A second novel – God of War II – is to be released in 2013.[2] A film was announced in 2005 but has yet to be made.[3]

God of War's commercial and critical success has led to large amounts of merchandise featuring the franchise's characters to be produced. Kratos, the most visible symbol of the series, has been heavily marketed, with the character's visage appearing on slurpee cups,[4] t-shirts,[5] and video game consoles (PSP[6] and PS3[7]). Other merchandise produced includes artwork, cell phone skins, sweepstakes, and several sets of action figures produced by NECA[8] and DC Unlimited.[9] God of War's characters have received varying reception, with the character Kratos being well received by critics,[10] with Game Guru claiming that "Practically anyone, even if they hadn't played any of the God of War games, would know about Kratos."[11]

I find the second version to be more informative for this page and I find the first paragraph to be less confusing than the first version (Bluerim's).

If possible, could you also take a look at two different versions of the article. Bluerim thinks the article should be more like this here where I think it should be more like this here. I believe the second version is more informative and discusses the characters role more than the version that Bluerim is arguing for. JDC808 (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hello! I'm responding to the third opinion request as an uninvolved third party. My role is to assist in resolving the dispute. The third opinion process is informal and nonbinding. Personally, I'd prefer a compromise between the two revisions. I like JDC808's removal of the parenthetical elaborations, which is cumbersome and muddles the prose. And I like that Bluerim's revision refers to Kratos' role as an anti-hero, and states directly that Kratos is the protagonist instead of using the line "the central story revolves around Kratos," which is less straight forward. This is my suggestion: The characters of the God of War series are organized below by their respective role in the fictional universe, which is loosely based on Greek mythology. The protagonist is Kratos, a Spartan warrior haunted by the accidental murders of his wife and child. Vengeance is a central theme of the story. The character avenges his family by killing Ares to become the new God of War, but is betrayed by his father, Zeus – the King of the Olympian Gods. The Olympian Gods, as well as the Titans, play a major role in shaping Kratos' attitude towards the gods and the eventual destruction of Mount Olympus. Kratos is obstructed and occasionally aided by a host of classical monsters, heroes and Titans and several supporting characters created exclusively for the series to advance the story. Commencing with Santa Monica Studios' 2005 video game, God of War, the franchise expanded to include the sequels God of War II, God of War: Betrayal, God of War: Chains of Olympus, God of War III, God of War: Ghost of Sparta, and the upcoming God of War: Ascension (2013). The franchise has also expanded to include the limited six-issue God of War comic series and the God of War novel.[1] A second novel – God of War II – is to be released in 2013.[2] A film was announced in 2005 but has yet to be made.[3] The character of Kratos himself has received positive critical reception, being described by reviewers as a "sympathetic antihero". God of War's commercial and critical success has led to to the merchandising of the franchise's characters. Kratos, the most visible symbol of the series, has been heavily marketed, with the character's visage appearing on slurpee cups,[4] t-shirts,[5] and video game consoles (PSP[6] and PS3[7]). Other merchandise includes artwork, cell phone skins, sweepstakes, and several sets of action figures produced by NECA[8] and DC Unlimited.[9] Game Guru had claimed that "Practically anyone, even if they hadn't played any of the God of War games, would know about Kratos."SGCM (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've also made a few additional changes, including:

• the fictional universe that is loosely based to the fictional universe, which is loosely based: The definite article in "the fictional universe that is loosely based on Greek mythology" implies that there is only one fictional universe in popular culture based on Greek mythology. This can be solved by using a non-restrictive clause: "the fictional universe, which is loosely based." Using an indefinite article instead of a definite article is another option: "a fictional universe loosely based."
• Removal of path of vengeance: WP:MOS discourages the use of cliches and idioms.
• led to large amounts of merchandise featuring the franchise's characters to be produced to led to to the merchandising of the franchise's characters: The latter is more straightforward.
• other merchandise produced to other merchandise: The latter is more straightforward.--SGCM (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've implemented the compromised version. Thank you for your help. JDC808 (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I did make two small tweaks. The first was with the sentence The protagonist is Kratos, a Spartan warrior haunted by the accidental murders of his wife and child. I changed "the accidental murders" to "his accidental murders" as it was Kratos who killed them and I thought that "the accidental murders" sounds like it could have been anyone who accidentally murdered them. The other change was with this sentence Kratos is obstructed and occasionally aided by a host of classical monsters, heroes and Titans and several supporting characters created exclusively for the series to advance the story. Where it says "classical monsters, heroes and Titans and several...", I changed it to "classical monsters, heroes, gods, Titans, and several..." as some of the gods have also aided Kratos and it removes the "and X and Y". JDC808 (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. I have no objections. Good work on implementing the compromise!--SGCM (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks again. JDC808 (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Some corrections. Also note that characters debuting in upcoming games can not appear here yet as there can still be changes until released. It is essentially crystal balling. Also note that mentions of items gained do not belong in Character sections, as the focus is them and it is a tad fannish and smacks of trivia. Bluerim (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

First off, there was a Third Opinion sought for the matter of the lead and the reviewer made a compromise, and you pretty much ignored it again. You acknowledged it, I'll give you that, but you changed things that this editor obviously didn't have a problem with or they would have addressed it. And no, that is wrong. The character you are referring has a source confirming his presence and role in the game. It is not crystal balling as the source confirms the characters role and presence. If information on the character does change between now and the game's launch, then it can be changed on the page. This isn't a character section for game articles, this is an entire article dedicated to the characters and as such, the items can be mentioned. If you read over WP:VG/GL, it states to put trivial information where appropriate. And to add to this, you did not discuss this large edit and as such, it's being reverted. JDC808 (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No, nothing was ignored. Note the third opinion is helpful but not actually gospel. It needed some tweaking, which I have done while retaining the some product lines you mentioned. That's a nice compromise. Apologies about the image, didn't see that. I note we've lost Thanatos: I suggest checking the others so they too are not deleted. As for Polyphemus, with some tweaking so be it. Bluerim (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

As per images, all have been deleted except the ones currently on the page. JDC808 (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The tweaking you had done had issues. You repeated information three times. The second paragraph mentions the comic series, you repeated this in the third paragraph. The second paragraph mentioned the film, you repeated this in the third paragraph. In the third paragraph, you made mention of the producers of the action figures, then later in that sentence, you mentioned toys. There was also an issue with the usage of "series" and "franchise" in the second sentence of the third paragraph. The issue is, which is it? "Series" refers to the video games, whereas franchise refers to the video games and all other media (e.g. comics, novels, etc.). I have went through the lead and fixed how the terms are used. JDC808 (talk) 05:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you have. However, you need to take of the corrections now made. The information in the second paragraph belongs in the third, as the success of the games has made these spin-off activities possible. Please take note of this, and the fact that all the information you add re: the franchise is still there, but in a more expanded form.

I've also corrected some language and phrases as there was repetition, and given Polyphemus a more formal entry. More to come. Bluerim (talk) 03:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The novel and comic information shoud be retained in the second paragraph because in your version, the second paragraph is just one long sentence. Also, the comics and novels add to the overall story, which justify their place in the second paragraph, and the expansion into a franchise. I wouldn't necessarily consider the Polyphemus entry "more formal." I mean, it's nice, if that was all the info. However, there is a little more confirmed info. JDC808 (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately the novel is definite no as it simply retells the video game version: it quite literally is a spin-off product. As for the comic book series, yes, it does provide interesting extra background information, but is still not part of the original video game franchise that made all else - including said comic book series - possible. Now, if one of the upcoming games actually referenced this prequel, or it was adapted into a video game, then it could have a mention in the second paragraph. Ultimately good products, but at present that's all the two are: products made possible by the success of the video game series. Bluerim (talk) 05:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

So you're basically saying you're fine with having a paragraph that is just one sentence due to, in my opinion, an unjustified reason? Yes, the novel is a retelling of the game, however, it adds more info that is not in the game. And you'e reasoning for the comics is just silly. I don't quite understand why you want to make the second paragraph, or rather sentence, just about the games. This paragraph, in my opinion, should list all the media that tells the story of God of War. The third paragraph should be because of its success, merchandise has been produced (e.g. toys) with some reception. Also, you have an unnecessary amount of parenthesis. I also don't understand why you want to use parenthesis so much. JDC808 (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

As for the Titans, that's all that is require here. Just as we don't detail here about any other character's micro-functions in the games, the same applies to Polyphemus. By the by, all that "character X gives Y to Kratos" can soon be dealt with elsewhere so it doesn't break the flow of the game narrative. Bluerim (talk) 05:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

"That's all that is require[d] here." And you determined this by what means? JDC808 (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

A quick glance issues: Unnecessary bold names, lots of red links. Also the "sympathetic antihero" thing again - most sources rather describe him as a total bastard (which he is, also literally). --Niemti (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about the debolding (the Peer Review didn't say anything about them, which I'm actually considering having another Peer Review done). I see five red links which can be de-linked if necessary. As for the "sympathetic antihero," I'm fine with removing it, but this was an addition by Bluerim. JDC808 (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Boldface --Niemti (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Could this be considered under the definitions list? JDC808 (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No. --Niemti (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not fully convinced there should be a removal of the bolded names (which Bluerim has taken the initiative of removing WITHOUT consensus). Like I said before, the Peer Review apparently had no issues with the bold names. Bluerim has also taken the initiative of making a minus 8000+ characters total to the page (which is rather large in my opinion) without discussing again (how many times have I asked you to discuss Bluerim?). And he keeps claiming things are "not needed here as talk in general terms" but has yet to give me a Wikipedia policy to back anything he's said in regards to this article. I've given him policies and other articles as examples and yet he fails to see them. I can only assume he doesn't read them or look at them as he's never acknowledged them. The only one I can remember him acknowledging was Characters of Halo (GA article) and he only acknowledged the lead (which was the example used for this page that he disagreed with claiming it's not good and it's flawed despite it's rating) JDC808 (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"Sympathetic antihero" is probably stretching it, but the lead does need a brief description of the protagonist's characteristics. While I'm not familiar with the series, its entirely possible for a character to be an antihero and a complete bastard. Many antiheroes are. The "sympathetic" descriptor should be removed.--SGCM (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Another Third Opinion

Me and User:Bluerim still cannot agree on the way the lead should be of this article. I was hoping the first Third Opinion I sought would solve this issue but it hasn't.

Bluerim now thinks the lead should be like this:

The characters of the God of War franchise are organized below by their respective role in the fictional universe, which is loosely based on Greek mythology. The protagonist is Kratos, a Spartan warrior haunted by his accidental murders of his wife and child. The character eventually avenges his family by killing Ares to become the new God of War, but is then betrayed by Zeus – the King of the Olympian Gods, who is revealed to be Kratos' father. The Olympian Gods and Titans play a major role in shaping Kratos' attitude and his eventual decision to destroy Mount Olympus. Kratos is obstructed and occasionally aided by a host of classical monsters, heroes, gods, Titans, and several supporting characters created exclusively for the series to advance the story.

Commencing with Santa Monica Studios' 2005 video game, God of War, the series expanded to include the sequels God of War II, God of War: Betrayal, God of War: Chains of Olympus, God of War III, God of War: Ghost of Sparta, and the upcoming God of War: Ascension (2013). The commercial and critical success of the franchise has led to the merchandising of products featuring the characters, and in particular Kratos. Kratos is associated with action figures (toy lines produced by NECA[1] and DC Unlimited that also include supporting characters Zeus, Hades, and Hercules),[2][1][2] artwork, cell phone skins, clothing, a comics series, feature film (in development since 2005[3]), food products, [4] a God of War novel,[5] (with a second novel: God of War II, to be released in 2013[6]) sweepstakes, toys and video game consoles (PSP[7] and PS3[8]). The character of Kratos himself has received positive critical reception, being described by reviewers as a "sympathetic antihero".[9] Game Guru claimed that "Practically anyone, even if they hadn't played any of the God of War games, would know about Kratos."[10]

I believe the lead should be more to what the first Third Opinion said. Which was (with some minor tweaks):

The characters of the God of War franchise are organized below by their respective role in the fictional universe, which is loosely based on Greek mythology. The protagonist is Kratos, a Spartan warrior haunted by his accidental murders of his wife and child. Vengeance is a central theme of the story. The character avenges his family by killing Ares to become the new God of War, but is betrayed by his father, Zeus – the King of the Olympian Gods. The Olympian Gods, as well as the Titans, play a major role in shaping Kratos' attitude towards the gods and the eventual destruction of Mount Olympus. Kratos is obstructed and occasionally aided by a host of classical monsters, heroes, gods, Titans, and several supporting characters created exclusively for the series to advance the story.

Commencing with Santa Monica Studios' 2005 video game, God of War, the series expanded to include the sequels God of War II, God of War: Betrayal, God of War: Chains of Olympus, God of War III, God of War: Ghost of Sparta, and the upcoming God of War: Ascension (2013). The series has also expanded into a franchise to include the limited six-issue God of War comic series and the God of War novel.[1] A second novel – God of War II – is to be released in 2013.[2] A film has been in development since 2005.[3]

The character of Kratos himself has received positive critical reception, being described by reviewers as a "sympathetic antihero". God of War's commercial and critical success has led to to the merchandising of the franchise's characters. Kratos, the most visible symbol of the series, has been heavily marketed, with the character's visage appearing on slurpee cups,[4] t-shirts,[5] and video game consoles (PSP[6] and PS3[7]). Other merchandise includes artwork, cell phone skins, sweepstakes, and several sets of action figures produced by NECA[8] and DC Unlimited (with the latter including the characters Zeus, Hades, and Hercules).[9] Game Guru had claimed that "Practically anyone, even if they hadn't played any of the God of War games, would know about Kratos.

I believe the first version (Bluerim's version), has an overuse of parenthesis, which is distracting to read, and has too much information in the second paragraph.

I believe the second version (the one I'm arguing for) reads much better than Bluerim's, only uses the parenthesis when necessary, and divides the lead into three paragraphs with the second paragraph telling of all the media that tells the story of God of War, where the third paragraph tells of all the merchandise and some reception. JDC808 (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you are creating unnecessary work and are perhaps now obsessing over minor details. I've stated the rationale - which is logical and fact after all - above. There is the series, and then there are all the products that are off-shoots of said series. As for the actual products, that is the complete list. Personally I feel the qualifier on the action figures is unnecessary - as we don't list all the manufacterers for the other products and readers can simply use a link. Bluerim (talk) 06:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

No, a third opinion was sought which brought a compromise. You've made some rather questionable changes to that compromise (and to the article as well). Your rationale was not logical because you're confusing the other media (novel, comics; which tell the story of God of War) with merchandise (toys etc. that tell nothing of the story). JDC808 (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Although I appreciate the enthusiasm, a Third Opinion is not necessary everytime a minor disagreement pops up. Third Opinion is meant for disagreements that have come to a standstill. The differences between the two revisions are marginal, and can be resolved via discussion. Both editors agree that the some of the parenthetical details are excessive, so there is consensus that it should be removed. Bluerim argues for structuring the lead based on relevance to the game series, while JDC808 argues for a lead structured on relevance to the plot. Because this is an article on the characters of the series, sorting by relevance to the plot does make more sense. The novelizations elaborate the motivations and backstory of the characters, and are arguably as important as the video games to the fictional universe in that respect. --SGCM (talk) 09:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. A revised lead is in place that places focus on the characters, then mentions the series (including reference to the comic book series), and summarizes the results of the franchise minus some information that can be found at the links anyway. Bluerim (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, not sure why you changed the first paragraph though as there weren't any issues with it. The issues were really in the second and third paragraphs. Revised some. JDC808 (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, we don't want to make readers unnecessarily leave the page. If they want more info that the page doesn't supply (or to verity info), then they can leave the page. The "qualifier" you mentioned earlier about the action figure should be mentioned as it encompasses more than just Kratos (and it's only two producers anyways). I don't quite know where you got "as we don't list all the manufacterers for the other products." JDC808 (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Some tweaks, but the remainder of the material is now tighter and more concise. The focus here is the characters, hence that's how the lead begins. We then move into the series, which does not include the novel as it is a retelling of a story and not new. The merchandise and C & C sections are concise and don't require any more work. The Character entries now focus on each individual entity without any side information, and avoid weak colloquial language. If the reader wants more, they follow the links for the full story. Above all, the articles needs to stay on track and read as formal prose, not a fan site. Bluerim (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Some tweaks? You reverted just about every single thing I did. That is not "some tweaks". That is a near blind revert. The focus hear is the characters and the lead introduced it nicely. You've also disregarded a lot of points I made in my edit summaries. SGCM acknowledged the novelizations to be included and you ignored the novel. It is not just a retelling, it adds more info and characters that were not in the original game. The problem with how you've made them "focus on each individual entity without side information" is that you leave out interactions with other characters (e.g. the Titans) and don't even state what happens to them (e.g. King Midas, you state he's a king that turns things to gold and is saddened by his daughters death and that's all. Okay? What about his contribution to the game? Does he die?). You're claiming that they should "read as formal prose" yet you have staggering sentences and fluidity stops that ruin the prose. At least with what you've claimed as "weak and colloquial language," there was fluidity to the prose. The only thing I can agree with what you've said is the C&C section.

On a completely unrelated note, can you please start signing your post at the end of the post? By that I mean, don't line break (put a space between your last period and the four tildes). JDC808 (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a limit to how much should be spelt out in a Character entry. You have a habit of including a great deal of unnecessary detail. I will have another look at it. As for signing posts, so I forgot once? What of it? You also need to try and stop taking "phantom points" off others and focus on the issues. Two attempts at contacting administrators came to nothing, some third opinions haven't necessarily gone the way you wanted, now contacting another editor who was a very minor player. How about taking note of what you have suggested has been included in the edits, but also acknowledge that not necessarily all of it may be included for various reasons. The road to ownership of an article is a slippery slope! Anyway, let's keep working at it. Bluerim (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And what exactly is that limit? Where do you get your claims from anyways? I am focusing on the issues which is why I have been outsourcing because you see nothing wrong with your edits and make rather questionable claims and edits. Even Niemti thinks you have/had disruptive edits. And actually, those attempts with the administrators finally got you to discuss on the Talk page (which you could still do more of, for example, you have yet to discuss the issue of the bold/italic names). The first third opinion actually brought a compromise I could accept. You on the other hand could not accept the compromise and thus had to change it (which is an issue still at hand). And how do you know he was a "very minor player"? Were you around when he edited? You like to point the finger of ownership a lot yet you have three more pointing right back at you (you don't discuss edits that have been asked of you multiple times and you've practically blindly reverted a lot of my recent edits disregarding the mistakes that were fixed; e.g. duplicate Athena entry under "Olympian Gods"). JDC808 (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. you didn't understand what I meant with signing post. JDC808 (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's keep it cool guys, both of you. We're all here to build an encyclopedia, there's no need to get so worked up. Can't we find a way to compromise? Surely, there are points that both editors agree with. Let's focus on that first.--SGCM (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This is not the place for tantrums. We'll continue to work at it. Bluerim (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I wish a compromise could happen, maybe it will with more discussion on things that have been asked to discuss but have yet to happen. And let's not resort to calling valid points, "tantrums." It's a bit condescending (and not the first time). Also, Bluerim, could you please address the points in my last post? You kinda brushed it under the rug to answer SGCM. And we'll only be able to continue to work at it if you discuss edits asked of you. JDC808 (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

As for Hades, that is a developmental difference. With the first game, they didn't exactly plan on sequels. When God of War II was green lit, development changed and original Hades was completely scrapped. The other gods (and even Kratos) changed to, but not as drastically as Hades. JDC808 (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

JDC808 has repeatedly indicated a willingness to compromise, and his effort is commendable. Bluerim, a compromise does require concessions, and both editors will have to cooperate with each other in writing the article. That tantrum remark against JDC808 was uncalled for, remember to keep it civil here.--SGCM (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The dispute over the caption for the Hades picture can easily be resolved. Use the neutral word changed (which avoids the argument over whether "developed" or "revised" or "evolved" is the better word choice) and mention the development process in the caption. Thus: "During the development of God of War II and God of War III, the design of Hades (right) was changed from his more demonic appearance in God of War I (left)."--SGCM (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a fine compromise. It describes the image well. I'll wait to see what Bluerim has to say before implementing just in case he disagrees. JDC808 (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

A tad long-winded. I'll try something else out but really didn't think an image caption warranted an entire discussion. I find that problematic in itself. Bluerim (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

"A tad long-winded?". The caption is supposed to describe the image (which btw there was not an "entire discussion about it", there was two posts about it). You should not have made that recent edit as there was not a consensus. As SGCM stated specifically to you, "a compromise does require concessions." You again avoided answering my questions above at time stamp 09:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC). There's also another editor here (below) who wants to provide an opinion. He needs your viewpoint, not for you to change the page with this current, ongoing dispute. --JDC808 (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion

czarkoff (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by JDC808

Um, this would be hard to know what's going on in one sentence (unless you read the two sections above). I had originally used the Characters of Halo page (a GA article) as the example for this pages lead, which Bluerim felt was "flawed" despite it's GA status. Since then, we have had disagreements and an RFC was sought (no one replied). I requested a Third Opinion to which SGCM responded and brought a good compromise. I implemented it, but Bluerim felt more changes were needed which lead to more disagreements and the request of a second 3O. There are still disagreements over the lead (and the article, but this is for the lead). You can read the full discussions in the two sections above for more specific information. JDC808 (talk) 06:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I feel that the lead should be composed of three paragraphs: the first giving a summary of the series and also mentioning characters, the second telling of all the media that tells (or will tell) the story of God of War (games, novels, comics, film), and the third telling of the merchandise (with a couple of the more prominent specifically noted) with some reception. JDC808 (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (name here)

[[4]]

This summarizes the gist of it. Bluerim (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion by czarkoff

I hoped that the editors would be able to put forward their arguments instead of their drafts. JDC808 was partially successful in this, as he mentioned the structure issue. Decoupling source of characters from their reception and merchandise is definitely a good idea. As nobody came up with other points, I assume that editors have no disagreement on other aspects of the lede.

Well, probably third opinion is unwanted, as there is no second position in 5 days. Please leave me {{talkback}} if the situation changes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Still wanted. The other editor just hasn't left his viewpoint yet. He had taken a 5 day break. --JDC808 (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent (August 26, 2012)

Lead

The organization is based on the fact that the two editors who provided a third-opinion agreed that the organization I proposed makes more sense.

Not really. My version states the premise without a see below comment, and breaks down what there is of the series while keeping it separate from other media/merchandies that adds nothing new to the actual story. Said list is also more comprehensive on what merchandies is actually available. Bluerim (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually it does. Two separate reviewers stated it makes more sense to do it the way I had it. What are you not getting? What "see below" comment are you referring? --JDC808 ♫ 23:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Where you get the idea your version was endorsed. Check out your first few sentence. You swap between in and out of universe (adding the "list below" comment). Bluerim (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say "my version was endorsed." I said the editors said that what I proposed makes more sense (the organization of where the info is). --JDC808 ♫ 02:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Concept and creation

One was a typo. The image caption was based on the compromise by one of the third-opinion editors.

Compromise there now. Bluerim (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No. You brought back the word "evolving" which was an issue previously. That was not a compromise. What SGCM made was a compromise, but you again could not agree with the third opinion reviewers. --JDC808 ♫ 23:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Was it? A non-issue. Leave it as is then. Bluerim (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay? So apparently what is there (which you put) is the compromise? No, sorry.

Olympian gods

I still don't understand why you want to remove that sentence. I've explained before, but you haven't justified it's removal. And she is the goddess of sexuality, which explains why she seduced Kratos (and her Greek mytho back story of sleeping with the God of War).

Every ref. I've seen just states love. As for the remainder - same old chestnut. This is in-universe Gameplay information (IUGI for short) that belongs on the appropriate home page (which it is). Here we speak in general terms about the character. Bluerim (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page for Aphrodite states "Goddess of love, beauty and sexuality" right in the infobox. You again and again state "we speak in general terms" yet you've never fully explained what exactly you mean nor have you ever provided a legit Wikipedia policy, or other character pages as examples. I've provided character pages of GA-Class or better but you disregard them and even claimed one of them as flawed. It's information about the character that defines who she is. --JDC808 ♫ 23:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

So I'll put the extra term in...less anal, my friend! It's only an article! Bluerim (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So you'll put? Where's the collaboration in that? --JDC808 ♫ 02:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Titans

Again with Polyphemus, why? What I'm putting is his confirmed role for the game. His whole purpose summed up in one sentence (not including the short first sentence saying who he is).

IUGI! Bluerim (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Not enough info IMO. --JDC808 ♫ 23:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thera, there was a typo parenthesis.

Fixed. Bluerim (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Greek heroes

That's what Theseus states, why not include it. Why not mention that this battle was apparently that?

Fixed. Bluerim (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Good. --JDC808 ♫ 23:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Mythological characters

With Gyges (and all comic characters), why do you keep wanting to put "comics" in parenthesis? I find it more engaging to put "featured in" and if you didn't notice, I actually put which issue they're in, just like it's mentioned which games the other characters are in.

Way of differentiating without mixing out and in-universe information. Important! Bluerim (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Differentiating from what? There's a few video game characters that state "featured in" and how does this mix out and in-universe information?

King Midas; I explained this before, and you said you'd think about it, but I guess you didn't think about it because you're removing his role in the game. What you're having it say says nothing of what he did in the game.

What is there is sufficient. Other attempt too casual and spells out too much. Where Midas' hand goes is irrelevant, as is what it does. By that logic, all game summaries would be huge. Do we worry about the crossbow or statue toppled in Athens in the first GOW? Nope. Beware micro-detail! Bluerim (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not sufficient. It explains absolutely nothing of his role and what his interaction with Kratos is. --JDC808 ♫ 23:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Peirithous; pretty much the same thing.

And answered. See above. Bluerim (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No it wasn't. --JDC808 ♫ 23:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Heh. You completely missed the point on this one. Have a think about my comment re: the original game. Same principle. Bluerim (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Your reference to the original game has nothing to do with the characters and what I'm proposing is not micro-detail, it's enough detail. Micro-detail would be explaining how Kratos freed the Cerberus, fought it, and used it to kill Peirithous. --JDC808 ♫ 02:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Minor characters..."

Comic characters as noted above with Gyges. With Cereyon, I don't see why you're minimalising him to "Helios' champion and killed."

More added. Bluerim (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Only partially agree with it. --JDC808 ♫ 23:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Narrator; why removal? It should be noted she doesn't narrate Betrayal and has a very minimal role in III. JDC808 ♫ 00:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a character in the sense of this page, ergo... Bluerim (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

By that statement, she shouldn't be listed at all and that doesn't explain why the info shouldn't be mentioned. --JDC808 ♫ 23:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to go to an appointment, but will address all the points in the next few hours. Also, whilst I realize you are passionate about the subject, I think it best if big edits cease until this is all discussed with a third party. Will be back soon. Regards Bluerim (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily consider what I recently did "big edits", except for maybe the lead. Regardless, depending on when you leave your replies, I may not see it until sometime after 4pm EST. --JDC808 ♫ 04:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. You told me to not edit the page until the issues were resolved and I respectfully did not edit the page. You on the other hand edited the page without there being a resolution to the issues. We have to discuss and agree before there's a resolution. Because you disregarded your own words, I'm reverting back to the previous revision until there's an actual resolution (there are a couple of things that'll be kept because I'm in agreeance with them). --JDC808 ♫ 23:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I added where in agreement: that's different. Bluerim (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You added one and a half things and fixed the two typos I pointed out. The rest were edits that were not agreed on. P.S. I guess you decided to ignore my post at your talk. --JDC808 ♫ 02:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC on some issues

Me and User:Bluerim can't exactly agree on some points so I would like some outside opinions to these points. Each point is listed with a heading and a description as well as links for one of the points to better understand.

Lead

The current lead is here (Bluerim's version). I believe the lead should be more like seen here, as two Third-Opinions were sought and both reviewers agreed that the organization I proposed makes more sense.

Concept and Creation section

The issue here is the image caption. A Third-Opinion reviewer came up with a fine compromise, but Bluerim for whatever reason couldn't agree with it. The compromise the reviewer came up with was this, "During the development of God of War II and God of War III, the design of Hades (right) was changed from his more demonic appearance in God of War I (left)." Bluerim felt this was "A tad long-winded" and changed it to "Two versions of Hades: God of War (left) and God of War II and God of War III (right)." Since this image is demonstrating developmental differences, I think it should state that.

Olympian gods section

For the goddess Aphrodite, Bluerim keeps wanting to remove a sentence that states "She seduces Kratos (activating a sex-mini-game if player accepts) and is the only Olympian left alive in God of War III." I believe that this sentences illustrates that she's the goddess of sexuality and since Kratos kills every god in God of War III except her, it makes since to mention that.

Options

1. Remove "She seduces Kratos (activating a sex-mini-game if the player accepts) and is the only Olympian left alive in God of War III.
2. Keep it
3. Neither (or a variation of it)

Titans section

Bluerim thinks that with the Titan Polyphemus, his description should be "a cyclops and son of Poseidon, Polyphemus appears in the upcoming God of War: Ascension in a multiplayer feature in a battle between Sparta and Troy."

I think it should be this "The Titan cyclops and gigantic son of Poseidon (although not a Titan in Greek mythology). Polyphemus will appear as the boss of the multiplayer desert map in the upcoming God of War: Ascension in a battle between Sparta and Troy to kill the cyclops with the Spear of Olympus."

The second version explains his role accurately.

1. Remove further explanation
2. Keep further explanation
3. Neither (or a variation of it)

Mythological characters section

With the character Gyges (and all comic book characters), Bluerim wants to only make note that they're from the comics by putting "comics" in parenthesis at the start of their description. I think that for the comic book characters, it should state "featured in the God of War comics [issue #]." Some of the non-speaking video game characters state that they're featured in whichever game and don't resort to parenthesis to indicate which game they're from.

1. Remove "(comics)" in favor of "featured in comics"
2. Keep as is for comic characters
3. Neither (or a variation of it)

With the character King Midas, Bluerim only wants to state this for the character's description: "A king whose touch will turn anything to gold. Midas is grief-stricken as he accidentally turns his daughter to gold." Bluerim thinks this is sufficient. This says absolutely nothing of what King Midas did in the game or what purpose he serves in the game. I think it should state this: "A king whose touch will turn anything to gold. Grief-stricken as he accidentally turns his daughter to gold. Kratos encounters Midas in the mountains where the king unknowingly burns off his hand in lava. Midas is killed when Kratos throws the king into a lava river, turning it to gold, creating a passage for Kratos."

1. Remove additional info
2. Keep additional info
3. Neither (or a variation of it)

With the character Peirithous, Bluerim wants to remove information regarding the character's interaction with Kratos. Bluerim wants it to state this: "A prisoner of the Underworld who possesses the "Bow of Apollo" and is in love with Persephone." I think it should state this to include interaction with Kratos: "A prisoner of the Underworld who possesses the "Bow of Apollo" and is in love with Persephone. He offers his bow to Kratos in exchange for freedom, however, the Spartan ignores the offer, kills Peirithous, and takes the bow."

1. Remove additional info
2. Keep additional info
3. Neither (or a variation of it)

Minor characters section

With the character Cereyon, Bluerim only wants to state this "the champion of Helios. Cereyon is killed by Kratos during the quest for the Ambrosia." I think it should state this "Featured in the God of War comics #4, he is the fiery champion of Helios. Although never revealing his intent for finding the Ambrosia, he fights Kratos burning down many trees (later revealed to be Gyges' arms). Kratos drowns Cereyon." In my version, we get some more information on this character.

1. Remove additional info
2. Keep additional info
3. Neither (or a variation of it)

For the Narrator, Bluerim only wants to state who her voice actress is and nothing else. I believe that it should state that she does not narrate God of War: Betrayal and only provides an introduction narration for God of War III, because without this info, readers may think she narrates every game, which is not true. --JDC808 ♫ 03:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Remove additional info
2. Keep additional info
3. Neither (or a variation of it)

All right. As an uninvolved editor in the dispute, here are my thoughts on this matter. I agree that the lead section should be more like [this. For the conception and creation section, the "During the development of God of War II and God of War III, the design of Hades (right) was changed from his more demonic appearance in God of War I (left)" wording should be used. For the titans section, it would also be more accurate to list "The Titan cyclops and gigantic son of Poseidon (although not a Titan in Greek mythology). Polyphemus will appear as the boss of the multiplayer desert map in the upcoming God of War: Ascension in a battle between Sparta and Troy to kill the cyclops with the Spear of Olympus." For the comic book characters and Gyges, we should state that they are "featured in the God of War comics [issue #]." Also, for King Midas, I agree with the wording here: "A king whose touch will turn anything to gold. Grief-stricken as he accidentally turns his daughter to gold. Kratos encounters Midas in the mountains where the king unknowingly burns off his hand in lava. Midas is killed when Kratos throws the king into a lava river, turning it to gold, creating a passage for Kratos." "A prisoner of the Underworld who possesses the "Bow of Apollo" and is in love with Persephone. He offers his bow to Kratos in exchange for freedom, however, the Spartan ignores the offer, kills Peirithous, and takes the bow" makes more sense. Also, for the minor character's section, the description as provided by JDC808 has more information on Cereyon. As for the Narrator, I also agree that it should also state that she ndoes not narrate God of War: Betrayal and providing an introduction narration for God of War III. Make sense? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I hope this can help settle these issues. Also, what about the Aphrodite issue? I didn't see a comment of agreeance or disagreeance. --JDC808 ♫ 05:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, right. As for the sentence regarding Aphrodite, we should keep the sentence regarding her seduction with Kratos and her appearance in God of War III since Aphrodite is the goddess of sexuality and Kratos kills every god in the series with the exception of Aphrodite. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. If any other uninvolved editors would also like to add their opinion, please feel free. --JDC808 ♫ 05:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

For the Titans section, I don't think it's neccessary to describe the son as gigantic. That's already implied from being a cyclops.--SGCM (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that was just the developers description of him and the Wikipedia page for Polyphemus also describes him as gigantic. --JDC808 ♫ 01:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That's neither here nor there and very minor. Editors need to see comments above re: in and out of universe tenses. Bluerim (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to Polyphemus? What I stated about the developers and the Wikipedia page is fact. The developers state "Known as the gigantic one-eyed son of Poseidon" and the first line of the Wikipedia page states "Polyphemus ( /ˌpɒlɨˈfiːməs/; Greek: Πολύφημος Polyphēmos) is the gigantic one-eyed son of Poseidon". --JDC808 ♫ 22:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• So, there's a lot going on here, but my initial thoughts at least, are that JDC's lead reads better, and I do agree it seems worth mentioning that bit about Aphrodite. Sergecross73 msg me 12:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to remember the information must have a logical flow with the correct tenses. Bluerim (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

By tenses, you're referring to the parenthetical use of "(comics)", am I correct? There are ways of conveying the same information without the use of parentheses.--SGCM (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the in and out of universe tenses. See my comments above. This is where the other version falls down: it mixes them and reads less like a formal piece of writing and more like a fan page. Bluerim (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If there is or isn't mixing of in and out universe tenses (which can be fixed without removing content), the fact is there's 4 editors here who agree (at least on lead and Aphrodite) that what I've proposed is better (despite the word "gigantic" for Polyphemus). Until Sergecross73 has further comments, with the other issues it's 3 versus 1. --JDC808 ♫ 01:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Bluerim, can you expand on your argument regarding tenses? I feel like JDC's flows better, and has more wording that breaks up the endless listing of examples. Also not getting the "fanpage" vibe... Sergecross73 msg me 02:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, JDC808: I'd like you to stop using the term "better". There's no such thing here - everything is a draft and a work in progress. Try "more acceptable" if anything. Secondly, try and refrain from comments like "it's 3 versus 1". This is not meant to be an adversarial process and the entire exercise is subjective. In keeping with this try and avoid the knee-jerk posts when I comment. My comments above addressed the issues and had no personal connotations. Please remember that. Sergecross73, I'll get back you in a few hours and break things down again. Regards Bluerim (talk) 06:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

First off, "better" was used by another editor first and yes, there is such a thing here. It's called consensus, which is what the 4 versus 1 and 3 versus 1 comments were about. More editors agreed than disagreed. Your comments of knee jerk posts are practically personal attacks because apparently a lot of my comments and reverts are "knee jerk" reactions, which you also claimed the admin warning you about personal attacks a "knee jerk" reaction. Your comments vaguely addressed the issues. --JDC808 ♫ 11:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I dislike the framing of the dispute as a choice between either JDC808's version or Bluerim's version. Isn't it possible for there to be a compromise that is generally amenable to both editors?--SGCM (talk) 07:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well the thing is I've tried, but Bluerim can't seem to agree, despite what other editors have said. --JDC808 ♫ 11:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

SGCM, fair enough. We can add more detail to entries but the information must, like the remainder, be out of universe and provide a more general perspective, as opposed to in-universe micro-detail. An example is Aphrodite: the mention of the sex-game belongs (rightly) in the Gameplay section of the God of War III page. The same applies to Polyphemus. Here we talk in general terms. Otherwise the article would be full of in-game mentions concerning button combinations, actions and other ephemera (e.g. Kratos not killing Aphrodite. So what? She's one of several gods not murdered. Artemis, Dionysus, Hestia and others are all around somewhere), all of which are basically trivia. Bluerim (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

As to the lead, the prose must be formal and out of universe, as we study the object of the article from a clinical perspective. Therefore, we don't (as can be seen here in a comparison: [5]) mention phrases such as "the list below". The correct way to introduce the material is to cite the context in which the characters exist and the parameters on said group.

The next section accurately lists all games and products that define the series, while by -products follow in the next paragraph. My version also lists all forms of merchandise (without getting stuck on who produced what, which is a side bar) which demonstrates the influence of the series. Bluerim (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

But the thing is, this page is about the characters and what they did in the games. You have the pages confused. The game pages should be more general about the characters where this page can get more specific. That's one of the purposes of this page. And no, the article would not "be full of in-game mentions concerning button combinations, actions and other ephemera." It never has gone into detail of button combinations. It is true there are other gods Kratos didn't kill (and all but one you mentioned have never appeared in this series), however, in God of War III, she is the only god he didn't kill. That's important for her character description. Regarding the caption, "of" is better used as it prevents a stop in the sentence flow, which a colon makes.

As for the "next section" you stated, four editors agree that the organization and how it flows that I've proposed is much better than what you're arguing for. It doesn't get "stuck on who produced what," it only mentions two producers for the action figures, that's it. You're also confusing what this lead is supposed to do. The first paragraph should talk about what this article is about and a brief overview of the series, the second paragraph should talk about the source material from which the characters come from (games, comics, novel, film, etc.), the third should talk about the merchandise and reception. --JDC808 ♫ 13:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

More information is fine, so long as it doesn't stray into micro-detail. Kratos sticking Midas' hand in a river of lava is unimportant micro-detail. Aphrodite being left alive is not important, although a better way to phrase is that she is spared. Also, no confusion re: the layout of sections - it's all there. Precise statement about the page, the universe, then the series followed by the examples. Bluerim (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Further to this, just occurred to me that there's no need to mention Aphrodite's status as other gods are mentioned in the section with no reference to their final fate. Bluerim (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is important, and the other god's fates are mentioned. The only ones not mentioned are Artemis, Eos, and Morpheus because Artemis is only in God of War and makes a brief appearance in the comics while Eos and Morpheus are only in Chains of Olympus and haven't appeared since. To be clear, Kratos didn't stick Midas' hand in the lava, Midas did that himself because he was hallucinating. And you are still confusing the lead's layout because yours does not do what I explained, which other editors have agreed that what I've explained makes more sense. That's something to make note of, four outside editors have agreed that the layout I proposed makes more sense. I can understand that you disagree, but you got to realize that your opinion is essentially outweighed 5 to 1 (if the other editors feel that Bluerim has made a strong case about the lead, please say something so I'm not making a wrong assessment). I would also like to make note of something you said earlier regarding "see below". Characters of Halo, a GA article and a Featured Topic, says this. --JDC808 ♫ 04:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen the Halo page, but it is far from perfect. "Good" and "Featured" are all relative here. This: offers an interesting alternative [6]. Bluerim (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Never said it was perfect, but the fact is, it's GA and a FT. The page you presented, though good, is neither (it was actually demoted as a Featured Topic) and I see problems with it. Now how about everything else I mentioned? --JDC808 ♫ 05:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd actually integrate some of the factual, technical comments about the characters into the lead. That's something the FF article does offer, despite the wonky grammar. As for the other matters, I don't mind tweaking but the in and out of universe perspectives cannot be mixed. I also think we can do without a "see below" as the reader is already on the page. It follows they will keep reading. Explain the concept from a formalised vantage point. As for the majority, well, it could be five or fifty editors but if they've no experience with writing from a real world perspective then you end up with a lot of very fan-orientated (fans write the articles, yes?) in-universe information. A new reader wants to learn about the GOW universe in general terms, as opposed to micro-detail, which could be bamboozling someone who has never played even one game in the series. I'll take a swing at a lead with some more technical comments and post here. Bluerim (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

But you have to remember, that FF article is only covering two games, this is covering an entire series. It mentions Kratos (the only playable character) and Ares and Zeus, the two main antagonists of the series (it could possibly mention Athena and maybe Gaia, but I think that's pushing it). The "see below" (which is actually "organized below") explains how the article is laid out. It's not saying "below are characters," we know that. What it's saying is how said characters are organized. You've also just questioned four other outside editors writing abilities. Even if what you say is true, the fact is more editors agree than disagree, that's consensus whether you like it or not. And how do you know a "new reader wants to learn about the GOW universe in general terms"? That's a bold statement to make for billions of people. In regards to being very fan-oriented, Sergecross73 didn't see this, the other editors haven't said anything about it, and you've never cited examples (you also haven't cited examples for your "general terms" claims). Your only explanation is micro-detail and in and out of universe perspective, which you also haven't cited examples for (besides maybe Midas). "Tak[ing] a swing at [the] lead" without proper discussion beforehand is not consensus building. Whatever suggestions you have for the lead need to be posted here, discussed, and agreed upon before any changes are made. --JDC808 ♫ 21:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to tone it down a tad - a lot of that was unnecessary preaching. Try not to mention the "four editors" argument again. As for laying out in the article in general terms, why not? Most of the work is already there (the "billions" claim is also an exaggeration - all good articles are written in general terms). As for examples, those were provided above in the previous section. And yes, the draft will be posted here, which was always the plan. I am now leaning towards the suggestion made above by another editor re: a hybrid version. Bluerim (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You can call it unnecessary preaching, but the fact is I've explained myself thoroughly, but you don't seem to get it despite what outside editors have said. To add to the earlier comment about "new readers wanting to learn in general terms," as far as I know, those outside editors are new readers and didn't see the issues you've claimed. And why can't I use the 4v1 argument? It's true that they agreed. The billions of people isn't really an exaggeration, there's 7 billion people on Earth. Where exactly were those examples? I didn't see any pulled from the article. As for the "hybrid version", if you're talking about what SGCM proposed under the third-opinion request, what I've been proposing is pretty much that. --JDC808 ♫ 05:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I still think that we should have an enemies and bosses section for the comics and video games just like they have a section for that on the character pages for Dante's Inferno and the Kid Icarus franchise. Outside of that, it was confirmed that the Furies were going to be in God of War: Ascension. Polyphemus is a giant Cyclops (which is larger than the other Cyclopes in the video game and smaller than the Titans), not a Titan. Rtkat3 (talk) 8:56, September 17 2012 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't think they should be done like the Dante's Inferno or Kid Icarus pages, as neither are exactly up to standard in my opinion. I do know of the confirmation of the Furies (I actually added that info to Ascension's article), but I refrained from adding them to this page because all three haven't been announced yet, and I don't want to add the spelling of their Greek mythology names, because Santa Monica might change the spelling on the names like they did with Lakhesis in God of War II and Peirithous in God of War III (their actual spellings are Lachesis and Pirithous). As for Polyphemus, I made point that he was a giant earlier, and as for him being a Titan, you are correct that he is not a Titan in Greek mythology, however, in Ascension, he is featured as a Titan. --JDC808 ♫ 20:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I'm an uninvolved editor, invited by RfC bot. First, this RfC looks a bit dormant: if it is resolved or participants have given up, the RfC should be closed. Second, if it is still active, Id be happy to provide input, but there are a few too many issues: RfCs are best when they focus on 1 or 2 related issues. For instance, the decisions above could be numbered 1 to 7, and the options could be labelled (a), (b) or "other". That way a response/opinion could be given very tersely (e.g. 1-a, 2-b, 3-neither (explain); 4-a, 5-b, 6-a, 7-b. With detailed explanations given where appropriate. Anyway, I hope it has all been resolved successfully. --Noleander (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, we started to discuss things in the next section titled "Workshop" which we're still working on the lead, but it's almost there. If you would like to comment on the other sections, I've left numberings in them. Your opinions could help decide how to implement some of these. --JDC808 ♫ 20:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Heroes/monsters section

If we modify the Heroes section, should we include the info for Achilles, Odysseus, and Orion since they will appear with Perseus in the Mythological Heroes Multiplayer Pack of God of War: Ascension alongside Perseus? We still should list the enemies and bosses section (except for the Gods on the bosses part) so that people would know what creatures from Greek mythology have appeared and which creatures are exclusive to this franchise. Rtkat3 (talk) 10:50, January 18 2013 (UTC)

Those aren't actually characters, at least what you're referring to (as it's possible they may appear in the singleplayer). What you're referring to is just their armor that'll be usable in multiplayer. As per enemies/bosses, under each article's Setting section (except Ghost of Sparta as I haven't gotten to it yet), I've listed enemies encountered in the various locations (God of War would be best to look at if you're curious, the others need copy/edited). I've thought about them being added to this page, but I'm on the fence. Maybe just boss creatures from the mythology. We'll see. --JDC808 ♫ 04:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)