User talk:Overmage/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Overmage. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Fate stay/night edits

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Heya,

Thanks for updating the List of Fate/stay night characters page. I'd like to see it where each major character's role in the different scenarios (consider the anime and the manga separate scenarios) is made clear. That should clear some of the confusion. Also, is there a proper way to cite the video game? AngusWOOF (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I left a message on your page to avoid an edit war, everyone hates that :p

Generally, the anime is almost entirely the same as the first route of the game, Fate, with a few exceptions (mostly anything to do with Sakura or Caster in the anime is original). Otherwise, the anime is essentially identical to Fate. The manga is almost entirely the same as the second route of the game, Unlimited Blade Works (also with an anime movie), with no notable differences.

The third route, Heaven's Feel is present in the original game only.

Roles generally differ, but character attributes do not, meaning that if a character is a false Master in one, he will be a false Master in all three routes.

Overmage (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. I suggested calling it the "anime storyline" instead of "sideplot" since that Sakura subplot is part of the main action in the anime. AngusWOOF (talk) 06:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Overmage (talk) 06:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the scenarios page has been deleted so the front page will need content. AngusWOOF (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

On it. Thanks for the heads up! Overmage (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

talk page read status

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi - I do check my talk page (whatever happened to the "good faith" assumption?), but am clearly less skilled in the code of Wikipedia than you yourself are, so wasn't aware that I needed to somehow flag your edits as "read" so that you would be aware that I had read them. Can you please let me know how to mark your edits to my talk page as "read" so that you can be kept up to date on my current status and reading? If instead there is simply a cultural expectation amongst Wikipedia editors that one respond to talkpage comments in order for people generally to believe them to be read, then that is fine, too, but it does seem a leap of expediency to assume I had not read your comments as a rationale for escalating your reversion activities against my good faith efforts.

Also, can you please help me understand the citation process for applying new and controversial genre labels to all games that share a family tree? I have read the debate page that you have linked to, and it though consensus may have been reached on that particular page (with quite a bit of bloodshed, clearly), I'm curious to understand how a tenuous consensus is then applied outwardly? Is it your position that the term ARTS should be inserted before every mention of every game in the genre? It should be sufficient that the page located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Legends contains the term in the appropriate section (under "genre"). What are your grounds for inserting the term into the body of the Riot Games company page entry? I'm not nearly as experienced at Wikipedia as you, but this is not a standard format. Looking, for example, at the entry for Nintendo, many (in fact most) of the games mentioned on that page are not prefaced by their genre. Are you certain that your edit is appropriate here, and if so, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladcole (talk • contribs) 05:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

actually, it was because you did not make a reply on my posts on the talk page, but instead reverted. I was expecting you to at least reply on your talk page to indicate you were aware of my postings and discuss it there first before simply reverting. As you immediately made reversions and had made no replies to my posts on your talk page, it was not a bad faith assumption to assume you simply had not checked your talk page - if I were assuming bad faith I would have said you were deliberately ignoring my messages, so I assumed good faith that you simply did not check before reversion. There isn't a "cultural expectation" to respond to believe them to be read, it was your reversions without comment on the talkpage. Generally, it's considered polite to first try to discuss on talk pages before reverting, if you disagree with the initially stated edit reason. And, well, because I had actually asked to discuss on your talk page, but you did not do so.

The issue here is not truly about inserting ARTS everywhere here. The real issue is that your removal of the term, and your reasons for doing so, are rather clear violations of Conflict of Interest. You said that the term is used by Valve. Unfortunately it appears that your reversions may involve areas which have the interests of Riot Games, rather than the interests of Wikipedia, at heart. Please read the WP:COI article, it is rather important. Your deletion of the term (and in fact, the original addition of MOBA), and the reasons stated for doing so (usage by a rival corporation), represented clear COI which is inappropriate in and of itself.

One last thing: I didn't insert this term. It was always there, and had been there for over a year in fact. It was actually a reversion, not an addition.

Also, see Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI_compliance θvξrmagξ^contribs 05:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Overmage -- I am aware of these guidelines. I have made a very deliberate effort to keep my identity transparent and easily verifiable by anybody who wishes to verify it. It seems you may have a stake in these edits that has resulted in your overstepping. You reverted an edit without substantive comment. In reinserting the term ARTS, you wrote only this in response: "You don't check your talk page or respond to anything other than my reverts, so this is the only way to get you to notice. Sorry." Is it acceptable to revert changes to "get people to take notice"? How does that improve the editorial quality of pages? In this case, your edit had the effect of inserting a term that doesn't need to be on that page. The edit also seems to be contrary to the standard format for referring to and writing about games on Wikipedia.

Regarding the guidelines: (1) I have been transparent in my disclosures (2) I could have linked to WP:SCOIC ... mea culpa for not linking to it (3) I did make the error, noted above, of not describing one edit (4) My proposed change -- that you undo your edit that reinserted ARTS into the entry -- is based on a review of many game, game publisher, and game developer Wiki pages -- this is a non-standard format and not necessary or desirable to the clarity of the entry that is in question

Regarding your statement about not inserting the term -- your edit had the effect of inserting the term and appearing to favor that term as a prefix to the mention of League of Legends. I would like to understand your position on the term. Do you require that it be listed in front of "League of Legends"?

The age of that term's inclusion isn't the point here -- the entire entry has been in fairly bad shape for the entire duration of the year. A review of the rest of my edits will make it clear that I have greatly (and neutrally) improved the quality of the entry overall.

I think that if you believe the term doesn't need to be listed on that page, you should be willing to revert to the edit in which NO term appears as a prefix to the game name. Vladcole (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I was not lying. I honestly made that reversion just to get you to talk because you were not responding to requests for discussion on the talk page. When I made a link to Action RTS, you reverted my edit without prior discussion (when I had made a few posts on your talk page to get the ball rolling), and when I made a dummy edit asking you to discuss on your talk page and made a further post there, you still did not reply. In despair (I kid you not), I made yet another reversion for the sole purpose of getting you to sit up, take notice and finally start discussing this. If you choose not to believe me, it's up to you, but bear in mind that I only did this after you had repeatedly failed to utilize the talk page or discussion - or even, the talk page of Riot Games itself before reverting my edit.

Despite your personal reasons - that you made that changed based on a review of many game sites/etc, it is not standard wikipedia policy. Your initial edit did not, in fact, remove Action RTS, but changed it to MOBA - clearly preserving the name of the genre. Therefore I question that the purpose of your edit was to maintain a 'standard format'. Also, see Blizzard Entertainment: "Blizzard launched their online gaming service Battle.net in January 1997 with the release of their action-RPG Diablo. In 2002, Blizzard was able to reacquire rights for three of its earlier Silicon & Synapse titles from Interplay Entertainment and re-release them under Game Boy Advance.[10] In 2004, Blizzard opened European offices in the Paris suburb ofVélizy, Yvelines, France, responsible for the European in-game support of World of Warcraft. On November 23, 2004, Blizzard released World of Warcraft, its MMORPG offering." There is precedent for stating the genre. Thus, you can't say for sure that stating the genre is 'non-standard' - leaving the term itself as being 'non-standard'.

If you truly feel that Action RTS is non-standard, make a new discussion on Talk:Action RTS, get people to agree with you, establish new consensus, and then we can rename it whatever you like. But until then, you shouldn't make changes without consensus, especially since your initial edit is still, to me, possibly violating COI (by calling it MOBA).

Who am I? I am just a random wikipedian, and I actually prefer the term MOBA, myself. However, I'm not wanting it enough to make a new discussion to create new consensus. If you want to, nobody's stopping you, I guess.

" Regarding your statement about not inserting the term -- your edit had the effect of inserting the term and appearing to favor that term as a prefix to the mention of League of Legends. I would like to understand your position on the term. Do you require that it be listed in front of "League of Legends"? " I do not require it, I simply question why it must be removed, as I question the neutrality of the circumstances (reference to rival corporation, MOBA, etc). Unless I can see a definitive reason for why it should be removed, the specific circumstances behind this edit point to me a conflict of interest (not wanting a rival corporation's term to be up there) reason for removal. I believe that your suggested compromise (removing the term altogether) still serves the purpose (of removing a rival corporation's title, as per your original edit reason) and is thus not in line with wikipedia editing policy. The consensus is stated as establishing proof and thus shifting the burden of proof to you, the editor, to explain why it should be removed (beyond just stating your belief that it is non-standard). Ideally, the easiest way to do it would be to start new consensus on the Action RTS page and get it to be renamed (or not, it might or might not work. I will not take part if you start one). Regrettably your original change and reason for it means I cannot agree with the stated rationale that the reason for removing the prefix is to make it 'cleaner' or more 'in-line' particularly when 1) there is no established format regarding that issue; 2)the Blizzard page also states the genre.

θvξrmagξ^contribs 05:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Gurren Lagann

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'll accept the translation as "Gunmen", though I wouldn't list Anime News Network as the best place to cite character name spellings, especially when they are things that normal users can add, considering a number of the name spellings are different from how they're spelled in Bandai's dub credits, which match the ones here (though apparently Aretenborough's name is the only one that other people noticed).

In the meantime, someone had better take a look at these articles (List of Gurren Lagann characters, List of Gurren Lagann mecha). I'm personally working on a revamp of at least the former article, this time to include actual episode citations, and make it less of what I personally believe to currently be, if I may say so, a dumping ground for trivial thoughts and details. Things need to be trimmed and written in a more out-of-fictional-universe stance (not to mention detailing whatever events need to be detailed in the present tense to denote fiction's state of perpetual "now-ness"); the size of the picture alone makes me feel that page is longer than it needs to be. We also really need sections detailing the characters' conception and reception, and perhaps get some sources on the names of the characters, mechas, and places that, according to the Japanese version of the article, all seem to have names that are derived from certain words (primarily the names of "Gurren" and "Lagann"); however, the Japanese version doesn't list sources for that, so it seems that would be a problem. The same goes for the mecha article, though I'm less confident in my ability to see if it can be made into at least "Good article" material.

I've also been thinking that if characters pilot a specific Gunmen, we could provide some manner of detail on that Gunmen in each character section. That may detract from the mecha article, but it would give a little more meat to certain minor characters who have barely anything else to write about.

Let's just say that right now, I'm in a Gurren Lagann mood, and I'm thinking it's high time to give it more decent articles. User:Immblueversion (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem. With another editor's help, the ANN reference has been removed, leaving the other two, more reliable ones. :x I agree the articles as they are really leave a lot of room for improvement ("Despite Simon describing it as making her nearly impossible to understand, he also notes she always spoke warmly and kindly." etc). There's so much text in there now, so we'll probably have our work cut out for us. I suspect we'll need to check the Japanese websites for sources for the name derivations; English websites will probably be of zero help.

At the moment, my view is that the primary problem of length is due to every single character, minor or major, having an entry which reads thus: multiple links to Personal Gunmen, then a description. This bloats the article length, given the sheer number of minor characters. The first thing to do would be to take the 'lesser' characters (e.g. Kidd) and remove the glut of links changing them to in-line text notes; given they all look the same and link to the same article (list of mecha) anyway. What do you think? θvξrmagξ^contribs 05:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same thing; in fact, I'm in the early stages of working on the character page, and I'm seeing if I can't tackle improving the mecha list article either. You can see my progress on my sandbox (I've lumped the two articles together for now). I think we should take advantage of using a "Notes" section for the character, location, and mecha name meanings. We should draw references from episodes, too.

One thing I think may help in drawing the articles out of an in-universe perspective is to name the four story arcs of the series as Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4, like how the Japanese articles do. It'd kind of be like the Naruto articles (plus the List of Naruto characters article is a featured list). User:Immblueversion (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Hello, Overmage. You have new messages at NeilN's talk page.
Message added 02:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Replied. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)