Talk:Characters of the Metal Gear series/Archive 1

Raikov and EVA

There is no evidence Raikov and Eva are returning for Portable Ops. The multiplayer part of the game is different story wise from the main story. I'm deleting the statements until you can provide proof.

Campbell

Just a question where does it say that Campbell was called "Chicken Fox"". And isn't Gray Fox the only one to get the fox codename?. (The Bread 04:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

http://www.konami.jp/mobile/appli/metalgear2/02.html

It says, that he enlisted with FOX-HOUND and became Vice Commander, and served under the codename "Chikin(sic) Fox". His talent as an "Intruder" is only average compared to the others in "FOX-HOUND", but his "Strategic Planning Ability" is extremely high. Probably caused him to spend most of his time out of harm's way, netting him the code "Chicken". Then after Big Boss left, he reformed the group and made it a high tech special forces unit, and abolished the codee system.

I'm not sure how or when Gray Fox became known as the "only one to recieve the title", but on his bio in that section, it simply says "has the highest title of Fox", but however it happened, it seems to be wrong. WtW-Suzaku 16:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Master Miller

Interestingly, Miller's middle name, Benidict may be reflecting that of Benidict Arnold, hence the traitor, and treasonous personality both have. Although the traitor of miller is actually portrayed by Liquid Snake Rdog 18:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC).

Raiden

I think Raiden deserves his own section

- I think Raiden should be given his own page, I think I will do it myself (The Haunted Angel 12:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

Before demerging Raiden again, could someone please explain why Raiden needs his own page? Preferably without using the word "deserve"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't make sense for supporting characters like Gray Fox, Revolver Ocelot, Hal Emmerich and even Meryl Silverburgh to have their own pages, and not Raiden, who was the protagonist of MGS2 and will most likely be a playable character in MGS4 aswell (judging from the full E3 trailer). The fact that he was actually a protagonist in the series, and not just a supporting character, should be enough to warrant him a seperate page. Jagged 19:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, that's a "deserve" argument. (For the record, warrant is a synonym for deserve.) He's merged into this list because there's not a whole lot you can say about Raiden without simply describing the plot of MGS2 in detail. Grey Fox, Ocelot, and Meryl appear in multiple games and have very different roles, and should probably be merged into a list anyway. As for MGS4, let's not worry about it until it's actually released; everything else right now is speculation only.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The Raiden article was no shorter than the Meryl and Otacon articles, so why did you remove it? In particular, why did you dismiss the MGS4 section? Whatever has been revealed in the MGS4 trailers are official and hence should be included in the Raiden article. Besides MGS2, the MGS4 section can be expanded with extracts from Gamespot and IGN articles, more details can be given on his cameos in MGS3, Metal Gear Raiden and the early promotional video of MGS4, aswell as the fan reaction to his role in MGS2, his character plans from The Document of MGS2, and his possible link to MG Ghost Babel. There is still a lot more you can say about Raiden without being limited to the plot of MGS2. All we need to do as expand his article some more. Jagged 05:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The Meryl article was upwards of 30K, and the Otacon article is only still standalone because I haven't gotten a chance to sit down and rewrite it for brevity

As for the MGS4 section that has been appearing and disappearing, I tagged the article {{inuse}} because I was (and am!) working on it; I was planning on reworking all of the non-MGS2 plot summary and including a mention (not a detailed blow-by-blow, though) of the MGS4 trailer appearances.

As for the trailer appearances and MGS3 references, one paragraph can cover that nicely. I plan to demonstrate that.

And "his possible link to MG Ghost Babel"? Please, don't add your own original research. This is not the place to explain your own theories on where a character was during a game released before that character's creation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There. I rewrote it and moved it over to this list. Barring MGS4 stuff (since that game isn't out) and a para or two about whatever has been said in Document about his creation process, is there anything more that could be added? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

People, Raiden is a main character in the story, and there is no reason why he shouldn't have his own page. I mean really, he is arguably the main character of MGS2, and has a great effect on the story as a whole. There is no harm in giving him his own page. - The Haunted Angel 14:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

John Galt is a redirect to Atlas Shrugged (or, well, it would be if there wasn't someone with the same name), and I daresay that the latter is more influential than MGS2 and that the former is more important to that story. It's not a matter of importance in MGS2; it's a matter of how much you can say about him that isn't rehashing the plot of MGS2. Right now, there's a paragraph about his creation, a paragraph about parodying him in later games, and a paragraph about the MGS4 trailer. That's not much, and not an arrticle, even when combined with yet another MGS2 plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Part of the reason I don't want this split out of this list is because of the tendency to go into overelaborate plot summary, to the point of retelling the story blow by blow. Right now, I am looking at an eight paragraph plot summary of MGS2, under the Raiden heading alone. This is longer than the plot summary in the Metal Gear Solid 2 article. This is unacceptable, and I will again rewrite (mostly revert) the plot summary to the ridiculously long four paragraphs it was before.

Additionally, there's a bit I'm loath to remove, but must.

The denunciation of Raiden by fans as Solid Snake's replacement may have been exacerbated by Quinton Flynn's performance in the English localization(ref)The Importance of Voice Acting(/ref), which was considered to be less masculine than Kenyu Horiuchi's deeper voice in the Japanese version.

Considered by whom? This Geocities site is not a reliable source. If someone could cite this to a reliable source, I'd love to have it back in the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You aren't seriously dismissing a biography as an overlong plot summary, since the difference is that one's a plot summary and the other's a biography. As for Raiden's unpopularity with Western gamers, I'll try and hunt down a source. --Antrophica 05:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Real people have biographies. Fictional characters have summaries of the works in which they appear. Again, this now has eight paragraphs of plot summary of one game, which is wholly inappropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The articles on Solid Snake, Big Boss, etc. are all presented in a biographical manner. The same should apply to Raiden. Jagged 05:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't. This isn't a biography, because these aren't people, they're characters. The Solid Snake and Big Boss articles are also bloated with plot summary (and are written in the historic past instead of the fictive present, argh) only because nobody has properly cleaned them up yet.

If you want a good example of an article to emulate, look at Captain Marvel (DC Comics), not a handful of mostly-neglected fansite-quality Metal Gear character articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

All MGS character articles (and other games including Final Fantasy character articles) are written in in a biographical manner, and that appears to be the standard. If you wish to change this, we will need to reach a general concensus from other users (perhaps through a poll?) though I personally find a more biographical presentation to be more interesting. Jagged 05:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, take a look at the featured articles for fictional characters. Wario, Captain Marvel (DC Comics), Felix the Cat, and Link (Legend of Zelda) all handle the characters from a real-world point of view, rather than from a fictionalized biographical view. You may also find this enlightening; while it isn't binding policy, it explains why an out-of-universe perspective is more valuable than an in-universe one.

Wikipedia's role is not to supplant the original work as a source for understanding of the plot of a fictional work; that's what the fictional work itself is for. Again, we don't need a blow-by-blow of MGS2's plot, and we definitely don't need 79 million articles all explaining in detail the lengthy exposition that people can get simply by going and playing the games in question.

Plus, meta:polls are evil. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Wario, Captain Marvel, Felix the Cat and Link have rich enough real-world histories surrounding them and are part of a substantial enough mythos that their fictional history can be contained in separate articles. Regardless, these chaps' articles balance out fictional and real-world history evenly. They don't eliminate one in favor of the other. A fitting analogue to the Metal Gear series would be the Harry Potter books - both take place predominantly in single, straightforward continuities that don't constantly restart themselves. --Antrophica 07:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

One section I've removed several times, which, much like the proposed Ghost Babel speculation, doesn't belong in this article:

Raiden confronts and kills Solidus, in a scene that partially mirrors Big Boss' killing of The Boss, the difference in this tragedy being that Solidus was one of the few people who were passionate about freeing the United States from the Patriots' machinations. At the end of game, Raiden gains a measure of indemnification, in that Olga's baby lives, and he is reunited with the real Rose, who is pregnant with his child.

This scene cannot mirror any scene in MGS3, because MGS3 wasn't released when this game was developed. The same scene in MGS3 may mirror MGS2, but not vice versa. Remember, the history Wikipedia documents is that of the real world, not that of fictional worlds. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Says you. Supply me with the guideline and I'll put my gun away. --Antrophica 07:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Read this, then the fictional character FAs linked above, then WP:NOT, then WP:WIAFA, then WP:WIAFL. Your parallel is WP:OR, since it's an original (meaning it originates with you) comparison of the two scenes.

If you think it's likely that there's a groundswell of support for handling these articles from a fictional perspective, try taking this article to WP:PR. The results may be surprising. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The results won't be surprising, since I was aware I was playing the devil's advocate. I didn't have the time to search for those guidelines on my own. That's why I let you do it for me. --Antrophica 07:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Then I'm killing the early life section, if you don't disagree with me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You might as well kill the whole article, then. The early life section is as factual as everything else and not based a lick on speculation. I support eliminating speculation, and original research (to an extent; you can't cite a source for every conceivable detail), but not vital information on the character. --Antrophica 07:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It actually has a fair bit of fanon filling-in-the-gaps, but, more importantly, it's overly elaborate detail. Why is it important that he was drugged, or that he was a soldier at the specific age of six, or that his relationship with Rose is strained? These facts aren't important to understanding the basic story arc (child soldier, gets amnesia, joins special forces unit and hooks up with Rose, infilitrates base, game events happen), and Wikipedia isn't the place to detail every single fictional happening.

Again, those who want a detailed description of the events in a fictional work can just consult the fictional work in question. I'm trying to get these articles boiled down to encyclopedic overview, instead of, again, overly detailed blow-by-blow plot summaries. Take a look at any featured article about a fictional person, place, thing, or work, and you'll see any number of examples of the level of summary I'm aiming for.

The only reason every Metal Gear article (or every fictional thing/person/place article, for that matter) isn't up to this level is merely that nobody's had a chance to get to all of them yet. I sort of feel responsible for this list, since I pushed for the original merge, and I hate that it's only gotten cruftier since I last did a cursory rewrite and trivia scrub along with the merge. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This is important information that ought to remain because it gives the reader insight of what kind of character this character truly is. If it were several trivial, insignificant scenes where he and Snake ate hotdogs on the stairs and shot marbles by the shoreline, it wouldn't be able to find its way in here if a group of fanboys tried to bulldoze it through. But this isn't a trivial, insignificant detail. For instance, if it was revealed that Captain Marvel was molested as a young boy (younger than he is) by Shazam and manipulated into being his champion so Shazam could rule the world, it would be included in Captain Marvel's article. It would probaby have its own section. And it wouldn't be confined to just one paragraph. This is a similar circumstance. Look at it: two heroes thinking they're fighting for the greater good, but then they realize they've been working all along for the dark side.

And if it makes you feel better, you can always take solace in that a list of several different characters is easier to maintain than individual articles of several different characters. --Antrophica 08:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Augh, arguing by analogy is useless. What direly important information are you complaining that I'm removing, so I can figure out a way to include it or argue against its inclusion?

If you're talking about describing the relationship between Raiden and Solidus, there's a problem. They only have a relationship in the exposition-heavy ending (which is where they interact and where the backstory is filled in), and there's so much going on in the ending that it's hard to derive the most important points. For example, it's rather POV to say that the ending clearly establishes Solidus as a parallel of Raiden or even particularly heroic. Whether their background links are coincidence, manipulation by Solidus, or manipulation by the Patriots is debatable (the S3 Plan, at least one description of it *sigh*, is parallel origins for Raiden and Solid Snake, and Solidus serves as the Big Boss to Raiden's Snake, a mentor he must destroy). These are all interpretations, and unless you can cite some interpretations from reliable sources, it doesn't belong in the article.

And I'm quite well aware that lists are easier to maintain. It's why I merged these in the first place, of course. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't care for any of those new points you brought up; I never did. I simply reckon we could leave the "Early life and career" section the way it is because it matters. I dare say it makes the article better.

And I'm quite well aware that you're quite well aware that lists are easier to maintain. It's why I brought it up for the sake of being a pain in the stones. Couldn't help myself. --Antrophica 08:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Why does it make the article better? You're asserting your conclusion instead of supporting it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As I've already said, this is information that is vital to the character. It explains how Jack became Raiden. Who raised him, who taught him to fight. It explains the source of his nicknames. It's his origin. It explains why he is emotionally distant, even to his girlfriend, why he can be so uncertain and hesitant. Yes, this is information revealed during the eleventh hour, but that doesn't make it any less important. Arguing against Raiden's origin and romantic relationship being documented would be like arguing against Batman and Joe Chill, or Superman and Lois Lane. --Antrophica 14:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What crucial fact does three paragraphs say that one paragraph doesn't? I'm not advocating no mention of his origin (and have never wholly removed his origin); merely reducing it to a less-bloated form and placing it in the place in the plot where it is revealed.

Since we're speaking of Joe Chill, I'd like to point out that Batman devotes one single sentence to describing the murder of the Wayne parents by Joe Chill. Encyclopedic overview and summary, not blow-by-blow detailed description. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Luckily this isn't that important to me, or we'd be going back and forth forever. --Antrophica 13:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Solidus Snake

Is he really a recurring character? I thought he was intoduced in MGS2, and then he dies at the end. Shouldn't his section be moved back thye MGS2 characters?

A Man In Bl♟ck dominance over page

seriously this is a guy who thinks he owns all the MGS pages he simply bully's his way around the MGS pages by reverting all edits that are not his i meen seriously who wanted a merge of nearly all MGS characters to one page over 50k and why in hell does Raiden not have his own page!

I've been spending a lot of time reverting and rewriting because these articles need a lot of work. Most of the time, when I revert, I'm reverting additions of Yet Another Theory about Decoy Octopus's history or SIGINT = Anderson, or two more paragraphs of plot summary.

Again, Raiden doesn't have his own page because there's not much to say about Raiden. Right now, List of recurring Metal Gear characters#Raiden is two pages worth (and half of that is detailed summary of a single trailer.

If someone writes a page worth of encyclopedic, sourced prose about, say, the creation of Raiden or public reception (and assuming that prose doesn't belong in Metal Gear Solid 2 anyway), then I'll merge it out myself. Until someone writes an article's worth of information, though (and doesn't just bloat out the plot summary), it doesn't need its own article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

OK i will admit i was a bit harsh and i know there are alot of "Yet Another Theory" out there but what i meant was the page is very ugly looking i just think by giving raiden his own page and a few others it could shorten the page and make it more ascetically pleasing

Well, this page has solvable size issues; a number of characters have been moved here with a very tenuous claim to being "recurring". IMO, Raiden, Solidus, Liquid, Naomi, and Vamp need to be moved back to their respective games until MGS4 comes out, and and Petrovich needs to be moved back to the classic list (since he only appears in the classic games). That would largely solve many of the size issues, and, while some of them will need to be moved back here when MGS4 comes out, I'll bet at least a couple of them will bear splitting out after the addition of the MGS4 info. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes that seems a good idea and the right thing to do.

"Recurring" characters in Metal Gear Solid 4

Shouldn't we hold off before merging characters who appear in MGS4 trailers to this list? We don't have the game in hands to see if these characters actually appear or if this is a head fake on the part of Konami/Kojima, plus it's subverting expectations (anyone who hasn't seen the MGS4 trailers is going to expect to see Raiden on the MGS2 list, for example). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I put them back in the old lists again. You can yell at me now if you want. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the way it was. It's good to have doubts, but saying that everything released by Konami is fake is just being paranoid. Considering the way Konami is currently promoting (by releasing a wallpaper of all the known MGS4 characters for the following seven weeks until July 7), people will know who will be in the game by then if they haven't seen the trailer. Jonny2x4 13:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Solidus, recurring?

Solidus was only in MGS2!

Moving Raiden

I have moved Raiden to Raiden (Metal Gear) because this recurring characters article was already 44KB long. After moving Raiden, it has been reduced to 37 KB. I have also moved Solidus back to the MGS2 page, which has further reduced the article to 32KB.

In response to A Man In Black's previous reason for not giving Raiden a seperate article (that his information is only two pages worth), that is not enough to overlook the fact that this article was already 44KB long. Those two pages worth is still longer than thousands of other articles on Wikipedia that are only several paragraphs long. There is also no point in trying to move Raiden to the MGS2 page because he is now a recurring character without a doubt, so the only place he can be moved is to his own article. In his own article, we can write about the creation of Raiden and the public reception (as suggested by A Man In Black), aswell as Kojima's own views on Raiden from a recent interview. None of these things have been mentioned at all on this page, and I am planning to add them in his article.

I am also considering the possibility of giving Campbell his own article as well (since he appears in 4 canonical games), and instead adding back Madnar and Schneider (since they are also recurring characters). Jagged 18:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm happy with moving Raiden out of this list, since we now have more than cursory information on his creation and fan reaction. (I stand by what I said before; if someone writes a page worth of good, sourced non-plot-summary prose that doesn't better belong in another article, a split is okay.) I'm still going to go at the plot summary with a chainsaw again (we're up to two pages on one game, argh), but other than that it's fine as-is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No sooner do I say that but do I read the article carefully. Nope, looks like most of it is bloated plot summary (including three paragraphs on his backstory, including detailed descriptions of his relationship with Rose and fannish speculation on how he feels about her, argh), lots of unsourced and weasel-worded "criticism" from "some fans" and "many people" and "gamers," the voice-acting comparison without a reliable source, and the other drek I've spent a lot of my time trying to keep out of these articles.

This edit warring isn't going anywhere, though. I'm going to be more-or-less away from the Wiki until the middle of June. If Raiden (Metal Gear) no longer has the problems I listed above, I'll be happy to leave it as a standalone article. If it doesn't, it'll take a heck of an argument to get me to let it stand alone any longer. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Moving Liquid

I'm considering of moving the Liquid Snake description back to the MGS1 list, since technically Liquid only appears as a whole person in MGS1. The Liquid in MGS2 (and MGS4) is just a dormant personality within Ocelot's arm for all intents and purposes and I think it's better to just merge all the stuff Liquid does as Ocelot from that point with his own article. Jonny2x4 01:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agreed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

MGS3/MPO characters

Just wondering, should we add MGS3 characters appearing in MPO in this section? Or should we just expand the MGS3 characters article to cover MPO as well? For all intents and purposes, they're just as recurring as anyone who has appeared in the MGS4 trailer. Jonny2x4 16:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, add the mgs3/mpo characters (The Bread 02:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC))

I'd leave the MGS3/MGPO characters in the MGS3 list, since that's essentially an extension of MGS3. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• You can't just call MPO an extension of mgs3 without even playing it.Its part of the series canon and will cover oneof the most important events in the MGS series (Big Boss's transformation into a lunatic). And since its part of the main games, the characters Recurr (The Bread 04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC))
  • Importance and canon don't enter into it. It's just a matter of organization; if you let the scope of this article get too big, all the other lists shrink and this one gets too huge. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I rather wait for more details to be release about MPO first. There's no guanrantee that all the surviving MGS3 characters (aside from Snake, Sigint, Para-Medic and Zero) will return, although, MPO will definitely have its own lineup of original characters that guarantees creating another list. Also, I believe some of the characters in this article (namely Campbell) will be in need of their own articles. Jonny2x4 05:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That's probably the best idea(The Bread 05:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC))

Liquid Snake fails to find The Patriots

After he went for the location of the Patriots Ocelot knew about, he found his search to be fruitless as Ocelot had been given a false location of their wherabouts to begin with.

How do we know this for a fact? While Snake tells Raiden that Ocelot was probably given a false location, it is still not known for sure if Ocelot was or was not told the true location. I mean it makes sense that he wouldn't, but it still isn't fact until MGS4 sums up what happens between 2009-20XX.

Roy Campbell split

Why does Campbell have a split tag? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably because its the best idea to split him off. His section's already too long. (The Bread 03:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

Campbell should be split, though 65.12.134.148 18:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree about giving Campbell a seperate article. He has already appeared in numerous MG games. Jagged 21:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Went ahead with the split. Feel free to whine and moan now. Jonny2x4 15:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Bring back Ocelot?

There's a merge tag at his page. I'm gonna say Don't merge he is essentially the main villian in MGS, despite appearing as a supporting character throughout the series. He is the human enbodyment of The Patriots aswell.

(The Bread 03:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC))

Importance doesn't really enter into it; his importance is why he isn't a two-sentence bullet point.

What is relevant is the fact that there's nearly nothing you can say about him that isn't about the games in which he appears. His entire article is going to be plot summary written from his perspective. Ideally, I'd like to reduce the number of articles that all recap the plot of the same games. You may want to read WP:FICT, which has much of the reasoning behind such merges. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Major characters and notable minor ones (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving such characters an article of their own is good practice (if there is enough content for the character).

Non-notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. The list(s) should contain all characters, races, places, etc. from the work of fiction, with links to those that have their own articles.

It is useful to add redirects to the article page or list of minor characters, from anything that's listed in there.

It is often informative to include plot summaries in articles on works of fiction. However, please keep them reasonably short, as the point of Wikipedia is to describe the works, not simply summarize them.''

Did you actualy read all this stuff, i think it favours me here, he's a major character, or a notable minor character, take your pick. All it needs is some servere shortening of the plot summaries of the games

(The Bread 04:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC))

Revolver Ocelot is a notable character? Since when? What can possibly be said about him that isn't about the series as a whole? Are there any non-trivial published works that focus on Ocelot? Is there anything that can be said about him that isn't plot summary of the games, other than the Lee Van Cleef thing?

Each of these articles, while better than the awful OR-ish nonsense that was there before, is still plot summary from the point of view of various fictional characters. We don't need the story of MGS, MGS2, etc. told and retold from different angles in a dozen different articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

How the hell is he not a notable character. He is in every game MGS game + MPO, even Solid Snake wasn't all of them (I don't count the MGS3 mini-game). He is a key antagonist and always contributes vastly to the plot. If you go to WP:FICT is says a whole lot of stuff about not letting the article getting too long. If your planning on merging Gray Fox aswell this page will get a hell of alot longer, whether you condense the plot outline not. Meryl can't be merged 'coz she's 2 characters, I don't think Campbell and Fox should be merged because Campbell's page is already big, Fox's is aswell and both the charactes span from MG to MGS, Campbell also has been confirmed to appear in MPO. Otacon's page is a mess, I do think he deserves his own page though, coz once again he will make RC too long

(The Bread 04:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC))

If he's notable, there would be some non-trivial published works that focus on him, and we could say something about him other than summarizing the plot of the games in which he appears.

Meryl could easily be merged, by splitting her content and sticking a dab page where her standalone page currently stands.

Right now, I'm focusing on getting this stuff cleaned up before fiddling with the merges, because merging back and forth is just making a mess. Once the cleanup is done, though, save for cases like Solid Snake where there's quite a bit you can say about him other than plot summary of the games, I would ideally like to see these articles trimmed way down and merged. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Who are you do define notalbe, Hermione Granger has her own article (see once again WP:FICT) there is no non trivial published works on her, theres the book and the moives. I know you've heard this before, but you are not the dictator here, we are only two people discussing a subject, and this is one of the few cases were Wikipedia policy is on my side.

(The Bread 05:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC))

There are multiple non-trivial published works about Hermoine. Silly, I realize, but it makes the difference between notable and non-notable.

I think Revolver Ocelot is popular enough to justify his own page, and ideally I'd like to have him on his own page, but if there are no references, there are no references. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty then, i'm gonna take down the merge tag, and i'll get right on citing those references.

(The Bread 03:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC))

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Revolver Ocelot may be popular, but like I said above, there's no critical analysis to make the article anything but plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I need you to define critical analysis for me right now, for me that means other people (Not involved in MGS) commenting on the subject matter. Take Bulbasaur, all that is, is a whole lot of Bulbasaur appearences throughout various Pokemon media and thats a FA for God's sake

(The Bread 05:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC))

I'm going to say keep him where he is. Yes the majority of his page is plot summery but if u look at the differences between the summery on his page and the summery on the article for that game you will notice that Ocelot's summery detailes what he was doing during this plot where as the summery on the articul page just skims over these detailes. -user:Sidmer

If you want to know where Ocelot is at whatever time, Konami has three (soon four) games they'd like to sell you, as well as a handful of making-of and art books. Finding out what happens next is what Konami is selling. Wikipedia's goal is not to cover what's happening in each story in detail, but instead to give enough plot summary to support description of the real-world impact of a story. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Bring Back Gray Fox

I dunno if he was even here at any point, but, once again no don't merge. I just spent a whole lot of time cleaning up that article and it is in a good state. Now with the inclusion of the MGS3-MPO characters adding in Gray Fox would make the article way too long. Also the constant reappearences of Ninja's in the MG games is key to Gray Fox's (hate this next word) legacy throughout subsequent MG games, just like Big Boss. Only 3 characters span from MG to MGS that's Snake, Big Boss and Gray Fox, hence showing he's an important supporting character

(The Bread 04:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC))

This article needs to be split, badly, with most of the MGS3/PO characters going into a new list made of a chunk of this list and the contents of the MGS3 list.

That said, the Gray Fox article is still too detailed and still has no reference to the universe in which we live whatsoever. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the Fox article. It will have a paragraph on the real world and one on the plot summary. And what do you mean by splitin' this one?

(The Bread 05:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC))

This list needs all the MGS3/PO stuff moved to a separate list. I'd do it right now if I could think of a name.

What are you going to say about Gray Fox in the real world? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You know what? List of Metal Gear Solid 3 characters works just fine, since PO is a direct sequel to MGS3. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah and Sons of Liberty is a direct sequel to MGS. Don't touch it, we need more opinions than just us two

Also the MGS3 article will be reach excessive hugeness with all the MPO characters added

And you comment on the re-appearences of Ninja's in subsequent Metal Gear games, which were made in the real world

(The Bread 05:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC))

I've proposed the split below.

Anyway, Gray Fox. Take another look at Solid Snake and consider the level of plot detail in that article.

Gray Fox could be reduced to...

“ Gray Fox, introduced in Metal Gear, is a FOXHOUND member. In Metal Gear, he disappears after sending a cryptic message about a "METAL GEAR," and Solid Snake, the protagonist, must save him; after being saved, he fills Snake in on the Metal Gear and offers advice via radio. In the sequel, Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake, Gray Fox once again disappears, but turns out to have defected to the side of the antagonist, Big Boss. Solid Snake confronts and seemingly kills Gray Fox in a final fistfight to the death in a battlefield.

In Metal Gear Solid, a mysterious cybernetic ninja armed with a katana, named Cyborg Ninja, confronts Solid Snake. A mysterious voice without a face, code-named "Deepthroat," also gives Snake cryptic advice via radio They both turn out to be a Gray Fox, now wearing a powered exoskeleton. He challenges Solid Snake to a final confrontation, for the sake of the confrontation itself. This battle isn't to the death, however; Cyborg Ninja instead later gives his life to help Solid Snake destroy Metal Gear REX.

Just as Metal Gear Solid eclipsed its predecessors in popularity, Cyborg Ninja turned out to be much more of a fan favorite than Gray Fox. A paragraph about the later cybernetic ninjas and the cameo appearances goes here.

”

We're not here to give people insight into the outlook or lives of fictional characters, unless that insight is in support of some kind encyclopedic overview of the real world. (Konami is in the business of giving us insight into their characters.) This version hits all the major points, while omitting the kind of detailed repetition of plot summary and just plain trivia.

Why are we fiddling with his dramatic revelation that he's Big Boss's adopted son? Why are we fiddling with his relationships with minor characters who never appear again? Why are we repeating the premise of MG and MG2?

Once you remove the kind of detail relevant only to the game in which it appears (that's what the game articles are for), you can easily fit it into this list. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but your level of proposed detail, gives the reader nothing, hell if we really wanted to we could take WP policy to the letter of the law and say.

“ Gray Fox is a character who appears in Metal Gear, Metal Gear 2 Solid Snake and Metal Gear Solid as a cyborg ninja ”

Once again I take the Bulbasaur article as an example, it is all about the pokemon in various media and has large amounts of plot summary. You have to give the reader some idea of the characters actions in that game, otherwise all articles would be as above

(The Bread 07:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC))

Bulbasaur is currently under featured article review, and is an exceptionally poor example, due to a sizable section written from an in-universe perspective. Even then, the emphasis is on the real world. Nifboy even suggested reducing the plot summary in the Gray Fox article and merging it as appropriate.

Your one-line example does a poor job of placing the character in a real-world context (is he a supporting character or main character? Anagonist? Protagonist?) and will make little sense to someone who has heard of but not played these games (didn't he die in MG2? Why is Cyborg Ninja redirecting here?). You need to hit the highlights without getting bogged down in detail.

Go back and read Gray Fox's article again. Then edit out the premise of each game ("Metal Gear is Operation Intrude #whatever", what the Metal Gear turns out to be, when MG2 is set and what OILIX is, etc.), and you end up essentially with what I wrote. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, what idiot merged Gray Fox with this article?! Obviously this is vandalism. Now I don't know how to split it back to how it was so I would be grateful if someone could do that or at least tell me how. Thanks. --User:ChaosSorcerer91 18:42, 7 August 2006 (GMT)

I don't really appreciate being called an idiot, or having my good-faith edits described as vandalism. If you'd care to explain what major details the current version is missing, I'd be happy to hear it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ChoasSorcerer and The Bread the current version is terrible. It's is poorly written, and omits many details, Naomi being Fox's sister for one, he being Big Boss's son for two. I admit i haven't been here as long as any of you but I came across a rule WP:IAR that says ignore all rules in the process of making an article better, i also came across one about consensus that says that people are trying to reach a rough consensus not total consensus, and at the momemt there is a strong slant toward Gray Fox having his own article and you churning out the same rule over and over. Also Gray Fox was merged before the problem was solved --203.167.171.38 05:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It intentionally omits obscure details. Gray Fox is referred to as Big Boss's son once, and it's never mentioned again. Gray Fox and Naomi being related is buried in an obscure codec conversation. Again, Wikipedia isn't the place to retell fictional stories in excessive detail, and WP:IAR isn't license to turn Wikipedia from an encyclopedia into an abridgement of fictional works. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I just couldn't stay away any longer, I was gone for 2 days and a whole lot of bad stuff happened. Before i make yet another fantastic point, you didn't answer his comment about consensus (Sorry if i'm stealing you thunder 203.167.171.38|203.167.171.38) and merging the article before the problem was resolved. (I seem to recall you kicking up a fuss when i removed the merge tag from Ocelot's page)

(The Bread 05:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC))

I reverted it because there was nothing to point to this discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You aren't the boss-man, you can't decide what discussions have a point or not, you have some (pooly thought out) rules on your side, but we (the majority) have some aswell, and the rough consensus is on our side, unlike Solid Snake or numerous other discussions

Naomi being Fox's brother is key to the plot and is mentioned repeatedly after she inplies it in the torture cell, then in MGS Naomi goes into more detail of Fox being Big Boss's son

(The Bread 05:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC))

No, I reverted it because there was nothing pointing to this discussion.

Metal Gear Solid has a lengthy, detailed plot summary. How can you describe those details as important when, in five pages of retelling the story of MGS, those details don't merit mention even once? How can you describe details that it's possible to completely miss in the course of the game as important? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Because it was recently re-written and those details were forgotten, they were important though, and the Big Boss thing is related to MG2.

The whole issue with this is our (the majority's) perception of what is notable and your "the bear minimum is more" perception. Here's what we've got, we've got a rough consensus and WP:FICT and WP:IAR, those surely trump your interpretation of sections of WP:FICT

(The Bread 05:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC))

You need to actually argue your case if you're citing IAR.

I ask again: Why do we need to retell the story of the Metal Gear games again and again from the point of view of each and every character? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone was wanting to find out about a character, any character, they would look up it's article; giving a bare bones list of appearances will neither inform nor enlighten them on the character, to do this the characters actions throughout a story must be examined to better gauge their, for lack of a better word, personality.

In those games the characters did more than just appear, every single character article must be examined and for each individual case, not lumped in as one, the more developed characters will require more plot summary than a minor one. Character articles are a prime example of where WP:IAR should be used to create a better more informative and thorough encyclopaedia

(The Bread 07:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC))

Right. That's why this version both lists the appearances and briefly describes his role in each game.

You keep repeating "more informative"; what information (not plot summary, but information) is omitted? Do you have any reliable sources (not fansites) to back up any claims that such and such detail is significant? In fact, do you have any reliable sources that mention Gray Fox at all other than in passing? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

/ Here's something to think about, AMIB: If you were to look at another character page, such as Cloud Strife, a lot of the "reliable sources" come from within the game's text. Cloud Strife could very easily be mowed down into a stub that says "Cloud Strife was the main protagonist in Final Fantasy VII" if we disqualified the game itself as a reliable source, like you seem to be supporting. Hell, why don't we do that (and watch me get blocked for vandalism [hilarity ensues]). There's a lot of fluff in that article, so for consistancy's sake, why can't a character from Metal gear with enough information for his own stub? You say you don't want the articles to basically retell the story, but we have articles like that for a bunch of game characters. Final Fantasy VII related articles would be considered terrible on your standards, AMIB. Should we go back and mow them down on the standard you're trying to create with Gray Fox (Metal Gear)? I would think a list of recurring characters should contain the minor characters only, or a brief summary of more major characters with a link to the main article for a major character, like Final Fantasy VIII's list does. Also, all those characters could have their own stubs using game text as source. Splitting the article would make the article much easier on the modem people. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 22:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Cloud Strife, incidentally, is the embarassment of the Final Fantasy Wikiproject. We should not be seeking to emulate their worst work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well then should I be expecting to see you in a debate over that page's content, as well as other pages like it? If you're going to set some sort of precedence with this article, then I expect to see you in other articles, such as Princess Zelda and Yoshi, who both suffer from a lot of extraneous content (although I recognize that Yoshi has a sh!tload of citation needed flags). --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 16:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no debate at Cloud Strife; it's just waiting for a willing editor (and count me out) to dig through that slog of plot summary to reduce it. I've brought it up at the CVG Wikiproject, and their reaction was pretty much "Yikes, that's awful" (with a couple of the major FF project participants chiming in). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You are insanely outnumbered here MIB (i know it's not a vote) the rough consensus is heavily in favour of Gray fox having his own article.

Also Targetter's comments are right on the money, Recurring characters page should only be the minor ones for this one thats what we had before you merged in Gray Fox. I myself think Liquid aswell should get his own article, but as he doesn't physically appear in any other games I’ll leave him here

Unless you come up with some new, better, reasons for Fox not having his own article i'm gonna split him off and return his article to the very adequate state it was in.

(The Bread 04:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

I split him Black, i changed most of the canon game's detail, but kept your sections on the suit's other appearences, as I thought they were very good

(The Bread 06:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

The core problem is that all of the information in the article is a dupe of the game articles. Wikipedia has an article on grass, but not also the height to which grass grows and the color of grass and how grass seeds are spread. Grey Fox is a part of the games in which he appears and has nothing else to him. Any "information" that has ever been removed is extremely detailed plot recap of those games. We're not here to recap every fictional occurance ever. Things that happen in these stories aren't information; they're stories. (Technically, I also removed the comparison to Tom Beringer, but that's pretty tenative and totally unsourced.)

The fact that many other articles fail to make this distinction between stories and information is unfortunate. That doesn't make it not a mistake. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Your example is a bad one. No-one wants an article on the height to which grass grows, but lots of people want an article on Gray fox. If someone wanted an article on the height to which grass grows they would raise there point and a consensus would be reached. And as for Tom Berenger, if you look at the Snake article it says he looks like Mel Gibson (He looks mor like Sly to me), all you have to do is look at the picture to see, and don't delete it, slap a {{fact}} on it

(The Bread 03:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

It's been there for months. It's unverifiable. The Snake comparisons are sourced, save for the Biehn one, which compares two clearly-derivative images. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No amount of people wanting something makes it a good idea to have an article that is nothing but dupe content, particularly when that content is nothing but plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Dupe content, you yourself said that the info wasn't mentioned in MGS's plot summary, it can't be duped from nothing. You took away the Berenger comparison and there's also the recurring Cyborg Ninja theme derived from Gray Fox, that's not dupe and from an in-universe and real-world perspective it's derived from Fox

(The Bread 04:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC))

Para-Medic, et al.

In what sense is Para-Medic a recurring character? The same could be said for Sigint and a few others. It looks like someone mistook this for a list of any and all MGS characters.

She comes back in MPO

(The Bread 03:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC))

Splitting this article

This list is getting really bloated, largely because it's sucking up characters from other lists unnecessarily.

I'm planning to split off about half of it, some of it pending the release of MGS4 and some of it because of the MGS3/PO merges.

Anyone whose second game is MGS4 is headed back to their first game. We don't know that these characters will have any significant role in MGS4 (I don't put it past Kojima to waste some of them early on, frankly), so let's wait until MGS4 is actually released before we move them back to this list.

As for the characters that appear in MGS3 and PO, there's hardly any overlap between them and the current-era characters, and PO is a direct sequel to MGS3 anyway (and, again, unreleased and somewhat speculative to boot).

Anyone who's "recurring" because they appear in Acid 2's boss rush mode should probably go back to their original list, because that's a cameo appearance at best.

• Liquid Snake is headed back to the MGS list. He only appears in MGS.
• Naomi Hunter - MGS list
• Vamp - MGS2 list
• Mei Ling - Iffy: she'll probably stay here more on the force of the cameos than the MGS4 reports
• Master Miller - Classic characters - I'm iffy on this one; he only cameos on MGS as a disguise for Liquid. Thoughts?
• Major Zero - MGS3 list
• Para-Medic - MGS3 list
• Mr. Sigint - MGS3 list
• EVA - MGS3 list
• Ivan Raidenovitch Raikov - MGS3 list
• Johnny Sasaki - staying here

I realize that this mostly guts this list, but some of the characters that have been merged out because of the unnecessary movement of characters to this list need to come back. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you blind that's all the article. No-one is gonna let you get away with this. Liquid appears through Ocelot, it's him doing all that stuff not Ocelot. Keep all the ones that appear in MGS4, coz they're gonna end up here again anyway. As for the MPO + MGS3, what a hypocritical idea, you rant on and on about real world and MGS world yet you wanna do that? You're policing these articles insanely now.

Here's you're list

• Mei Ling
• Johnny Sasaki

Here's my list

• Liquid Snake
• Naomi
• Vamp
• Mei Ling
• Zero
• EVA
• Para-Medic
• Sigint
• Johnny Sasaki
• Raikov (Dunno)

Send Miller to the Classic list, make an MPO characters page when it comes out.

(The Bread 05:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC))

If this list is gutted, it's gutted. Who cares? It's just shuffling the information into different places, and this list was only created as a catch-all for characters who can't really go in one game's character list.

Like I said above, I suggest kicking all the characters who are currently only in one game to that one game's list, then, if necessary, moving them back here if they later appear in another game. Let's ditch all of the speculation about "such and such character is reappearing," since it's inevitably sourced to some obscure promotional material or Hideo Kojima's blog (which isn't a reliable source; remember, this is the man who pulled a fast one with Raiden). Gray Fox, Roy Cambell, and Otacon need to come back to this list anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Who cares? We care. Here's what the occuring list should be. All those characters appear in more than one game. Sasaki's obvious. Liquid Snake is a significant character in MGS2 and MGS4. Body or not, the CHARACTER is present in the game. Naomi and Vamp are to be in MGS4. Mei Ling had a cameo in MGS2 on the codec, and she was also in Ghost Babel. Zero, EVA, Para-Medic, Sigint, and Raikov all apppear again in Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops. Campbell, Gray Fox, and Otacon are all too important to be shoved into a repeated characters list, unless it's merely a link to their actual standalone articles. Beat that. --Snake Liquid 05:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the emotional attachment to the particular arrangement of this list, nor do I understand your confrontational attitude.

Anything you can say about MGS4 or PO right now is speculation only, and cannot be sourced to a reliable source.

As for Otacon, Campbell, and Gray Fox, they're not important. They're supporting characters in a video game series. They have zero impact on the real world, and Wikipedia is not the place to endlessly repeat plot summaries from a million different perspectives. Campbell could realistically be reduced to a two-liner in Metal Gear (series): "Introduced in Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake, Col. Campbell is Solid Snake's commanding officer in FOXHOUND. He later commands Solid Snake in Metal Gear Solid, and an AI construct impersonating Campbell advises Raiden in Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty." I'm not advocating that we reduce it that far, but we need to stop endlessly rearranging and retelling and recapping and summarizing and abridging and repeating the plot of these games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Confrontational attitude? Rethink your own attitude as of late. If these characters have zero impact on the real world, then don't worry about. Just walk away and leave it to people that actually care about the content. What you're proposing is to lessen the article's text and picture information available to fit the way you think it should be, which is like Newspeak from 1984. All you've been doing is removing relevant character information, and that doesn't help the encyclopedia at all. You made a good point, they're video game characters. The "real world" isn't going to treat them any different, so there's no good reason to include why their information shouldn't be available. People come here to learn details, not just small tidbits of information. Second of all, the MGS4 and MPO characters aren't speculation. They were either seen in trailers, or confirmed by Kojima himself on HideCHAN radio and magazine interviews. Those trailers released by Konami at E3 are reliable sources, and if you think otherwise, your logic is truly flawed on the matter.--Snake Liquid 06:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to think I'm not a Metal Gear fan. I am a hard core Metal Gear fan. I love the series; it deftly combines my love of conspiracy theory with my love of explosions. I loved Metal Gear on the NES despite the fact that it didn't make a lick of sense. I've long been an outspoken defender of even MGS2, and I love MGS3: Online even though it's hideously broken. I even liked Snake's Revenge for what it was. If only Metal Gear fans can edit these pages, then I'm as qualified as anyone here.

Now, here on Wikipedia, we have WP:FICT, WP:WAF, and WP:V. WP:FICT counsels merging characters that don't have significant impact outside of their source works with their works, or with lists of characters when the source work articles become too large. I've been removing plot summary, which is already present in Metal Gear (video game) and Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake and Metal Gear Solid and Metal Gear Solid 2 and Metal Gear Solid 3 etc. The place to summarize those stories is in those articles. We don't need to endlessly retell, in increasingly greater detail, the story in an article for each character, object, place, and organization that appears in those games.

The recurring theme in those policies is that we're here to describe the real world, and when describing fiction, first and foremost, focus on that piece of fiction's role in the real world. Pieces of a work of fiction, such as fictional objects, need to be described first and foremost as ideas in the real world, not tangible objects in a fictional one. Solid Snake, for example, is a fictional idea and not a person in a fictional world; we talk about his creation and his design and how he is used in various games, not his childhood and his exploits and his accomplishments.

Now. Gray Fox, Otacon, and Campbell are not major characters here in the real world. They're the supporting cast of a (admittedly fairly popular) game series. Their articles, as such, should be trimmed down to the bare minimum of plot summary (notice how little plot summary there is in Solid Snake, or, if you'd prefer, Captain Marvel's article, and he's appeared in hundreds of comics, a movie serial, and many other works), with an eye to directing readers to the game articles for context. This eliminates the detailed insight into, say, Gray Fox's relationship with Big Boss, but if someone wants that insight, Konami is selling a game in which you can get that insight.

We're not here to retell these stories, but instead here to give enough overview to give real-world discussion some context. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and as for the split, blogs (and podcasts) flunk WP:RS. The magazine articles pass muster, but I feel we err far too much on the side of emphasis on games that aren't even released yet. Games get cancelled and stories change, and we're talking about the backup cast here. While we can safely say that such-and-such character appears in the trailers, anything more than that and we're speculating. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Right this is the one edit i'm going to make

MIB if you can't see the support above for Campbell, Ocelot, and Gray Fox having there own articles then you're completely blind. You aren't the boss and you constantly preech WP policy at us, that flies in the face of the WP policy to reach things by consensus. You already have your own complaint section on this page yet you refuse to see any other opinion than your own. At the moment your stupid plan to mess with all the pages is being rejected 2-1. An article is supposed to be thourgh and give the reader an insight to whatever he/she is reading about. This is stated in WP:FICT. WP:FICT also states that articles on a character will contain plot summary. Bulbasaur is just any old pokemon and it reached FA status, it contains plot summary. This whole idea of is really stupid if you stand back and look at it. At the moment your the only one who objects to the page as is, one person is not enough for a consensus.

Gray Fox, introduced in Metal Gear, is a FOXHOUND member. In Metal Gear, he disappears after sending a cryptic message about a "METAL GEAR," and Solid Snake, the protagonist, must save him; after being saved, he fills Snake in on the Metal Gear and offers advice via radio. In the sequel, Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake, Gray Fox once again disappears, but turns out to have defected to the side of the antagonist, Big Boss. Solid Snake confronts and seemingly kills Gray Fox in a final fistfight to the death in a battlefield. In Metal Gear Solid, a mysterious cybernetic ninja armed with a katana, named Cyborg Ninja, confronts Solid Snake. A mysterious voice without a face, code-named "Deepthroat," also gives Snake cryptic advice via radio They both turn out to be a Gray Fox, now wearing a powered exoskeleton. He challenges Solid Snake to a final confrontation, for the sake of the confrontation itself. This battle isn't to the death, however; Cyborg Ninja instead later gives his life to help Solid Snake destroy Metal Gear REX. Just as Metal Gear Solid eclipsed its predecessors in popularity, Cyborg Ninja turned out to be much more of a fan favorite than Gray Fox. A paragraph about the later cybernetic ninjas and the cameo appearances goes here.

This? I've never read such utter crap before, no-one would be happy with this, but you. SL be bold gather as much support as you can for not letting this happen. I'm going away for a while

(The Bread 07:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC))

This isn't a vote. We don't line up and say, "Okay, those who want X over here and those who want Y over there." This is a discussion, and I've done my best to carefully explain my reasoning, with policy cites and examples in other articles. I'm willing to discuss these arguments and listen to the arguments of others, but it's not "We're right because we outnumber you." I'm sticking with this not because I have any prerogative you guys don't or because I think I'm in any way your superior (I'm not; the admin hat is mostly for cleaning up messes), but because I've carefully considered a wide variety of articles and policies and come to a conclusion that nobody has made a successful effort to shake. Additionally, I don't understand this personal offense at my disagreeing with you on these pages; do you see me unilaterally merging Gray Fox over your objections or moving characters off of this list?

Bulbasaur doesn't describe every anime episode, manga chapter, and game it appears in in detail.

I'm sorry you feel that what I suggested as a shorter version is "utter crap," but it covers all the main points without getting bogged down in detail, and it ends up with a list entry that is about the same amount of real-world content as plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have merged Gray Fox here, given that the only argument against it seems to be personal attacks against me or head-counting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

==

Black, the flaw of yours that's been acknowledged and/or pointed out by myself, The Bread, Targetter , and Twilighter (see The Bread's talk page), is that no matter how well across your points come, you don't compromise. I've said this before; You act like it's your way or the highway, and if anyone else's edits don't sit well with you, you revert them. No, it's not a vote, but it nullifies the point of discussion in the first place, and at the same time, it isn't fair. This is why "personal attacks" are made, or why head counts are done, because even though Wikipedia isn't a democracy and you're supposed to play nice, sometimes the rules need to be broken if the conduct at hand isn't according to Wikipedia policies in every detail. You can't throw certain policies in people's faces and then turn around and ignore others. This is why you've seen clashes at Metal Gear pages like Solid Snake, Metal Gear RAY, and this one here. It's not like we're out to get you and want your head on a platter. You're just inconsiderate more often than not. I'd suggest you back off of the Metal Gear articles for a while, stop watching them, and let other people handle them for a change. I'm sure there will be a lot less conflict from either side. --Snake Liquid 07:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, descions are made by rough consensus, WP has no firm rules, just, guidelines

(The Bread 07:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

That's not quite accurate. Policies are firm rules. WP:NOT in particular says: "Wikipedia articles should not act solely as a summary of the plot of a work of fiction, but should offer comprehensive, summarised plots in conjunction with sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance within the article, or as part of a series of articles per Wikipedia:Article series." The purpose of including plot is not to retell the story for the sake of doing so, but to provide context for further analysis and coverage. If there were sourced character analysis or other context, then it would be fine to spin off a separate article. Even for characters that haven't influenced other fiction directly, there's the possibility of including information on how the character was developed, other characters used as a basis for the character in question, anandoned subplots, etc. I don't see a problem with a brief character-specific plot summary if you're going to spend a few paragraphs afterwards describing real-world factors about the character. But if all you're doing is reframing the plot from a different character's perspective for N characters, there's just going to be a huge amount of overlap without that much benefit.

Remember, the fictional universe and its inhabitants are a construction. We're here to describe its role as a cultural artifact: how and why it was developed, and how it impacted other elements of fiction. Put another way, if you've ever read any serious literary or game stiudies analysis, virtually no critic spends time writing about each character's role in plot unless they're going to further analyze those characters. Neither should Wikipedia articles. To do so is to repackage the fiction without adding anything original. Such use might actually undermine fair use claims in extreme circumstances. — TKD::Talk 05:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There are two points on which I don't compromise: we should not be retelling these stories in extreme detail and we're here to describe the real world. The rest is negotiable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Notice, however, that no one said the stories should be retold in extreme detail. Each character's article should only contain detailed tellings of the parts of the story they were strictly involved in, which is nothing compared to a full on story retelling in every profile, which isn't what we're saying here. At the same time, we're not here to describe the real world either. We're here to describe characters and details of a work of fiction. Most importantly, we are not here to negotiate with you, or anyone else for that matter. No one else is acting like that, so again I'm going to suggest you stay away from the Metal Gear articles for some time and let others take care of them, as you're the only one who's editing people is complaining about.--Snake Liquid 18:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No article should contain a detailed retelling of any part of the games. That's rather my point. We're not here to retell these stories in detail, whether in whole or in part. While this may not be a popular stand with people who want to turn Wikipedia into an abridgement of these stories, it remains the stand supported by WP:FICT and Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction and WP:WAF. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

We are here to describe the real world; plot summaries are subservient to this purpose. It is am explicit standard for good articles, and modern featured articles are very unlikely to pass if they're mostly plot summary. By the way, Bulbasaur was a controversial promotion, and it was, in part, what prompted WP:WAF to be written. — TKD::Talk 05:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Certain characters have more of an impact (Are more famous) in the real world than others. If I can recall from when I was 9, there are hundreds of Pokemon and as far as I know most if not all of those Pokemon have their own articles, they aren't shoved into stupidly under-detailed lists. Also there is expected to be some plot summary in character articles not quick note that they died or something, which has been written before

(The Bread 06:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

The Pokémon have appeared in dozens of different media and hundreds of episodes, so there is a bit to say about their portrayal in each of them, any differences, etc. You're turning this into a bit of a false dilemma. No one is saying that certain characters shouldn't have their own articles, or that those articles shouldn't contain relatively succinct plot summaries. It's just that a separate article is unjustified if there's not enough real-world information to complement the plot summary to provide additional context. That is the barometer being used. — TKD::Talk 06:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"No one is saying that certain characters shouldn't have their own articles"

Yes MIB is saying that

Anyway this section is for discussing the changing of this article into something far worse (see above). Also, don't say that i'm making a false dilemma of this, i'll decide what I talk about for myself, i've been discussing this for the whole time, whereas you showed up outta nowhere after MIB once again went running to the CVG project when no-one agreed with him. I'm not saying your opinion is not valid, just see it from our point-of-view.

(The Bread 07:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

Perhaps certain wasn't the best word. Some might be better, considering that I was addressing the general case. Sorry if I offended you by calling your aergument a false dilemma; it's just that I didn't believe that the analogies that you were trying to make were applicable. Also, I can read past discussions, so that's a bit irrelevant. In having read them, the constant theme of WP:WAF, WP:FICT, an the like have repeatedly cropped up, so here's as good as any place to discuss that core issue.

It might be helpful to reiterate and summarize arguments.

Pro-plot summary / separate articles

• WP:IAR
• WP:CON
• WP:FICT allows separate articles in some cases
• Useful; shorter summaries don't serve the reader as well; not "extreme" detail
• Other characters have separate articles

Against:

• WP:IAR requires sound reasoning
• WP:FICT also states: "It is often informative to include plot summaries (and other spoilers) in articles on works of fiction. However, please keep them reasonably short, as the point of Wikipedia is to describe the works, not simply summarize them. It is generally appropriate for a plot summary to remain part of the main article, not a lengthy page of its own. In some cases, sub-articles and lists are created when the potential for an encyclopedic coverage is hindered by the recommended length guidelines of one article."
• WP:WAF discourages in-universe emphasis and argues that out-of-universe perspective actually serves the reader better.
• WP:NOT states that plot summaries need to be offered in conjunxction with other real-world analysis.
• Characters with separate articles should have sourced analysis; the ones that don't are not good examples
• It's redundant to retell the plot from multiple character perspective without additional complementary analysis
• Fair use may be undermined by extensive summaries.

— TKD::Talk 08:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information #7 is the particular part of WP:NOT. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

I'm gonna offer up a compromise because were getting no-where. I'm gonna try my best to try to make everyone happy.

Standalones

• Solid Snake
• Big Boss
• Raiden
• Gray Fox
• Revolver Ocelot
• Meyrl Silverburgh (she's two differnt characters)

Recurring

• Liquid Snake (His character appears if not physically)
• Roy Campbell
• Otacon
• Jonny Sasaki
• Mei Ling (Coz of Substance)

MGS1 (Until G.O.P released)

• Naomi

MGS2 (Until G.O.P released)

• Vamp

MGS3 (Until MPO released)

• EVA
• Zero
• Para-Medic
• Mr. Signit
• Raikov

MPO

Assess this game warranting a characters article once it's released which it will

Well there you go, it's the only compromise offered up so far from anyone

(The Bread 04:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC))

These are two separate issues.

Recurring

• Solid Snake
• Big Boss
• Raiden
• Gray Fox
• Revolver Ocelot
• Liquid Snake
• Roy Campbell
• Otacon
• Jonny Sasaki
• Mei Ling (Not just Substance, but also Ghost Babel)

The rest in the game in which they appear.

Not all of these should be merged here, but if any of them are merged, it should be here. I'm iffy about Liquid Snake being in the recurring list but I'll concede it; it'll largely come down to what the article looks after the detailed plot summary is ditched.

Meryl, like you said, is two characters. One of them appears only in MGS and should go in the MGS list. The other needs to be condensed WAY down and merged into Policenauts.

Now, that's how I'd like the characters moved around, but I'm not terribly insistent on it. The main problem is that we have way too much plot summary and almost zero real-world content in the "standalone" articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What we need to do is decide which ones are standalones and which ones shouldn't, i think my list of standolones should do, as for the recurring ones well thats the issue here. We'll need some other opinions to deicde on where Liquid should go, which is the only real issue with this article. I think he should stay here

Hang on forgot about Meryl, yes do the thing you said, until G.O.P is released

(The Bread 03:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)) & (The Bread 03:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC))

Go write an article about, say, Revolver Ocelot that is half or less plot summary, and it should be standalone. Until then, you're looking at way too much plot summary and way too little content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh Jeez thanks, allright i will then, i[t] will take forever though (The Bread 02:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC))

I think the end of August is a good target. I'm happy with any character that can sustain a Solid Snake-like article having their own article, but pretty much every article but Solid Snake is 90%-100% plot summary, usually written from an in-universe perspective.

Anything that isn't anything but plot summary needs to be drastically reduced and condensed into this list. In fact, anything that has more than plot summary still needs to have the plot summary drastically reduced.

Basically, I want to reduce the plot summary. Anything that ends up a stub should be merged here. Anything that isn't a stub even when the plot summary is condensed to an encyclopedic summary should stand alone. This isn't a quibble over this name or that; if you can write a non-stub that isn't all plot summary about SIGINT or the DARPA Chief, more power to you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

End of August, make it end of september, the articles would end up being better that way

(The Bread 03:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC))

I've actually got an issue relating to this article now, Master Miller classic or here, i'm good either way

(The Bread 05:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC))

If you can't find a single source in two weeks there aren't any. :P - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A compromise and cleanup proposal

These lists and these "articles" suck. No two ways about it; they're unsourced, unsourcable, and generally composed entirely of plot summary.

This is what I propose as a cleanup process.

1. Reorder character articles to a real-world order, instead of a fictional-world order. This means that MGS3 comes after MGS2, instead of before MG, and backstory goes with the plot summary of the game where it's revealed.
2. Drastically reduce plot summaries. This is a hard-core reduction; no character needs a plot summary longer than the plot summaries in Solid Snake (now a good article!), and most characters don't even need that.
3. Merge all characters (save Solid Snake and Big Boss) into their respective lists.
   • I'd prefer not sticking people into recurring until after their second game is actually released, but I don't feel that strongly. It seems like Bread is good with waiting until the games are released; any other objections?
4. Remove the infoboxes from characters in the lists. (They're huge, full of trivia, and often redundant with the title and intro.)
5. Work on finding referenced out-of-universe info for characters in the recurring list.
6. Once a character has sufficient referenced out-of-universe info to justify a standalone article (which is half or less plot summary/backstory/other in-universe detail), split that character out of the list.

This proposal intentionally disregards any considerations of how important a character is (save in the case of Snake, who already has a GA, and Big Boss, who could certainly sustain at least a GA). If a character is important in the real world, there will certainly be verifiable out-of-universe information on that character.

This isn't really much of a compromise, admittedly; it's what I proposed implicitly in the beginning. The problem is that characters started being split out on the force of plot summary alone, and that plot summary needs to be drastically slashed. This process, which is essentially the one described in WP:FICT, allows for encyclopedic expansion, while discouraging further hyper-detailed plot summary.

Now a point on which I will compromise: a character shouldn't be merged until #1 and #2 are done. If there's a standalone character article for which #5 is already in progress, I'll leave that character article alone to work on other articles that need the #1/#2 work. For example, if someone wants to work on Revolver Ocelot or Raiden (Metal Gear), I'll leave those alone to focus on Otacon and Gray Fox and Meryl, whose articles have little hope of becoming standalone encyclopedia articles any time soon.

Is this acceptable? It has us working at cross purposes, but in both cases productively. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There is real world content to add to Gray Fox, the rappedly changed character design(s) by Yoji Shinkawa, the change of voice actor for TTS, his cameo appearence in other games, the reapperence of the Ninja's in subsequnet MG games, however you keep taking it away to suit you're own warped interpretion of WP:FICT, the plot summary in Fox wasn't hyper detailed, this is hyperdetailed, I could quite easily take all the stuff you wrote about Solid Snake's appearence and how it changes, in a similar fashion to how you took away my content on Fox's character changes, and start preaching WP:FICT.

This next stuff isn't head counting, if everyone else but you thinks Fox passes WP:FICT we not only have the rough consensus, but also WP:FICT, and we already had that, i'm reverting until you can tell me why Fox's real world content isn't as valid as Snake's

(The Bread 03:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

What real-world info did you add to the Gray Fox article? I tightened it earlier today, but I don't think I removed anything but the unsourceable actor comparison that I removed days ago.

As for the rest, who are you going to try and shortcut to a real article? I've leave that alone, but it needs to be less than "all of them." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What does that ^ say? (The Bread 04:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

Absolutely nothing that was reflected on the diffs in the article itself. What sources do you have talking about Gray Fox? You didn't add any to the article, just added some unsourced puffery about design changes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Basically, I want to reduce the plot summary. Anything that ends up a stub should be merged here

You said this, Fox isn't a stub, now contains lots of real world content, you're not being hypercritical are you? and give me a minute man, how am i suppposed to add real world stuff if you just take it away again (The Bread 04:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

Sourced real-world stuff. Not puffery, not speculation, not OR. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Pufferey again WTF, you can't just make up words an claim them as WP policy and do you know how easily all this stuff can be sourced, He recurrs outside the Metal Gear univerese aswell and how does the whole WP:FICT stuff apply to the lists that the articles are merged to?, short answer no-one cares. If people constantly merge perfectly satisfactory articles into pathetic lists for containing to little real-world content, all you end up with is a crappy list that breaks all the rules aswell, shorter answer lists suck take a look at this List of minor Star Wars bounty hunters all plot summary.

Also the definition of Stub is about as useless as the WP:FICT rules, open to wild interpretation (The Bread 04:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

Welcome to Wikipedia, where the policies are plastic tools for making the encyclopedia better, not rigid, inflexible rules cast in stone and handed down from above. You're right, the list is going to also be mostly plot summary, but it will discourage more plot summary and can possibly be merged up into the game articles.

You added a paragraph that could easily be condensed into the paragraph previous, so I did so. Add some sourced content or please stop opposing a merge. I've proposed a reasonable cleanup and merge track, and all you have to do to take an article off that track is add sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, where the policies are plastic tools for making the encyclopedia better, not rigid, inflexible rules cast in stone and handed down from above. You're right, the list is going to also be mostly plot summary, but it will discourage more plot summary and can possibly be merged up into the game articles. - A Man In Black 04:53, 15 August 2006

This is more helpful to me than you y'know, yes the rules aren't set in stone, that means that if alot of people have a different interpretation of WP:FICT shouldn't they all override yours?

Please stop opposing a merge A Man In Black 04:53, 15 August 2006

Let's all create mindless robots shall we, it's hard to add sourced content when you just take it away again take. As for a reasonable merge, it's not reasonable you've just decided to merge all the characters into a crapy lists that will get way too long and bad and all that will happen is everyone else will de-merge the articles and we'll get all this crap again. The only reasonble thing here was my compromise. (The Bread 05:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

WP:FICT exists to prevent redundant plot summary. I am trying to prevent redundant plot summary. Please add content that is not redundant plot summary or, after the redundant plot summary is removed, the resulting stubs will be merged to this list. I won't merge anything that has any sources outside of games or promotional material, if those sources have any useful content that could be turned into out-of-universe commentary. Are there any articles for which you are currently looking for reliable sources? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are you gonna try merge them? (The Bread 05:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

It discourages redundant plot summary and other bloat, and the lists can possibly be merged up into a relevant article. Much like the Philosophers -> MGS3 merge, when an article is all plot summary from a single work, that article should probably be merged into the article for the single work, since the article for the work will probably hit all the important points for the sub-article anyway. (And if the points aren't hit, they probably weren't that important.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

After all this, you think I care what you think, you refuse to take in anyones opinion that you disagree with, i hate merging, everything is it's own thing, not part of some stupid list, I will continue to oppose merging in all it's forms (The Bread 05:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

Well, if your only problem is that it's a merge, I can't really help you. I've cleanly laid out a plan for cleaning these up as well as an explanation for why this plan is a good idea, as clear as I can make it. Barring no argument more convincing than "I hate merging," I'm not going to put plans to clean up the redundant plot summaries (which are redundant, infringing on fair use, and violating a slew of good-sense rules people made to reduce redundant plot summaries) on hold any longer. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You really haven't been listening all this time, we have made tons of arguements against the merge of Gray Fox, you just ignore them and do whatever the hell you want. No-one wants you to do this (Save one person whom you asked to help you), doesn't that mean anything to you? (The Bread 05:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

Actually, I'd imagine that others would be willing to support his idea if he were to mention it in places like WT:WAF or WT:FICT. The thing is, not everyone is familiar with (or has the time to acclimate oneself sufficiently) this specific situation to comment. There is a growing consensus at WT:FICT that the verifiability policy of having third-party sources for articles needs to be upheld more consistently for articles on fictional subjects and that the guidelines need to make this clearer. — TKD::Talk 05:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

He is important to Metal Gear

...but not the real world

There's plenty of out-of-universe stuff that can be said about him

Then add it. Take care to cite your sources.

The article is too long.

Not when the redundant plot summary is removed.

There are other articles with lots of redundant plot summary.

They need to be fixed, too.

WP:FICT suggests giving major characters their own article

WP:FICT exists to discourage the sorts of stubs we're seeing here, which are all plot summary and zero substance. It's made to discourage the creation of repetitive, redundant plot summaries, and what I'm proposing also does that.

I hate merges

I hate mosquitos. Nevertheless, they're a fact of life.

We all want Gray Fox to have his own article.

I suggest you write one, then, instead of recapping the plots.

I've been listening. I've just been refuting them as I go along. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever man, i'm done with this anyway

(The Bread 04:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC))

Wait gonna refute one thing you said, your comment on how I hate merges, sure i do, but you love merges (See your user page), doesn't mean everything should be merged, and you still aren't listening (The Bread 04:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC))

It discourages redundant plot summary and other bloat, and the lists can possibly be merged up into a relevant article.

That's why I'm working on merging them. My feelings on merges are irrelevant; I like them as a tool, and they're the tool for this situation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)