Talk:King of All Cosmos/Archive 1

Archive 1

I've merged this article into Katamari Damacy (with his backstory, which is simply a plot summary of We Love Katamari, going in the WLK article), as it doesn't swell either game article unnecessarily, and he doesn't transcend the source material (per WP:FICT). - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

He has become very popular among people, as Fawful has. He is in three games, and has more than enough content to warrant an article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Fawful's claim to notability based on popularity is extremely weak, moreso than the King's.

That aside, he doesn't have an identity separate from the games, most of the article is a dupe of content that belongs in We Love Katamari, and there are no practical reasons from an article-structure standpoint why he can't be merged into Katamari Damacy. I don't see any reason WP:FICT doesn't apply here; he's certainly not Superman or Mickey Mouse in terms of influence, and neither Katamari Damacy nor We Love Katamari are so bloated as to make a merge impractical. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Under that logic, a character like Samus Aran should not have an article - while her games are very popular, she is not a huge figure outside of her own universe (which consists only of her games and a single comic). - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:FICT advises that Samus Aran should be split from Metroid series because of the length of Metroid series, plus there's a weak argument for Samus transcending the series as part of her cameos in games such as Super Smash Bros. (Major characters go in the articles for the original work, unless that article would be too long.) This is not a problem for Katamari Damacy, which currently covers two of the works (one of which is unreleased) that the King appears in, and clearly references the only other work he appears in. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

But the difference between, say, the Prince and the King, is that the King has enough content TO branch out from the series. It may not be content transcending many games, but it is adequately sized. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact that there's enough content to branch out into another article doesn't mean that it should. The plot summary belongs more in We Love Katamari than in a specific character's article, and after you take that away you've got a couple of paragraphs that merge cleanly into Katamari Damacy. WP:FICT is why it doesn't need its own article; the extra context lent by merging it outweighs the very slight reader confusion caused by the redirect.

Plus, merging the King helps discourage individual articles about the Prince, the Queen, etc. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The difference is that the Prince and the Queen lack content on them. Under that logic, making an article on Lakitu could result in more minor characters and enemies from Mario to get articles. The point is that the King is actively involved in the plot of both games, and so it can apply here. And just because it can be merged doesn't mean it should. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

No, the fact that this is a major character that does not transcend the source material in a situation where the main article can reasonably accept the material is why it should be merged. It's a clear-cut example of WP:FICT's application, and I'm still wondering if you can offer a reason why that guideline doesn't apply. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

For the sole fact that there is adequate content to be split off. Waluigi and Princess Daisy certainly are not all that well-known outside of their source material, but they have adequate content, and that is why they remain. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Waluigi and Princess Daisy should be merged into an appropriate list, then. They're not precedents, as merging/splitting them has not been examined. (Waluigi is a pretty weak article, as it's a list of games he's appeared in and a very lame "Controversy" section.)

Do you have any reason why WP:FICT doesn't apply? It has plenty of exceptions, but "adequate content" isn't one of them. This adequate content is more appropriate in the articles for the source works, rather than an island breakout article. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

If adequate content isn't enough to be able to split off from the original pages, then what is? As far as I'm concerned, if the content is long, and the content is good, then the article is long enough and good enough to be its own article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:FICT describes what's adequate cause for a split, and what isn't. It should be split if it reduces bloat in the parent article or transcends the source material the King doesn't. Wikipedia doesn't need a separate article for every character in fiction; you'll note the lack of separate articles for characters in Moby Dick or Atlas Shrugged, any one of which is more widely analyzed and discussed than the King of All Cosmos ever will be. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Now you're bringing up notability compared to famous characters in fiction, an argument used against any character who isn't Mario, Link or Cloud. There is large amount of potential to go in detail on for this article, of which cannot be adequately covered at either parent article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

con't from above

No, there isn't. There's a summary of his backstory (which is a plot summary of WLK), and a description of his mannerisms (fits nicely into Katamari Damacy. And you know what? The standards aren't and shouldn't be different for video game characters than for famous characters in written fiction. (And I deliberately picked Atlas Shrugged because, at one point, there were articles for all the characters in Atlas Shrugged, but they were merged into Characters in Atlas Shrugged.) The King of All Cosmos is inextricable from Katamari Damacy, just like John Galt is inextricable from Atlas Shrugged. One cannot discuss one without unavoidably duplicating substantive content from the other, which is why they belong in one article. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Look at Mario or Wario's article - it's almost all video game content. But we know Mario deserves his own article, Wario is an FA, and even Goomba, an FA, has little to do with anything outside of the games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Mario transcends his source material, Wario is the most logical way to structure an article about the loose series of Wario games, and Goomba is all but a Nintendo mascot, with all sorts of varied roles and cameos. None of these are anything like the King of All Cosmos, who has appeared in two strongly-connected games in the same role in both games. King of All Cosmos was an easy merge, all but a cut and paste into the two articles. Mario, Wario, and Goomba would not be easy merges.

Mario, Wario, and Goomba all have clear-cut reasons to have their own articles per WP:FICT; no merge target and transcending the source material. The King doesn't have either. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

And Lord Sturm? He has many paragraphs of information, and he's only been in two games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Two thirds of Lord Sturm is plot summary of the works he appears in. Another clear-cut example of why characters should be merged into the original works to lend context. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and what do we redirect him to? Advance Wars? Advance Wars 2: Black Hole Rising? How do we decide? Regardless, I'm really tired of the argument that a character cannot be separated from their respective parent articles because they don't distinguish themselves enough from their main source material. The fact of the matter is that the King of All Cosmos is becoming very popular, and all I can say is that you'd have some bad luck merging Cloud Strife to FFVII. The FF characters will never be mergable, and I do not think WP:FICT should apply to games. Most of Wario's article is his events in his games. Most of it is talking about his source material. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Advance Wars, as the two games have barely enough plot or differences to justify separate articles, and as such will be relying on each other for context. Alternately, he belongs on a List of Advance Wars characters list; he's not a major character from a character-development standpoint by any means, as he's a faceless, motivation-less evil cipher.

Cloud Strife shouldn't be merged to Final Fantasy VII because Final Fantasy VII is already too large. Likewise most of the FF characters, although I really think they should mostly be listified.

Do you have any argument pertaining to the King of All Cosmos, or are you going to keep coming up with other borderline articles on WP:FICT? If you think there's something wrong with the guideline in a systemic way, by all means, bring it up on that talk page, but these examples are not illuminating this debate. I'm sorry if you're tired of the argument that characters should not be separated from their respective parent articles because they don't distinguish themselves enough from their main source material, but it still stands.

I'm going to give this a few days, but if no other opinions come up, I am reverting, as I don't see any argument that WP:FICT doesn't apply, and I'm not the first to question whether or not this should be a separate article. If you're allfired determined to make sure this gets its due time, open an RFC. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hah, I say that, and other people show up. Probably a rash thing to be saying anyway; I need to go do some RC patrol or rewriting and get some perspective before making silly statements like "I don't care, I'm doing it my way." - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I highly recommend that you put this issue on RfC, so that you can gain a broader view of the community's opinion. Don't take the words of a few talk page contributors as necessarily representative. - Mark 02:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The overambitious, impractical part of me wants to start a Wikiproject to combat the tendency toward overgranularity in specialist-interest subjects, to help reduce needless duplication of content or the lack of sufficient context. But then I realize how much trouble this sort of thing is, and how much agony making any progress on the Pokémon articles, one of my own fandoms, initially was.

Oh well. Off to RFC for now. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Arr eff cee'd. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

This article is fine. Leave the content here. --Phroziac^(talk) 02:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

KD is an FA, and I think it is too large for this to be merged into the regular KD article. This article can stand on its own, but a RFC could be good. Zach (Sound Off) 02:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It fits fine into the Katamari Damacy article when the plot summary of WLK is placed in We Love Katamari; when I merged it, I added about one paragraph to Katamari Damacy. Part of the reason I argue so strongly for a merge is because the content is already duplicated elsewhere. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, other people besides this small group should be given the opportunity to comment. For the time being though I support leaving this as is because it's on the burden of consensus to delete/merge not to keep it the same. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 02:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why this article shouldn't stay as it is. Sure, it's a bit obsessive for people to write such extended articles about characters, but once they're written I don't understand why they should be merged, especially when merging it into the parent article causes the parent article to become significantly larger, necessitating the trimming of content from the article to be merged. Hey, maybe I'm becoming an inclusionist! :-\ - Mark 02:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

No information has to be trimmed. All of the content in this article fits into Katamari Damacy, save for the plot summary of We Love Katamari, which needed almost no editing to be dropped into the We Love Katamari article (which previously lacked a plot summary). Compare this edit to the Katamari Damacy article and this edit to the We Love Katamari article to the article as-written.

This info doesn't bloat either article; WLK was lacking a plot summary, and Katamari Damacy would only increase in size by about a paragraph. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:FICT is not set in stone. The thing is that if there is adequate content compared to a minor amount of content (such as, say, Blargg once was), some guidelines can be "forgotten", so to say. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Almost all of this "adequate content" is duplication of info in other articles. The amount of unique content (his mannerisms, the Gphoria thing) is very low. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

A lot of Wario's content is duplicate information, as most of it is just game information. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

That's an argument to merge Wario somewhere, not keep King of All Cosmos. Again, Wario has no clear merge target, whereas King of All Cosmos does. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The King of All Cosmos is currently affiliated with three games, and, again, is highly popular and has a good following. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Two games, with one game not yet released anywhere in the world (and, as such, is only mentioned in a couple sentences in Katamari Damacy). "Highly popular" and "good following" are as part of the popularity and following of Katamari Damacy itself; John Galt still doesn't have his own article. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The article doesn't exist because it doesn't exist. That's all there is to it. If an article can branch out and have adequate length and quality, and is reasonably popular, it should. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

If the character is inextricably linked to the source material, and giving it a fair treatment doesn't bloat the source's article, making a separate article ends up with needless duplication and loss of context. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, you can have the last word on this thread. It's now looping in on itself, so I'm not gonna continue replying until something new comes up. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:A Man In Black, since the King is so closely associated with the two games. The amount of content that can be written about him is rather limited given the shallow game storylines, and AMIB's edits have shown that the existing content can be neatly merged into the game articles. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 02:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no need for a seperate article for this character. As it has been said, the story of KD is extremly shallow. Also, if you consider his notability, he does not warrent his own article. Like Black said, this can be merged into either of the articles regarding We love and/or Katamari. If you want to argue bloating, just look at the PlayStation Portable article. The homebrew section became so bloated and big that it had to be split from the article not only because of the vast span of information, but also because everyone was editing it and adding new information about it once every 5 minutes. Not something I see happening here. VfD it and vote merge. Havok (T/C) 08:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It's VfD, not VfM. Anyway, as I said previously, he may not transcend the game, but he IS notable enough. It could be merged, but it could be kept unmerged. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Please don't AFD it; nobody at all wants this deleted, and AFD is really only for deleting pages. I've filed an RFC and asked for input over at WP:CVG, so hopefully that will bring eyes on this. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The bulge

Is no one going to mention the obvious thing that needs addressing in the article?

Our bulge scares Jimmy Wales.