User talk:Jonny2x4/Archive2

DARPA

Ok then, but the ARPA reffrence of Sigint is defintiely hintiong something. -- 20:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Don't assume too much just because they're from the same race and same organization (I'm pretty sure there's alot of African-Americans working for the real DARPA). You're entering the region of fanwankery. Perhaps you might want to take time reading WikiProject Computer and video games. Speculations on the fictional content of games is discouraged by them (and myself as well). Jonny2x4 20:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil

I noticed that you showed interest in editing the Resident Evil article. Would you mind helping me with completing the article's to do list and promoting the article to featured status? Morgan695 05:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest adding a gameplay section detailing the various additions made to the engine over the years (we could two or more subsections, one covering RE1-3+CV and the other cover post-RE4 games). Also the Story section could use a bit of expanding. Jonny2x4 06:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. To promote this to featured status, we need to expand the lead, expand on the games impact (I already did the a section on reviews - feel free to expand on it as you see fit - but an influence on gaming and sales figures section are still needed) and add a section on the evolution of the franchise (your engine suggestion could go in this category). Morgan695 18:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Re Series Template!

It looked much cleaner with the previous format! The template now looks messy and hideous with that ugly diareha colour. Any ideas how to change it? Empty2005 00:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I preferred the previous format, since it looked much closer to other video game series infoboxes (such as Template: Metal Gear series and Template:Mortal Kombat series), giving it a more uniform appearance. Anyway. The first change I made was moved the game characters to the list over movie characters. Resident Evil is a video game series first and a movie series later. Also, I ordered the character list based more or less on how they're ordered in the Archives. Jonny2x4 22:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough then! Empty2005 02:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil 3 - Tyrell Patrick

I would like to know how making the 'Tyrell Patrick' article smaller because he is a minor character contributes to Wikipedia in your perspective. I understand that Tyrell Patrick is not an important character in the overall series, but wiping his personal article out and merging it with the already far too large 'List of Resident Evil characters' page doesn't seem like an overly productive idea to me. If you don't like the size of the article, why not simply avoid reading it? The idea is to make Wikipedia as comprehensive as possible, deleting information is not in an encyclopedia's best interests, and moving the entire 'Tyrell Patrick' article onto the main page, as far as I'm concerned, isn't even an option. I specifically created his personal article because it was too large to fit on the main page. Not meaning to start a fight here, but it's more than a little annoying when somebody suggests wiping out a page that I created, especially considering it took me quite some time to scrounge up information on this character that would probably otherwise have gone unknown if I hadn't. Gamer Junkie 18:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not even an explanation for your actions. How very thoughtful of you. It's good to see you left it open for discussion so long, since it was only the two of us that actually had an input, I suppose that somehow means your opinion is more important than mine, right? If you're gonna be an arsehole, chop half the page and redirect to another article, at least have the decency to explain yourself better than 'This character doesn't deserve an article'. Gamer Junkie 01:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did provide an explanation for my action. For some reason, I forgot to post it past preview and I apologize for that. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) to understand my actions. To put it simply: Tyrell Patrick is a very non-notable character who only appears for a few second in the entire game and his backstory is only interesting to fans of the game (as opposed to major characters like Leon, Wesker and Jill to name a few, who are prominent enough for non-gaming readers to be interested about them and transcend their original work). It's all in the name of reducing Fancruft as much as possible. Jonny2x4 05:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Wright.

There has never been any precedence to hold a remake or port as more notable than the original, regardless of the fact that they are more recognizable. Should Pokémon Emerald be a redirect? Or Resident Evil (GameCube)? Or Kirby: Nightmare in Dream Land? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's a huge difference in this case. We're not just talking about mere ports here, we're talking about the English localizations of said games. Since this is the ENGLISH Wikipedia (and not Japanese), it's better to use the title/version that a casual reader would be familiar with than the Japanese original only few will recognize. Not everyone is a videogame playing fanboy. Also, a lot of those remakes you've mentioned aren't really real remakes at all. They're just upgraded ports with incremental features. Most of the time, we just note the differences between the original and said upgrade in one article. Phoenix Wright/Gyakuten Saiban DS falls into this category. Also, seeing the Gyakuten Saiban articles being nothing but a gallery of boxshots seems too much of a waste. Besides, isn't Phoenix Wright being released for Mobile Phones? Jonny2x4 06:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A localization? If it were intended to be merely a localization, it would have not been released in Japan. It is a remake, just like Resident Evil. And if you honestly believe in what you are saying, then move Das Boot to The Boat, its English title. I repeat, there has never been any precedence to turn the original game, movie or book into a redirect to a remake of said game, movie or book, localization or otherwise. PWAA should be the redirect, as it is not the original. As for the remakes that I mentioned, RE is "70% remade", including visuals, new modes, new enemies, new weapons and new sequences. Emerald also added a whole new area, the Battle Frontier, with tons of modes. It also adds moving in battle and the cell phone. Also, lack of content is not an argument for deletion/merge/redirect. As for the cell phone game, that was supposedly a port of a remake, and turned out to be all new cases available for download. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Das Boot was released in English under that title, sorry. (Hope you don't mind me butting in, J2x4.) Is there a reason this conversation isn't being carried out on the talk page of the article in question? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I saw the movie, and the title was The Boat. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Did anyone see the most recent episode of Seinfield...? The chaps are always getting into nonsense. Lovely television show. -Zero^Talk 23:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Snake

I rewrote Solid Snake, and, while it's not perfect, it's pretty much what I was hoping the MG character articles could look like. Since you're one of the major MG editors, I thought you might want to take a look at it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright so far. But I think the information about Snake's Revenge and Ghost Babel needs to be covered seperately from the the main History section. It might confuse readers unfamiliar with the canon. Also some parts reads more like a development history of the series in general, rather than the character himself.Jonny2x4 03:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't here to document the canon. Wikipedia is here to document the real world. There's a great tendency to pretend the non-canon games don't exist, or marginalize them; I don't really think we're here to tell the fictional life history of these characters, but instead describe their role in the real world. WP:WAF goes over why we should do this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The James Bond and Star Wars articles cover their films primarily on their canonical revelance, followed by non-canonical elements. I don't see why it has to be different for Solid Snake. Jonny2x4 04:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at some of the featured articles. Captain Marvel (DC comics) was the template I used for this article, and that's a character with as many non-canon offshots as this one.

I don't know about the Bond articles, but one of the weaknesses of the Star Wars articles is that they focus on the fictional chronology to the exclusion of real-world context. Emperor's Hand highlights the problems with this approach; by focusing on the canon, it loses focus on the real-world context, like where the Hands were first introduced and who introduced them, how the term has changed and been refined, and such. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop! I put a lot of effort into trying to make that page not just another fanpage retelling the story of the games, and you're reverting without comment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not treating this as a fan-page. I'm still keeping the realistic POV (as opposed to the in-universe POV) you wanted, which was your primary reason for the major editing.

Let me explain, Snake's Revenge was essentially a pastiche, while Ghost Babel and MGA1+2 were made with them being set parallel universes in mind or Elseworlds if you will. A better template would be the Batman. The character biography covers only the mainstream continuity (Pre-Crisis and Post-Crisis). It doesn't mention works like The Dark Knight Returns (which is an influential Batman book, albeit non-canonical). Jonny2x4 04:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batman is an excellent example. In that article, non-canon stories are handled as part of a real-world chronology. (For example, look at where Dark Knight Returns is covered.) That's the kind of article I'm trying to make. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss this on Talk:Solid Snake. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad example. Perhaps I should've mentioned a Marvel article like Wolvering or Captain America. I see Ghost Babel and the MGA series as "Ultimate" versions of the Metal Gear series and see no reason to mix them up with the regular series. Jonny2x4 04:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't featured articles, with good reason. Can we please discuss this on Talk:Solid Snake? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you reverting Image:MGS4 Snake.jpg without any comment anywhere? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are up to your fourth revert on Image:MGS4 Snake.jpg, without a single word of explanation. What's going on? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | pastops) 13:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just asking why can't we just stick to the full version of the render? None of the other images in the Solid Snake article are cropped and I don't see any reason this has to be different. Jonny2x4 13:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Image talk:MGS4 Snake.jpg. It had actually been changed to a screenshot when you reverted it the second and third and fourth times. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing this to your attention

I've made a proposal to make a unified cleanup track for the disparate Metal Gear character articles; you may be interested in seeing it, here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Award

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I'm gonna give you this for your constant and generally pretty silent contributions to all the Metal Gear articles, The Bread 05:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rolento Schugerg

Please do not move pages without discussing it on the talk page first. Other Street Fighter characters such as E. Honda and Yun have articles under their full name. Danny Lilithborne 03:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MGS3 sketches

You have an uncanny knack for fining kick-ass images, can you get us some character sketches for the MGS3 Characters page?

†he Bread 06:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been awhile since I've seen the MGS3 character list, but what the hell happened to all those renders that were uploaded? Jonny2x4 07:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steel took them down and AMIB is going on about layout, and fair use #3. I don't think they flunked it but sketches definately won't plus it will keep with the rest of the lists

†he Bread 22:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only artworks I have are the black & white illustrations Shinkawa that Konami published in MGS3: The Countdown. The article originally had them, but were changed to renders because they were in color. Jonny2x4 01:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally want them, plus B&W is better than nothing

†he Bread 02:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jonny, where'd you get those sketches from?

†he Bread 03:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MGS.RU, although they've been posted on other sites as well (since they come from a press kit).Jonny2x4 03:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You the man, I'm reverting them back in, and could you please explain it to AMIB at the Talk:List of Metal Gear Solid 3 characters page?

†he Bread 03:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon World

Please see Talk:Dragon World dispute for your vote on whether we should keep the Human (Dragon World) article or have it merged into Dragon World. Thanks! Power level (Dragon Ball) 15:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shinkawa on MPO

Are you sure, I though MGS4 was his last one, weren't they done by that Ashley Wood guy?

†he Bread 02:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's true. Ashley Wood did the in-game artwork and cinematics, but Shinkawa is still credited with the design directions and character designs. In fact, PSM did publish a rough sketch by him for Snake in MPO. Here's Shinkawa in the credits. [1] Jonny2x4 03:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's interesting

†he Bread 07:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note.What's up with the changes made to the MGS characters article? The character art are removed and most of the backstories are reduced to excessive footnotes on bottom of the article. I liked it the way it was before to be honest. Jonny2x4 16:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to make it an WP:FL, and they said the artwork had to go

†he Bread 01:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. Anyway, what do you suggest about having a list of characters for MPO. Is listing the characters on the very article fine or do we create a separate ones. Personally I was thinking of creating a list that covers both, MGS3 and MPO. Jonny2x4 02:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell me anything I haven't got it yet. Personally, I would like an MPO list, listing in the article doesn't really do it for me, but it has been floated about by AMIB and others that we have the MGS3 list for MPO aswell, as long as there is a list of MPO characters somewhere other than the MPO article, I'm happy. One thing is what would it be called, List of Cold War Metal Gear characters?

†he Bread 02:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since virtually everyone who survived MGS3 is in MPO in some form or another. I suggested "List of MGS Prequel characters", but AMIB didn't like it. BTW, you might want to avoid reading the character descriptions from MGS3 since they've been updated with MPO spoilers. Jonny2x4 02:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's all off my watchlist, MPO all MGS3 stuff and recurring page. If we can't find a name we'll have to make two lists, List of prequel Metal Gear characters a slight change of your one might go down well. Being that MPO has gone dwon so well with the critics, there may be more (Kojima said) so maybe we create List of Portable Ops characters and add al Portable Ops characters there.

03:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Your AfD

I don't understand it, but i've made the correct page and listed it for you here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's been a while since I nominated an article for AfD and it's hard to it again if you don't know how. No offense, but I think Wikipedia should stick to cover legit games. There are too many hoaxes (notable or not) for Wikipedia to cover them all. Jonny2x4 00:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor STARS characters

Hey, what the hell are you doing!? Did you happen to notice that you've deleted 3/4 of Joseph Frost and Brad Vickers' descriptions while you were re-writing them from another perspective? Gamer Junkie 07:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rewriting them from a real word perspective rather than an in-universe perspective like they are right now. The truth of matter, most of the information contain about them were mostly cruft and trivia. Also, an in-universe perspective is okay if you're an established fan, but can be confusing for someone new to the games who is looking for information about the characters. Also, Wikipedia does not condone articles in an in-universe perspective, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Admiteddly I wrote half of the Resident Evil character articles myself when I still new to Wikipedia and I'm working on improving them at the moment. Jonny2x4 07:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, because I re-wrote them. But you're not just removing cruft, you're actually just cutting the articles because you're removing credible information as well, such as the file pertaining to Nemesis' attacking Brad. Not only that, you're doing a rush job. You've misspelled and missed letters everywhere ("Cerberuses" is not a word, RPD is R.P.D., the police precinct is not the name of the building, therefore it is the "police precinct," not "Police Precinct"). If you're going to re-write an entire article, do it properly, because I'm sick of cleaning up rush jobs. You're also re-writing it in American-English (customized), whereas true English (customised) is the preferred choice since it is more commonly used amongst English-speaking cultures. Please take the time to do it properly, Wikipedia isn't going to disappear tomorrow. Gamer Junkie 08:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RPD and R.P.D. are interchangable acronyms. Otherwise, you're right, I should spellcheck my contributions abit more, but that's why there's people like you to fix my mistakes. :D I only removed the info about Brad's Diary in the N64 Resident Evil 2, because I didn't think it was revelant enough to the character's portrayal, but I brought back to appease you. Jonny2x4 08:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RPD and R.P.D. are indeed interchangable, although R.P.D. is the proper terminology. The problem is that we, as individuals, absolutely cannot decide which information is relevant and which information is not for Wikipedia. If it is factual, as Vickers' file is, it is relevant to his background description, and it's then up to the reader to decide how relevant that information will be to them, personally. I assure you, fixing mistakes has become my greatest chagrin on Wikipedia. I can't even begin to comprehend how often I've had to alter or correct information, especially added by anonymous users. It's beginning to seriously grate on my mental health. I know that you've been editing for quite some time, as I recall you redirecting one of my articles to another page much earlier this year. Not to sound rude, but your experience here is the one reason that I expect more of dedicated users such as yourself, because anonymous I.P. users cannot be counted on to maintain Wikipedia properly. If dedicated users begin to follow the same path, then that leaves me with even more shit to mop up. Anyway, I find it all comes together a lot better when you alter or add information one or two characters per day. After writing too long, everything begins to fall apart and you're mind can't process information properly. It's like sleep, you can go without it, but you're not going to be nearly as coherent if you do. Gamer Junkie 08:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly which one of your articles did I allegedly redirect? The truth is that I used to one of those users who would enforce an in-universe perspective over an out-of-universe one (I simply found it more interesting that way saying "blah blah, this character did this in this title", not to mention I had a copy of the Japanese Biohazard Archives before its official English release and wanted Wikipedia to reflect the same info featured there). Even back then, I used to think that were a lot of fancruft and unnecessary articles pertaining to a fictional element from one work that really could just be covered in the main article itself. Even now there's still quite a cruft. For example, do we really need articles about Ecliptic Express and the T/G Virus when these elements could be discussed in the articles revelant to their games? I understand that I'm not the best contributor to Wikipedia, but at least I'm trying to improve myself. Cut me some slack, at least! Jonny2x4 12:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, I'm not having a dig at you. Firstly, the article in question was "Tyrell Patrick." That doesn't bother me though, as most of the information was left intact, although you re-wrote the ending, which seems to leave out the fact that Tyrell had the same idea as Nicholai. Anyway, it's not important, I really don't mind either way. Secondly, there is no "Ecliptic Express" article, it's been merged into the Arklay Mountains article, which I entirely re-wrote as the second thing I did at Wikipedia, almost everything, from herbs to the abandoned hospital to anything related to the Arklay Mountains at all, has been merged into that single article. Thirdly, merging all of the viral pages into one single article could be a possible choice, although the articles related to the "T" and "G" viruses are very large, so this would probably be a bad idea. You could always bring it up, but I'm sure the only person that wouldn't be cursing you to the darkest depths of hell would be that compulsive administrator A Man in Black. Overall, I don't feel that there's nearly as much so-called "cruft" as you think. The pages are always stingently maintained, if not by myself, then by others. Any vandalism, speculation or outright bull are always quickly removed. Gamer Junkie 14:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's AMIB's compulsiveness that's drawing on me, but I do see his point in a real-world perspective. It's only his methods that really bother me. Anyway, I think the G-Virus article could be reduce a bit. It contains a whole section which simply describes the mutated forms of G/William Birkin in the game that is pretty redundant since his character page does the same thing. The T-Virus could warrant a stand-alone article, since it's a central plot point in nearly all the games and the films. Also, some of the characters pages contain unverified amount of info. Exactly where did the myth that Leon S. Kennedy was meant to be Steve Burnside originate from? I've never seen someone cite one of the designers with such a statement.

I apologize if I bothered you too much, but I really want these articles to be improved so much. Jonny2x4 22:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to improve stuff, so long as it's improved for the better. This means converting it to real-world perspective as you were intending, but it also means making the effort and taking the time to do it properly, otherwise it's not better, it's just a different form of mess. I'd rather a well-written in-universe article than a rushed, mistake-riddled real-world article. Believe it or not, Steve Burnside was actually supposed to be Leon in earlier scripts, I remember reading about that in a gaming magazine, too. The guy who put that in will have to provide a reference or remove it, though. As far as A Man in Black is concerned, he can be surprisingly reasonable at times, but also unbearingly stubborn and unwilling to heed the advice or opinions of his fellow editors. He has shown a desire to remove virtually anything he deems as unencyclopedic, even if there are a great many others who do not agree. For somebody who doesn't think video game information is worthy of encyclopedia articles, he sure chose an odd category to patrol. Gamer Junkie 07:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheena Island article

I noticed you just "merged" the entire article with Resident Evil: Survivor. In actuality, you didn't merge any of the information, you simply deleted it. I wasn't a particularly big fan of said article by any means, but you didn't even request a discussion regarding the action you decided to undertake. Do not presume to decide what is best for Wikipedia without the discussion and consensus of your fellow editors. I would advise that you be extremely cautious in your edits from this point forth. Gamer Junkie 17:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of cleaning up most of these Resident Evil articles, to better suit the standards of an encyclopedia. There's really not much you can say about Sheena Island without reiterating the plot of Resident Evil: Survivor, which is exactly what the article was, a plot summary of Survivor better suited as a section for that article than a stand-alone "Sheena Island" article. Not to mention, the article (as with other Resident Evil articles) was mostly written from an in-universe perspective, which makes hard to look for references and does not take into account gameplay aspects such as multiple endings and scenes. Jonny2x4 17:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implying that the article could not be repaired without it being entirely deleted and that you're actions are entirely justified? That it neither warranted nor deserved the input of those who have created the article or commonly maintain the Resident Evil article sections? All of these arguments can be put forward in discussion, and you would probably have had more than a leg to stand on. As it happens, what you have done is absolutely against the guidelines you're working so hard at enforcing. Gamer Junkie 18:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to offend anyone, but most of the people watching over the Resident Evil articles aren't doing much to improve them, with Alice easily being the worst (being nothing more than a fictional biography of the character which reiterates the events of the films). One version of the article even included an unsourced statement that she worked with HUNK (was he ever part of the films' continuity to begin with). Resident Evil 2 and Resident Evil Zero had their gameplay sections removed for no reason a year after these articles were originally created.
Anyway, from what I looked at the original Sheena Island article, it was basically reiterating of events depicted in the game. Eventually when someone decides to add a plot summary to the Resident Evil: Survivor, it's basically going to say the same things. Most of these articles deserve more attention than the fictional elements presented in the story anyway. It's pretty pathetic when the article abour the worst Final Fantasy game has more sourced information about it than the best Resident Evil game. Personally, I think there should be Capcom wikiproject. Jonny2x4 19:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think people are doing a good job? Okay, that's you're opinion. Once again, YOUR OPINION. If you don't like the way things are being handled, you're supposed to discuss your concerns with others. Frankly, I've pretty much given up editing Resident Evil articles, due to the fact that certain editors have taken the liberty to merge or remove massive sections of information and entire articles citing "clean-up" as there reason for doing so. Most of the Resident Evil: Outbreak character articles you've recently merged were re-written, spelled, sourced and researched by me, with almost everything gone in the blink of an eye, without so much as a peep regarding a discussion of any such merge and what information should be removed or kept. Now, instead of eight detailed and helpful character articles, we have a single large, pointless grouping of little more than what is already covered in the characters' manual descriptions. I'm sure that, according to you and a couple of other editors, this will be perceived as a successful "clean-up," whatever that means in virtual space, but to others, this simply strips away any point for having the aticles in the first place. This is called differing perspective, and it's becoming a serious issue, especially in regard to a specific few people who don't have the decency to take the opinions of others into account. That's why we have discussions, so that we can reach a compromise and come to an understanding without pissing off our fellow editors who also maintain and contribute to Wikipedia. Get what I'm saying? At least have the courtesy to involve others who spend just as much time here working things over as you do. Gamer Junkie 20:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's always funny when people make a statement someone else doesn't agree with, the first comeback to mind is "that's your opinion." Not to troll, but who's opinion are you expecting? :p Anyway. The character-specific Resident Evil Outbreak articles read too much like strategy guides/instruction manuals and I think alot of the information deleted could brought back and discussed within the listed versions of these descriptions (as it is the case with the current character descriptions I made).
I think most of the character-specific gameplay features and endings can be discussed in a paragraph or two. Jonny2x4 23:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brought back? How about not deleting it in the first place? Save a little time and effort maybe? And what's all this about discussion now? It's a little redundant at this point, wouldn't you agree? I think you took the opinion part the wrong way. I'm telling you that your personal opinion is not the be all and end all of an article's final depiction. You need to take the opinions of others into account as well. As far as the character descriptions being strategy guides, what does it matter if that's how they read? They were much more useful then than they are now. Gamer Junkie 23:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Computer and video games article guidelines. The guidelines basically states that Wikipedia IS NOT a strategy guide. Item lists and such are more better suited to wikis dealing with those subjects than Wikipedia. What I suggested was that I think all of the gameplay differences and character-specific outcomes can be contextualize within a paragraph or two and without resorting to making whole articles about them.
A usual problem I have with the talk pages and is that few people often ignore any ideas presented there. And then they complain when changes are made. Although, you do seem to be a bit more vocal about changes made. Next time, I'll make a notice before merging or redirecting an article. Jonny2x4 01:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite simple. Items, places etc. in a work of fiction should be commented upon _within the article_ on that work of fiction, which is the first criterion of our notability guideline for topics of fiction (see WP:FICT for a full list of criteria). Cheers. Combination 02:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see Jonny, following guidelines can be frustrating and a typically vain endevour, as they have a tendancy to contradict each other, as is proven above. I try to explain that the best outcome regarding the creation of a successful article involves discussion and working together with other editors to resolve contrasting issues, but if insist on making changes without external input and backing up said changes with guidelines and policy, it's only going to lead to more arguments and a lot of pissed off editors. Gamer Junkie 13:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]