Jump to content

Talk:Creature of Havoc

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paragraph 213

[edit]

Paragraph 213 of Creature of Havoc is one of the most controversial paragraphs in all of Fighting Fantasy. Don't delete this again.

Regarding this matter, there are a few points:
  • The passage was removed as it is unsourced original research and smacks of personal opinion, or point of view. Yes, there are certain features of this particular title that can be discussed, but they must be mentioned in a clinical manner - with sources - that befits an encyclopedia. Shortly I will be tackling this article and hopefully bring it up to standard.
  • Based on the above, I was correct in performing a revert, which Babitaarora enforced. This then becomes consensus regarding the matter.
  • Please don't make blunt statements such "Do don't delete this again".
  • Please Sign all posts.

Thank you in advance for your co-operation. Asgardian (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two people is not a consensus. Check out the reams of discussion in various places about CoH Paragraph#213. I'm not intrerested in arguing with you further. Don't delete this again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.155.56 (talk) 07:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I wanted to do was put an interesting, yet uncontroversial piece of information about possibly the most debated paragraph in Fighting Fantasy, I didn't give my opion on the matter. It's people like you who are killing Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.155.56 (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one insulted you, so I'd appreciate it if you reciprocated the courtesy. As for the rest, all you had to do was listen. You can't expect to be taken seriously and not "run out of town" when you can't even be bothered to sign your posts. Think about it. Asgardian (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no reliable secondary sources discussing this paragraph, however controversial or interesting or debated it might be, it shouldn't be mentioned here. Does Jonathan Green's book have anything to say about it? --McGeddon (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JG's book makes no mention of para 213. Deagol2 (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I then have to reluctantly agree with another user and support the notion that the page simply isn't notable. Asgardian (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete this again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:48F8:1053:0:E471:6BFF:7EFA:D673 (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary

[edit]
The now sourced material has been corrected and added, and note on format there is a difference between References and External links. In addition to this, the Story should just convey the gist, and is not a blow by blow narrative. The article now matches the template used for other FF articles, and is encyclopedia standard. Please do not revert again, but inetead discuss any further issues here. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A plot summary should be "a retelling, a summary, or an abridged or shortened précis of the events that occur within a work of fiction" - a paragraph that ends with the player "learning" of the antagonist isn't a full summary, so I've pulled back in some of the details from the previous version, replacing the "YOU are the Creature of Havoc" back-of-book blurb which was covering the same ground less clearly. --McGeddon (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've reverted my edits to the Story section back to just the "gist" of the story as you say above, explaining that this approach has "minimal opinion". Aside from the opening "Unusually for the series..." line, I'm not sure I can see any opinion in there. What do you mean? --McGeddon (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delayed response (different time zones). Not so much a revert as alteration, as much of that material was from the version that had stood for a while before being updated. I re-added the full blurb as this is the norm with other articles and has historical relevance as this was the marketing blurb on all titles. The remainder of the material conveys the essence of the story (added mention of Vapours and Creature's identity) without any unnecessary rambling. None of the entries feature the micro-detail, which is really better suited to a fan site (which the links indicate). Regards Asgardian (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The story section by McGeddon is wery well summarised, it hits all the salient points without rambling. by contrast Asgardian's is too brief, and actually incorrect, as the creature does not "use" the Vapour of magic. Asgardian seems to have a "way" he thinks all FF articles ought to be, and is unilaterally demanding they all confirm to his way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.111.198 (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the first instance, how can we be expected to take you seriously when you can't be bothered even signing your posts? You simply make an inflammatory statement and revert. Try discussing for a change. Why do you think the Creature doesn't use the Vapours? Use is necessary to proceed and complete the adventure. And what is missing that isn't already in the passage? This is your chance, so tell us.

Asgardian (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing at all wrong with McGeddon's Stiory section, so I don't need to come up wih anything else. McGeddon's version is pretty much perfect. The creature acquires but does not use the Vapour of Magic. (look no sign!!!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.174.216 (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the rationale was above, and the correct procedure is to discuss. I am quite happy to omit the third vapour, but the Creature does use the other two. I even added a sentence that I think is important as it sets this title apart from other FF stories. But, no, you had to perform another blind revert and then attempt to spite. Very disappointing given I have been working with some fine editors on bringing FF up to a suitable standard.

Asgardian (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a wrong rationale. Obviously Wikipedia will not go into the level of detail that you would expect from a dedicated FF site, but the articles on fictional works in Wikipedia provide much more of an overview than Asgardian seems intent on ramming through. His appeal to the fact that other articles are like that is begging the question, as the reason other FF articles are like taht is beacause he did them like that. Most of the articles he has tampered with ahad a good summary until he pared them down to meet the way he thinks they should look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.174.216 (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have improved Asgardian's version, although it is still inferior to the version by McGeddon.87.113.40.28 (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Asgardian please stop changing the Story, as you keep making factual errors in addition to cutting it too brief. If you don't know, don't change it.87.113.127.73 (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, I I found this on Asgardian's block log. "For the period of one year after unblock, if Asgardian edits disruptively at any time (particularly if he is given a legitimate block by an administrator), he will be blocked indefinitely" His posting on this topic would definitely qualify, not that I'm looking to go reoprt it. 87.113.127.73 (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you look at the page in it's entirety, it is about your disruptive editing (remember the unsigned ultimatums?) You have been reverted, blocked and cautioned, all over a relatively minor issue. It is a great shame, because as I've indicated previously everyone else has been working constructively on upgrading these FF articles, and there's still more work to be done. Why not be civil and work with us?

That said, it is encouraging to see you now signing your posts and that your last edit wasn't a blind revert, but I don't think my alteration of the material warranted a cheap shot such as the above. What is it that provokes such a reaction? The edit itself was valid as we can't assume anything, irrespective of whether the material is a work of fiction or not. The last sentence on the present sentence also needs removing as it speculates on the mind set of a fictitious entity, and there is a inference regarding the narrative. All we can do is state what happened - nothing more. I'll tweak it (unless you wish to), and tidy up the grammar, and then I think we can move on to something else. I'll even note the changes here. Regards Asgardian (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was in his monologue, the same one he revealed the protatanist's idendity. Hhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creature_of_Havoc&action=edit#e didn't care about the VoR or VoL, but using the VoEM he believes he can conquer. I still think "it is implied..." is a much better way of phrasing it but I've changed it again for you.

87.113.127.73 (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the teamwork, although the end sentence is clunky and still speculative. Tidied up the grammar so it reads a little better (e.g. "along the way", "at the final confrontation") and more formal (e.g. "If he fails then, depenent (SP) on whether he is etc. - fictional entity) with speculation. Asgardian (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


The way you're phrasing the witches is not accurate, as the vapour acwuisition is more-or-less accidental. he phrase about the campaign is clunky and somewhat inaccurate. Marr's lieutentants are not really importasnt to the plot, except for Darramouss, and you could re-add the bit about killing him. The explanation of why the VoM is imortant needs to go somewhere as it is the Maguffin of the entire plot. 146.90.94.76 (talk) 11:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Information can certainly be added, but retaining poorly worded sentences doesn't help. Try Talk first next time as opposed to a blind revert. Thanks Asgardian (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing poorly written about any of the sentences in the current version. They are all smooth, grammatical, succint and informative.146.90.94.76 (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asgardian, if you're going to change the details of a plot summary, be sure you know the plot of the work you're changing! None of your recent edits were accurate. Go and read through and complete the book before tampering with it again.

Or better, don't tamper with it at all. you are a poor writer, you clearly don't know the plot of this book and you do not understand Wikipedia's guidelindes on story summaries, as pointed out to you by McGeddon. You are either cutting it far too short, or including incorrect details or both. Please just leave this page alone.

146.90.94.76 (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil when discussing alterations to articles. Personal attacks like this are sufficient to incur a block on their own, let alone any of the ownership of the article displayed here. Please remember that Wikipedia is a collaboration, and alterations needs to be agreed upon by consensus. Euchrid (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a principle here is if you don't actually know why yor edit is a factual error, you should not be meddling at all. Your edit contains at least 3 factual errors. The more important thing though is, even if your version was not factually incorrect the writing is markedly inferior. There is nothing "wonky" about the page and there is no way that you, (the specific you, Asgardian) can improve this article. 146.200.141.122 (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

[edit]

To Asgardian, Richard75, Deagol2, and anyone else who has been working on this article or may be interested in working on it:

As of right now, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creature of Havoc looks like it is heading towards redirection. The good news is that it is not likely to be deleted outright, the bad news is that if it is redirected you won't really have the opportunity to work on it anymore.

There are a few independent reliable sources on the article at this time, so the best way to have it kept as an article (or at least get a no consensus) would be to get more independent reliable sources on it.

Failing that, I do see some support on the AFD for moving it to either Draft space or User space to allow users to continue to work on it. If you don't see evidence of more sources yet, but want to continue searching for them, then you may want to add something to the AFD agreeing to keep it as a draft.

Just some thoughts. BOZ (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about needing support to move it to a draft - if the page gets redirected, the earlier versions of the article will still be in the redirect's page history, and anybody could copy them to a draft or user page themselves at that point. You don't need permission to start work on a draft. --McGeddon (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I posted this previously at Talk:List of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks#Creature of Havoc, but If anyone has access to this German magazine, it looks like there's a review there. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear all, the random IP user displaying ownership of the article has attempted to revert part of the log so I have restored it as it is useful information and tracks the history of the article. It should only be removed via consensus, which is extremely unlikely anyway.

To the IP editor: once again, please be civil. Secondly, tell us what these errors are and we can change the dialogue, and lose the wonky grammar. Thirdly, when you reverted you retained an out of place paragraph with opinin and errors. Please refrain from doing this in future. Asgardian (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To the IP editor, please note that all the FF articles carry the blurb from the back cover as it lends context and provides the reader with some understanding as to why the series was popular; mention of die roll is a gameplay feature, not a story component; the language needs to be tighter without some of that micro-detail and no need to discuss unrelated paths. Please remember any responses need to be civil. Thanks Asgardian (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not a total revert, but you missed the distinction between gameplay and story. The passage as it stands isn't perfect. Please acknowledge that. Asgardian (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Trolltoohh Pass" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Trolltoohh Pass has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 28 § Trolltoohh Pass until a consensus is reached. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creature_of_Havoc&oldid=1206821824"