Talk:Gate (Mega Man)

Merge

This article is only too long because it has been allowed to grow out of control. It's nothing other than plot summary of Mega Man X6, and if it's too long, then it needs to be written in summary (instead of abridgement) style. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. This is plot summary. Don't blame me if Keiji gives characters good background. Perhaps in Shin Mega Man DS he'll learn. Until then....-Randall Brackett 00:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it looks like a book report on MMX6. Is there anything you can say about Gate that isn't somehow summarizing, describing, or analyzing MMX6? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Everything is comparable to book reports on wikipedia, in my opinion. I also don't understand your question. Please elaborate. -Randall Brackett 00:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Everything you can say about this character is talking about MMX6. We don't need to articles summarizing the plot of MMX6. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And I disagree. I think an article specifying on character involvement is suitible. I noted this on my talkpage. Arrive at a concensus and then this will be a suitible argument. -Randall Brackett 00:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a good thing there's already the WP:FICT guideline backing me up, then, as well, in addition to WP:CRUFT. In particular, read the reasoning why every single Atlas Shrugged character no longer has their own article, including such characters as John Galt. There's a LOT more you can say about Galt than Gate (and don't bother comparing X6 to Atlas Shrugged), but the fact remains that there's nothing that you can say about Gate that isn't actually saying something about X6. He's a fictional character, and he has no life and no existence beyond his role as a part of that fictional work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, the prose convinces me differently. As this is a content dispute and I refute your claims of policy infringement I have notified editors of these pages for a clear concensus on the issue. I'll kindly ask you refrain from reverts until discussione ends from third parties. -Randall Brackett 00:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support the merge. None of this has strong referencing, and the germane details boil down to the fact that this is a computer game baddie. Most of the article appears to present the gameplay from the characters POV. Without references I can't even edit it to give it some shape according to WP:WAF. Hiding Talk 10:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Personality

“ Gate's character is somewhat of an enigma, because we see his true character very little. Most of the scenes that he appears in, he is using his inborn intellect and seeking vengeance for past actions that happened to him, but he is under the influence of the virus, so it is not truly him. Though Gate did vow vengeance, the scene that we see him in before he is driven insane, and the short snippet of dialogue after he seems to be recovering, would imply that he's by nature a fairly peaceful being. Angered by the unjust actions taken against him, he probably thought often of revenge, but never allowed himself to go through with such an action until the virus corrupted his mind. In the same light, he probably sometimes pictured the ideal world for Reploids, but such a fantasy would never have involved mind-control and destruction, as it did when he was insane. Gate, the true Gate, is obviously very intelligent and seemingly fairly peaceful. He regretted the destruction caused by Eurasia, and appeared almost distraught over the amount of lives lost. Later, after he was defeated, he said that he would probably regret having brought back the "evil Sigma." The word "evil" in that sentence is crucial, because his actions while he was insane were certainly evil, but he never recognized them as such. Recognizing Sigma seemed to indicate that he was starting to regain control of his mind. And Alia's promise to try to repair him seems to indicate that his mind is recovering or looks promising for recovery, since Alia probably would not repair a Reploid that was still under the viral influence. ”

This is hard core original research. It's one person's interpretation of the work, and any attempt to source it to the games would necessarily be selective quoting to push the POV that Gate's personality is such-and-such.

Wikipedia is not here to interpret fictional works for the reader. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs some weasel words removed, which is why I'm not reverting yet. -Randall Brackett 00:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Any version of a "personality" section that is sourced only to the games or to MM fanpages is going to be pure original research. It's going to be selective quoting to suit one person's interpretation of a fictional work. Doubly so in the case of a such a non-notable character. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree to differ there. That's assumptions and I don't accept that. Sources are sources. I mantain the view they are observations written in a comprehensible manner. -Randall Brackett 00:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You can't use primary sources only, because...

“ In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions. ”

This is character analysis. Sourcing that to a primary source isn't kosher. Sourcing it to a fansite isn't really kosher either, because those tend to fail the "reliable sources" standard. You really need to source this interpretation to something more substantial. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The onus is upon you to prove that website isn't a reliable source. I believe it to be - its asserted it has access to various sources of the official nature, it posesses daily updates for the company and there is obviously a concensus to retain it as external websites.

That citaton of the policy isn't assiting your argument. a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions. I'd govern it as a exception. -Randall Brackett 00:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It makes analytical and interpretive claims. That's my point. Apple pie doesn't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't. And what do you mean Apple pie doesn't..? There are many ways to interpret and analyze apple pie. -Randall Brackett 01:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Analytical or interpretive statements.

• Who said that Gate is an enigma?
• Who said it's not his true character we're seeing?
• Who said he's using his inborn intellect?
• Who said he's seeking vengeance?
• Who said that it's not truly him because he's under the influence of the virus?
• Who said he wasn't already insane?
• Who said that the dialogue after he's recovering implies that he's peaceful?
• Who said that he was angered by injustice?
• Who said he thought of revenge?
• Who said he never took revenge, or that he wouldn't have without the virus?

...and that's just four sentences in! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd attribute this to weasel wording and thus your examples very unhelpful. I think its obvious this can sourced and the purposeful intent at stupifyng the subject isn't interpretive. -Randall Brackett 01:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I could go down further. This entire section is interpretation. It's not weasel-worded; it's character interpretation; it's someone's essay on a minor fictional character in a minor game. If you make any synthetic claim that is more than bland observation (In the story, X shoots Y), you need to attribute it to someone. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite. I'm aware of your view on the subject and I utterly disagree. I won't respond furthur as to encourage fruitless discussion. I'll allow third parties to comment. I'll check in tommorow. -Randall Brackett 01:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)