User talk:A Man In Black/Cruft

If anyone is watching this...

You noted in your list of to do things how things must be in present tense. Aside fromthe grammatically awkward issues that such an approach takes, I am concerned that it might not be entirely valid, consideringhow much GL has been retconned and redefined over the years (taking special note of the Guy Garnder page, where I had made a point of correcting tenses to past-present). What are your thoughts on the issue?Arcayne 00:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't mean to offend, but I don't understand something. You cite, say, WP:WAF. That's one article. Then you list a whole bunch of stuff that 'needs' to be edited. One article. Many articles. What policy is valid when pretty much everyone is going to violate it, and rightfully so? If you don't like what's there, don't read it. After all, Wikipedia isn't an encylopedia. You can't cite it. Scumbag 03:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't cite Britannica, either, if you're out of grade school.

There are lots of articles that need to be cleaned up to the desired standard because this is a continually incomplete project. The fact that many articles are incomplete is not an argument to leave them incomplete. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the very nature of a 'continually incomplete project' show that the project is inherently flawed, or alternately, that one's perception of something being 'incomplete' is itself flawed? The article you and are I having issues with,

Tiberium, will never be written in an out-of-universe way. The very information that makes it valuable is that it lays out the entire in-universe concept for the reader. When its relevent, the out-of-universe information is explained. Scumbag 03:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Tiberium

should likely be merged to the article on the C&C series as a whole. It's nothing but an original synthesis of personal observation of the games.

A lot of times, that's all you can do. Fan wikis can cover the fictional universes; this one is here to cover the universe where you and I keep our stuff. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You honestly think it should be merged? Now I know you're not serious. Tiberium is as important to the C&C franchise as Kryptonite is to Superman's, or Phazon to Metroid's, and deserves its own article. All three of which, I might add, fit clearly in the Fictional Materials cat. There's also a fairly major hole in your argument: Wikipedia is one big Fan Wiki. It will forever be. And rightfully so. Scumbag 04:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter how important it is in a fictional universe. This is an encyclopedia about the real universe, and we deal with importance on Wikipedia by using

non-trivial references in reliable sources. (Phazon should probably be merged, too.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia isn't an encylopedia. Plus, you're wrong about Tiberium not being important in the real universe, as evidented by the fact that there's such a well-written, detailed article about the substance. I officially challenge you to request Kyrptonite be merged with Superman. It's the exact same thing. Scumbag 05:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you don't think this is an encyclopedia and are unwilling to adhere to

WP:NOR, I don't know what to tell you. Please don't obstruct those who are continuing the productive work of this project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The way I see it, the people who edit like me are in far greater number than those who edit like you. You have my word I will not obstruct your work: in the end, only sheer numbers matter. Scumbag 05:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for stepping in here, MiB, but Scumbag is making a significant error in his thinking, and maybe someone like me (who doesn't necessarily agree with you all the time) might give the lad some much needed perspective.

You are suggesting that only sheer numbers matter to Wikipedia, and offer a (trying very, very hard not to laugh derisively here) Magic The Gathering link as support for your position. Allow me to help bring you up to speed. There is a standard that Wikipedia expects all of its users to adhere to. If you (and your sheer numbers) think these polices too restrictive, perhaps you could mosey on over to the Village Pump and discuss changing policy there. Or, you might simply recognize that MiB is trying to assist you in understanding Wikipedia's intent and philosophy and simply say 'thank you.' Mob rule is inherently stupid.

Of course, you may be right about that 'sheer numbers thing.' I am sure it worked out for the nazis, or the US and the interned Japanese Americans, or for disco. Arcayne 05:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really. There's no need for you to be deleting the entire article in question. Scumbag 05:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A complete disregard for

WP:WAF is an excellent reason. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

It's obvious you're attacking pretty much every article I've had considerable work done on; work that nobody else has ever had a problem with. Really, this is bordering on vandalism. If you have a problem with an article, you slap one of those tags on the top of it. This is uncalled for. Scumbag 06:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No,

Rampancy

I have no idea what to do with (plus I will probably get it when I get around to bringing Marathon 2 up to GA or FA one of these days...mmmm, old-school Mac games).

You've declared open contempt for

WP:ATT. That tends to tell me that I should check your contributions for problematic articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

In other words, yes, you're editing out every major article I've worked on. I'll revert them. And you'll revert back. And it'll go on and on and on until both of us get in trouble. Scumbag 06:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small edit: See? It's already happening. Ravnica is already getting reverted. Even the page you're relinking it to is being reverted. Scumbag 06:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, a Wikipedian has created articles for

Phoenix Wright - appears in all episodes of the first three games, confirmed to appear in the first case of four cases in the fourth, is the most important character in the PW series

Maya Fey - appears in almost all episodes except for the first episode in the first game and a couple episodes in the third game, is of great importance to the PW series (besides Phoenix and possibly Edgeworth, Maya is the most important character by far)

Mia Fey - appears in almost every episode in the first three games and is of great importance to the PW series

Pearl Fey - starting with episode 2 of the second game, is in every episode but two in the third game, and is of great importance to the PW series

Miles Edgeworth - is of great importance to the final four cases of PWAA, of great importance to the main plot of the second game, and is of importance to the third game, and besides Phoenix and possibly Maya is the mainest character in the series

Dick Gumshoe - is the detective in every case with the exception of two, possibly three episodes

Note that this is not necessarily a suggestion (but I do emphatically suggest an article for the main character).

The series in North America has sold at least 100,000 copies, and the first game has had 100,000 copies shipped so far. Not quite so popular in Europe, and in Japan, the first DS game has done something like 210,000, while the second did 100,000. So far, the series has broken the million mark with five games in the series and another one upcoming. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the references to justify having separate articles for any of them, really. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix is quite notable. I mean, it's a popular franchise that actually has a plot (and is actually all about the plot). Plus, the franchise itself is referenced in several notable mediums such as Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo and The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya. Phoenix is certainly more deserving than a lot of characters with articles, even articles that do deserve an article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The series and the individual games are noteworthy, indeed. Where are the reliable sources independent of the subject on the individual characters? We can't use parodies to write articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said parodies would be used to write articles. I said that it shows the series to be very well-known, and thusly, the character. Plus, he has his own series of mangas. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I think that having a manga is enough to say that he has transcended the video game series. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N. Where are the non-primary references we're going to use to write the article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

It requires time and research. I'm sure several notable video games can be difficult to source certain information. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]