Talk:Alucard (Castlevania)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Alucard (Castlevania) has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Featured topic star Alucard (Castlevania) is part of the Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 20, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
March 3, 2008 Featured topic candidate Promoted
September 11, 2008 Good topic candidate Not promoted
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Video games (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Castlevania task force.
 
WikiProject Horror (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Fictional characters (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Kid Dracula[edit]

I never understood this, but why do people even consider Kid Dracula to be a game in the series' canon, and more importantly, consider the character to be a childhood incarnation of Alucard? I doubt the original designers meant to have the game taken seriously in the first place.

This is because The Castlevania Dungeon claims it to be so. Just scroll down until you find Kid Dracula.
EliasAlucard|Talk 11:44, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Even if that's the case, just because a popular website claims (more like theorize, since it doesn't state that they're the same character), doesnt make it neccesarily true. There's alot of fanon stuff in there that aren't supported by the original Japanese titles. Jonny2x4 05:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I never implied it justified it, all I said was, if it were not for the fact that Alucard is considered to be Kid Dracula according to the Castlevania Dungeon, then he most likely wouldn't have been considered Kid Dracula in this article either.
EliasAlucard|Talk 17:03, 11 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

Name[edit]

Look, DreamGuy, I'm getting really tired and pissed off at your behaviour. This Alucard is the most common user of this name. This article should be named simply Alucard. The rest will be linked on the disambiguation page. This is according to Wikipedia's policy. Stop reverting, or I'll file another 3RR on you. No one calls Dracula "Alucard." As much as you think Alucard isn't used often, it's even less used for Dracula. And of all the fictional people called Alucard, this one is the most famous one. EliasAlucard|Talk 04:21, 09 Aug, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but Naming Conventions policy is for most common usage of all people, not just kids playing a certain video game. Alucard being an alias for Dracula and his minions is well-established in movies and clearly has precendence over a single videogame series. Just because you wrote this article doesn;t mean it's the most important. Rather it is quite trivial. And your stubborn insistence of only allowing your way on articles you contribute to is horribly bad faith agains Wikipedia standards. You just violated 3RR on Dhampir and you obviously intend to do so on every article just blind undoing whatever I did to get it back to your preferred version. You are a problem editor and you need to knock it off. DreamGuy 03:00, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
"You are a problem editor and you need to knock it off." I can say the exact same thing about you, and I know that a lot more editors will agree with me than vice versa. For the record, I didn't write this article. Sure, this name has been used before this fictional character came to existence. But the fact is, people will not associate this name with a movie from the 70s, or something else of minor prominence. And they will certainly not associate it with Dracula. Alucard in this game, is the most famous bearer of this name today. Next to him, it's Alucard from the hellsing series. EliasAlucard|Talk 05:15, 09 Aug, 2005 (UTC)
Whoever said Alucard is Dracula? That makes no sense. Several characters from several different works share the name Alucard (the most famous ones, in my opinion, are from Castlevania and Hellsing, but not all of them end up being Dracula. Saying Alucard is Dracula is a personal opinion. It makes no sense to do this. About Dreamguy, yes, he is a problem user. I've seen him pushing his ideas on people on the Succubus article. I also see his name constantly popping up on my watchlist. I guess the biggest case right now is Vampire. He only brings chaos, and only goes against other people. I advise you to stop this revert war here, or you will have problems. More than you already do, actually.--Kaonashi 04:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, no. Not all of them have to be Dracula, it's just most common that they are, or are a minion of his, hence the redirect to Dracula. And I am not a problem user, at all, and if you knew what you were talking about you'd know that. My biggest problem here is I go head to head with problem users who complain a lot and do bad things. I STOP problem users, get sockpuppets identified, track down anonymous users, and prevent people from trying to hold articles hostage to the exact version they want. I'm sorry you only glanced at what was going on and didn;t take the time to investigate it. Please do take the time to look into it further. Lots of people complain to admins, but admins routinely ignore them as having no case and then turn around and discover the people complaining were in the wrong. Much like EliasAlucard here. DreamGuy 06:01, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
I am an admin. I don't need to go check on things. I'm already seeing them.--Kaonashi 06:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but admins don't have any special powers over content here. I'm sorry you feel the way you do, but then your conclusion doesn't mean anything more than anyone else jumping in without looking at the situation fairly and accurately. If you would look at EliasAlucard's history here you'd find him doing far worse than anything I've done... ever. He's currently doing the very things you falsely claim I am doing, but for real instead of just in your mind. He also has made multiple violations of 3RR in the last 24 hours. You say you are an admin... aren;t you supposed to block peopple for that? Or do you only pull out the "I'm an admin" talk when you want to use it to ignore what someone else is saying and just declare yourself right without having to justify it? You call me a problem editor, but as you have not blocked the other guy here it's looking like you may be a problem admin (and before you try to claim that was uncivil, I am saying the exact same thing about yuo that you claim about me, so if you think it wasn't right then you shouldn;t have done it yourself). DreamGuy 12:08, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
OH, and I went back to look at the Succubus history... I remember you! You kept putting a factual dispute tag on the article when there was no factual dispute at all... And you still are mad at me over that? Have you read up on what the tags mean since then? You might want to. It might help you to admit you were wrong so you can learn to work with people who are doing things the right way instead of justifying yourself against the evidence. And, again, I mean that in only the most objective and factual civil way, you were clearly wrong there, and in order to get past personal conflicts you need to be able to admit it when you make errors instead of blaming the guy who pointed them out. DreamGuy 12:22, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Kaonashi, well spoken. I rest my case. That's all I have to say, really. But to further prove my point, I'll say some more. DreamGuy is constantly getting into revert wars and stuff with people. And over extremely lame and silly issues; if that's not a problem user, then I don't know what is. Alucard is like you said, as of now, most famous for his Castlevania character. The Hellsing character has gained quite some notability too, but to my knowledge, this character is more associated with the name. Therefore, this article should be named Alucard and nothing more. And redirecting Alucard to Dracula is completely ridiculous; it's not like Dracula needs more attention than he already has gotten. Since Wikipedia was created, until now, never has Alucard redirected to Dracula, and there's a very good reason for that: it is not supposed to! A search on Google for Alucard Dracula, and the first hit (and most hits) is Alucard from Castlevania. That proves my point completely.
EliasAlucard|Talk 12:40, 09 Aug, 2005 (UTC)
DreamGuy, what good reason do you have for me not to block you right now, instead of anyone else? You are always involved in a billion zillion disputes, always going against everyone's opinion, and always breaking the stability of several articles? Who are you to tell me how I should do my job? I said I'm an admin because you went like "Oh, admins blah blah", so I just wanted to make sure you are talking to one of them, and not at the back of them.
I don't hold a "personal grudgue" against you, like you're letting everybody know on your very friendly edit summaries. What I am saying here is just what is happening. I am a fan of Castlevania and Hellsing. As soon as I saw stuff going on this article via my watchlist, I noticed something was going on. I wasn't tracking you down, or anything you might be thinking.
Regarding the Succubus article, on that case, you brought up something that didn't make much sense, everybody disagreed with you, the page was protected, a consensus was reached, and when you noticed what happened, you ran away. Plain and simple. I guess that if I were "clearly wrong" there, I wouldn't have every other person involved in the dispute disagreeing with you, instead of me, the wrong guy. I think it's about time for you to understand you are minority, and most importantly, to understand you should be trying to be more constructive instead of trying to transform this site into your personal utopia.
About the problem itself, I'm not understanding. I think there used to be a disambiguation page mentioning several Alucards, some time ago. Where is it, or am I getting confused? Anyway, what I think that shouldn't be happening is having Alucard redirected to Dracula. That's all. There are other Alucards around, and that is sure different from Dracula. People must keep those two things in mind. I think it should be some kind of disambiguation page. I'm pretty sure I've seen that in the past, but there is nothing in the histories. I don't think anyone deleted that. It makes no sense to me.--Kaonashi 13:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
"DreamGuy, what good reason do you have for me not to block you right now, instead of anyone else?"
Well, if nothing else, the fact that I didn't do anything wrong and from that statement and your actions it's clear you are continuing your own personal grudge, and if you did just decide to block me you'd only be proving my point about you and likely have another admin overturn it while we went to some sort of mediation or something.
"You are always involved in a billion zillion disputes, always going against everyone's opinion, and always breaking the stability of several articles?"
That's your opinion, but again, if you'd bother to research the controversies I get into are clearly with people who are themselves breaking the rules and the conflict comes from me trying to bring some sanity back. For example, while you were all pissed off at me, EliasAlucard violated the 3RR three times! Someone finally did come in and block him for 24 hours, not that you lifted a finger to do anything about it. The people I have gotten into wars with are ones who simply blind revert any changes they deem to radical and who don't discuss it fairly. I do what a lot of other people are afraid to do: When someone is being ultra protective of an article, especially one that really needs some major improvements, I follow the be bold guidelines and try to fix it. Of course people who are ultraprotective of their edits are gong to be upset. Of course problem users are going to complain and try to escalate things. That doesn't mean that I'm doing something wrong, that just means I'm not afraid of doing the right thing when people are stubbornly trying to do the wrong thing. About the only thing I would say I should improve on there (as many admins have told me) is to get other editors involved in the process earlier and helping out against these people instead of doing it myself so it doesn't look so much like I'm the bad one. IF you hop around and take a look at the other conflicts I've been in and actually read them, you will see that in the end when experienced editors come in, the abusers are blocked and the sockpuppets are cleared out, I am standing quite pretty with a lot of support. It's just my nature though to go ahead and do what I can by myself without calling for help when I hink I have something well under control.
"Who are you to tell me how I should do my job?"
An editor here, who knows the rules and policies, who was watching you support someone blatantly breaking policies while you made rude comments to me. Don't try to get all superior like someone can't tell you how to do your job. You'd just once again be proving me right that you are too emotional and not htinking clearly.
"I said I'm an admin because you went like "Oh, admins blah blah", so I just wanted to make sure you are talking to one of them, and not at the back of them."
Uhhh, OK. No idea what you are referring to there.
"I don't hold a "personal grudgue" against you"
I'm sorry, it seems pretty apparent that you do. Your claims that I cause probelms instead of solving them defintiely looks o be more grudge based than reality based.
"I am a fan of Castlevania and Hellsing."
OK, fine, but what you have to realize is that the use of the term Alucard in those two references are not the sole or even primary use of the word Alucard.
"Regarding the Succubus article, on that case, you brought up something that didn't make much sense"
Again, that's your opinion, and the fact that you state it that way shows the grudge I was talking about.
"everybody disagreed with you"
Everybody who showed up on that one article... mainly because EliasAlucard used it as a rallying point to get all the people who stuffed articles about nonfiction topics with nonnotable subcruft fictional details so much that they were about to burst and so they could argue for their right to push fiction over nonfiction on the nonfiction articles. If you take a look at the other articles with a number of experienced and respected editors you'd see that those things are typically very abbreviated or moved to their own page. Certainly when it moves away from being a discussion about information and becomes a long list it should be moved to a page for the list instead of taking over the article. That was my argument. That's how things are done elsewhere. That's the right way for an encyclopedia to work. My problem was that I didn't go and bother editors everywhere else and drag them in and instead the fictioncruft kiddies took over.
"you ran away"
See, and look at your negative wording here. What about your civility... Or what about acknowledging the simply fact that I could see that some bad editors were rallied and they had managed to find an admin who would place the incorrect tag on an article simply to be contrary and not follow policy and I realized that I couldn't prevail even if I did go and gather a bunch of editors at that point. So I gave that article up. I had lots on my list.
"Plain and simple."
Well, actually, I;d call your view simplistic, biased and incorrect, so it's clearly not plain and simple at all.
"I guess that if I were "clearly wrong" there, I wouldn't have every other person involved in the dispute disagreeing with you, instead of me, the wrong guy."
And the other way to look at that is that if people like USer:EliasAlucard and others like him were the ones supporting you, you happened to luck out in having a group of very bad editors there all at once.
"I think it's about time for you to understand you are minority, and most importantly, to understand you should be trying to be more constructive instead of trying to transform this site into your personal utopia."
And I suggest you realize that being in the minority among certain editors is actually a good thing, as it shows class, and that whose in a minority or not can change quite rapidly. And, actually, I would say that I was and am being quite constructiv, giving peoplpe a clear compromise to do something to get their poorly written nonnotable sections about trivial fiction topics highlighted in an area of its own instead of mucking up main articles. OF course they couldn't agree to that either. They tried to argue that mythology is fiction. (It's not.) Or that video games that happened to come out recently but will likely be forgotten in another year or two are more important that the beliefs of topics that were around for thousands of years. (They are clearly not.)
":About the problem itself, I'm not understanding. I think there used to be a disambiguation page mentioning several Alucards, some time ago."
You're thinking of Alucard (disambiguation) It's still there. And I was linked a disambiguation section on Dracula straight to it.
"Anyway, what I think that shouldn't be happening is having Alucard redirected to Dracula. That's all."
Well, already you gave a more reasoned and civil argument for that than Elias did, he was just blind reverting and making personal attacks.
"There are other Alucards around, and that is sure different from Dracula."
Some of the Alucards are somewhat different from Dracula, others refer specifically to Dracula, but all are at least Dracula based.
"People must keep those two things in mind. I think it should be some kind of disambiguation page."
You want Alucard to go to a disambiguation page? I can agree to that. What I mainly objected to was the idea that it'd go to the Castlevania page when that is so specific and so minor out of all the various versions. I thought Dracula made the most sense because that's what some of the most classic references in horror cinema use the name for, which would be more notable than some game system. But if we agree the game system shouldn't be there then we are most likely united in disagreeing with Elias there, as he was dead set breathing mad insisting that only the game system should go there.
"I'm pretty sure I've seen that in the past, but there is nothing in the histories. I don't think anyone deleted that. It makes no sense to me."
I haven't dug back, but if Elias had the page moved the page histories would have moved with it and then he could have taken over the redirect and turned it into his video game article. I don't know. But if you want the disambig here I can redirect it to there and then go and add some of the more explicit Dracula Alucard references there when I have time. And then sometime later we can maybe file to have the disambig page moved here.
That's all cool and groovy. Wonder what Elias will have to say about it when he's unblocked 22 or so hours from now? He's always been completely unwilling to discuss things, and the only time he tries is when he thinks he has someone on his side so the "discussion" is him telling his way to do things and you either agree with him or he blind reverts everything you do. Check out his recent history on Dhampir, Talk:Vampire, the 3RR noticeboard (both under sections with my name and his name, and note that I was not blocked), and so forth. I think it'll probably be an eye opener for you. DreamGuy 13:57, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
You don't know anything about me. I suggest that you should leave this article to people who actually know something about it; it's pretty evident from your writing that you don't know anything about Alucard, and everything related to the name. About me being blocked: get over it; you've been blocked a lot more than me, so if anything, you're worse. Also, don't write 5000 words next time, because no one cares about reading it all. EliasAlucard|Talk 15:39, 12 Sept, 2005 (UTC)

Ţepeş[edit]

I had an idea about what to do regarding the Romanian characters on Alucard's name. It's actually pretty simple, and it might work well. Take a look on the article about Zangief. Since he's a Russian character in the Street Fighter series, you can see his name in cyrillics right there, between parentheses. I think we can do just the same with Alucard. That'd solve the problem.

Still on the topic of Street Fighter, we have other examples. Take Chun-Li or Ryu, for example. Those characters are Chinese and Japanese (respectively), yet you don't see Chinese and Japanese characters scattered all over their articles, replacing their names. It wouldn't even make sense, but those cases and this one are the same. Think about that. Instead, they have that kind of info inside parentheses.

I'll go ahead and fix the article. If anyone thinks that was a dumb idea, please tell us about it here. Before reverting the article again. Thanks.--Kaonashi 03:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Great idea. EliasAlucard|Talk 15:39, 12 Sept, 2005 (UTC)

Dawn of Sorrow[edit]

I edited the Dawn of Sorrow page a few days ago. As I am new to Wikipedia, I would greatly appreciate any grievances, concerns, or comments you wish to add to this. Also, could anyone post a picture of Genya Arikado from DoS (his talk image, not his sprite) and Alucard (again, the talk image, not the sprite) in Julius Mode? Thanks!

Sephiroth BCR|Talk 18:30, Dec 1 2005 (US Pacific Time)

Genya Arikado[edit]

Inhumanly attractive face? Please. Someone please fix this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.111.227.118 (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Taking his father's place?[edit]

I was just wondering about the comment that stated that, however unlikely, what Alucard says at the end of Dawn of Sorrow indicates that he would take on his father's role. Why does it suggest that? HayashiKun 9:44, 09 March, 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Alu0.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Alu0.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Alucard (Castlevania Legends).jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Alucard (Castlevania Legends).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

GAN[edit]

Some things:

  • "...but he is best known for his role in the critically acclaimed Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, where he was designed by Ayami Kojima and had a voice actor, both firsts for the series." First off, awkwardly worded. Secondly, when was this critically acclaimed title released?
  • "In the series, Alucard is the son of Dracula, the titular antagonist of the Castlevania series, but due to his human mother, Lisa, Alucard is a dhampir, a half-human, half-vampire. " - awkward too, like you're trying to cram too much into a sentence.
  • "His seiyū was Ryōtarō Okiayu, and his English voice actor was Robert Belgrade." Fictional characters don't have anything.
  • The English voice actors for Symphony of the Night, including Robert Belgrade, the voice of Alucard, were criticized, with GameSpot calling it "horribly melodramatic," and 1UP.com claimed it "isn't anything special." We don't care about the other voice actors and who the voice of Alucard was, because we're focused on Alucard and Belgrade was mentioned before.
  • The last sentence about merchandise seems tacked on and doesn't flow.

--David Fuchs (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Fixes made. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't it be useful to have an abilities section? The character is also missing several categories. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 04:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • An abilities section is only necessary when the abilities are relevant to the plot to such a degree that mentioning them becomes necessary. For instance, mentioning Superman's abilities or Batman's skills and abilities is needed because of how integral it is to the plot. In the case of video game characters, this is rarely the case, as neither are abilities that centrally important to the plot or extensive enough to warrant an entire section devoted to them. Where you are taking this from is likely shōnen anime and manga characters (i.e. Sasuke Uchiha, Ichigo Kurosaki, Son Goku), where their abilities are varied enough and important enough to the plot that a substantive section that increases reader comprehension of the article can be written. For the case of Alucard, this isn't necessary or warranted. As for the categories, feel free to add them yourself if you think any are missing. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I was thinking of Ganon's powers since the subject is video game-related. Thought such a section would be necessary in order to support the categories I plan to add, which happen to be the ability ones. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 04:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, there's nothing really to mention for Alucard since it's not relevant to the plot or understanding the character. Ganon has also been around quite a bit more than Alucard also. Most of what would compose an abilities section for Alucard would be almost entirely game guide information or original research anyways. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Exactly why I'm afraid of placing the categories, because of WP:OR. I know what you're saying but I need something to support my addition or I risk getting reverted. Are there any reliable websites that reference Alucard, including things like his powers and abilities? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 04:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not necessary for greater viewer understanding of the topic, per what I've stated above. Due to the problems outlined in making such a section as well, there's no reason to. If reliable sites made major note of his abilities, then a section would exist on it. It's unimportant. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW, are there categories at Dracula or Hellsing`s Alucard that apply for this character? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 15:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Video game bosses I suppose. Note that you don't need my approval for what you want to do. Feel free to be bold and make your edits, and I'll bring up discussion if I disagree with them. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
One last thing before I add the categories: would there happen to be any incidental features of Alucard I should know of so I don't overcategorize? I don't really know the games enough so I could be wrong on somethings. Reply? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 17:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, be bold and make your edits. I'll make corrections if I think something is wrong or otherwise inappropriate. If we sat around discussing everything before doing anything, then nothing would get done. Fire away. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
My concerns have been addressed, and I am passing. David Fuchs (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)