Template talk:Soul series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by the Soul series task force.
 

Past Subject[edit]

Ok, that's it! This is being ridiculous!

First was adding Assassin and Berseker as main characters, which I deleted, and then someone returned them. So, in order to make an arragement, I putted them in "Other Characters", althought I'm still unsure about leaving them or not since those profile are almost empty, specially Assassin's, and they have alredy some information in "Minor Character" section.

Not to mention the adding of a non-existing link to a movie of Soul Calibur of which there is still no hint at all, which I had to delete twice, and shall not allow it unless there IS a page about the movie with proper information.

Futhersome, a list of Bonus Characters had been added, which I think is good, as long as the one who made it is planing to make pages about them, cuz if not, that list shall be deleted and left to the "Chronicles of the Sword Characters" Characters section.

Now, this list about the Bonus' Characters Weapons is something I'm not allowing, since this is not the section to add it. If someone wants to give information about them, it will have to be directly related to the characters.

That's all I'm saying, and I expect this Template to stay as it must. (Alexlayer 14:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC))


Present Subject: Exaggerated[edit]

Ok, this is turning into a serious trouble. First it was the thing with Assasin and Berserker, which turned into nothing more than a ridiculous fanfiction idea of sort. Right now the articles are established correctly, but as nothing more than stub.

But now there is a list of the non-combatant characters in the Template, which, even if them are well done, it's the same as with Assasin, Berserker or the recently added Lizardmen: They can't be more than stubs.

To make these articles individually seems absurd, since there is an article about all the minor characters in which there it is said all that there is to say about those characters.

For that, I propose that the articles of Assassin, Berserker and Lizardmen, along with all the Non-Combatant list, shall be deleted, and unless someone gives me a good reason for not doing so in the next days, I shall delete them for good. (Alexlayer 06:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC))

I agree that they should be deleted, but we should wait until the articles themselves get deleted first. DynamoDT
Very well, that's fine for me, the end of the month shall be the ultimatum. (Alexlayer 15:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC))
I think you should probably say which pages you want deleted in the discussion section of those articles. I don't think the article creator is getting the message across.DynamoDT
You're right. Well, the ones I think that should be deleted are: Assassin, Berserker, Lizardman (Generic), Rothion, Xianglian, Vercci, Kunpaetku, Bangoo, Gel-o-Fury, Toki, Ares, Chie, The King, Kyam, Philip de Leon, Meimei, Kong, Hephaestus and Frederick. Since all that there is to say about these characters it's alredy said in the Minor Characters Article.
If someone has any objection with the deletion of one or more of these, please talk as soon as possible (Alexlayer 16:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC))

No objection, and the stubs weren't upgraded. I'm cleaning up this Template. If someone is going to add something to it, make sure that it won't be about a stub. (Alexlayer 16:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC))

New format for characters in a series.[edit]

A better format is to list all characters as per introduced in each installment. It is more comprehensive and gives a clear picture about who are the veterans and who are newer characters. Not all characters need to be given as links. Its better than some randomly chosen characters in the list. This format can be carried over to other series like dead or alive tekken etc. For someone who has never played the series before it gives a good chance to get familiar. 65.218.181.189 (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That's generally why the character list is either the first or last link in those regards. Listing every character would become a veritable nightmare in some cases (i.e. King of Fighters, Street Fighter), and with Soulcalibur alone it'd be pretty bad. The template's purpose is strictly as a directory, not to inform the reader "this is who's here". Heck, imagine the Pokemon template with that in mind!
As for ages...that one'd been discussed to death and ends up so relative to the particular material it's screwy. Such details tend to be so heavily malleable and relative to their particular game that they're moot. Case in point: King of Fighters games, where some characters age (Takuma) and others seem stuck repeating high school indefinitely (Athena). Even in articles in tends to be better to not use them because it doesn't describe anything. The only factors that ended up making their way out of the previous discussions on the matter were height and three-sizes, since they readily factored into the character's appearance in regards to other characters.
It'd be much better if we took the articles we had and actively pushed to improve them, and make new articles for any of the characters that get enough reception for notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I see your point, let me look at the pokemon, and street figheter. I feel somewhat confident that any series has some common thread which becomes more interesting the more clear it becomes, for which a shortlist like this is very handy.. look at the james bond list, it makes someone who has just been introduced to the series very clear about many details.
For age I agree its a sticky point, but for games like soul calibur they have been pretty consistent with the ages, and the age in the first introduction game has been their primary age to be considered, for example for fans of soul edge, sophitia would always be 18. No matter if they make her secondary character in SCIII or SCIV or make her 42 year old in SC5. And which age group they belong to gives a lot of insight about which age group they are targeted towards and how their personality is assumed to be. I agree it is not important enough to be displayed in the template but for a novice user just seeing the names it gives a good idea about game as a whole.
I havent played many of the other similar game series like dead or alive, virtua fighter, tekken, street figher, mortal combat etc. but when I would start playing it would be because of my interest in the characters and knowledge of how many different characters are there.
I know wikipedia has some strict policies about what they want to show where, but I guess its primary purpose is more knowledge and not lack of it. For me this template also serves as a shortcut to important information. Think of someone trying to get familiar with TV show friends but for some reason the only characters articals available are Monika, Gunther and Mike and are the only ones listed. How informed you would be after seeing that list? Would you not rather see the names of all 6 listed even if 5 of them are not links.

66.193.79.189 (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


The new format you proposed...I'm not having as much a problem with, though with so many sections having only one character that can get problematic fast. The logic is sound, but at most SC3, 4 and 5 can only have a small fistful of articles maximum, no?


I agree that SC4 had only 3 new characters related to the main story, but SC3 had 8 and SC5 is expected to have at least 7 so there is room to grow for the articles and people would fill them if they see the space, however if they see confusing format they will be discouraged. 66.193.79.189 (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, take a look at "street figheter", "tekken", "dead or alive" (yes, only 3 characters have articles) or "mortal combat etc.". (And welcome to Wikipedia.) --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing. Actually... NONE of Virtua Fighter characters have an article on Wikipedia. Guess why? --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That way Necrid, Hilde and Tira who are barely notable have articals here and Mitsurugi, Seigfried and Kilik dont. It depends on the person who created the documents and does not mean that the documents that are not present are not notable characters. 65.218.181.189 (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Assume good faith. What constitutes the character being notable in their own series vs. being notable on Wikipedia are two different things. Wikipedia doesn't care about their weight in the games.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree having article on wikipedia and importance in the game are separate things. However if something can help clear that (without saying anything about the importance), I would expect a smart system to look into it, and change the format if required even if it is 1000 years old. 65.218.181.189 (talk) 07:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And no, you won't change this template, which is a STANDARD template as used not only for ALL video game series (and no, not just the fighting games) but also ALL SERIES OF ANY KIND (films, books, you name, anything), for several YEARS, and for a good reasons: it's small and not absolutely-needlessly bloated, it's clear and obvious (just a simple alphabetical order), it's not CONFUSING (if I didn't know better, I'd thought it lists the characters exclusive in each game or something, because NOTHING indicates it shows their introductions). So again, no. And I mean NO.

And Kung Fu Man: I'm disappoint, I thought your job here is watching for annoying clueless newbies and shooting down their various stupid ideas, and not enabling them instead! Get your shit together, it's like losing you edit war with the guy pushing-back Edward Carnby made you weak or something. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because something has been there for several years does not mean it can not be improved on for the sake of clarity. How is the older format clearer than this one? BTW I am not a newbie, however you do sound like one. You need to cool down a bit and using caps lock doesn't enhance your point. 66.193.79.189 (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  1. Go and see any other series navigational template template listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Video_games_navigational_boxes_by_series - yes, the ~600 of them.
  2. If there's still not enough for you, see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Navigational_boxes for the other games, films, novels, as well as the subjects of history, biology, architecture, geography, etc, etc. (many thousands of them, and guess what: all in the same style).
  3. Meditate about why are they all called "navigational boxes" (and not infoboxes).
  4. Lol, me as a newbie. Dude, I did more edits in the last 1 DAY than you did in the last 5 YEARS! --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and Kung-Fu Man: there's nothing to "discuss" here, STOP ENABLING HIM. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Take it down a peg, acting like a jerk with him is not going to do any good.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
To 194.145.185.229 (nice name btw for an experienced user) I guess you got what you wanted so you are not going to discuss it anymore. But explain to me why star wars box lists prequel trilogy in separate row from sequel, Template:George Lucas lists movies in the decades? They could have just laid things out in alphabetical order, you go figure out which is what. I guess such help from wikipedia is not going to take it any further than it has got. To Kung Fu man.. it seems you do get bullied by CAPS locks and emotional tactics used by people. I was trying to help new users of the game but by adding in some clarity but it seems there is too much nay saying, power struggle and blind faith in legacy to leave any room for improvements. 65.218.181.189 (talk) 07:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • sighs* No, I simply disagree myself and gave it a few days to mull it over. Again, I can see where you're coming from, but I am still inclined to go with the older method. That and you two going back and forth without any other input is going to lead to an edit war and no resolution when an admin steps in. My opinion is still that this structure works better in the long run. Case in point: what if no characters from V are notable? Someone looking at that structure may assume that there were no characters added to that title, despite the fact several were.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Since the box just shows which character articles are available they would know that no articles were added for them. (Also if a row is empty it is not shown). I just dont like mixture. Old format is close to no format. new format also does not show importance it just shows who has been here longer and lets people think if they are important or not. If a film director has been making movies for 50 years, it gives a better idea if his films are arranged in some order (like decades) since the style of his movies would be very different 45 years back and now. 65.218.181.189 (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"To 65.218.181.189 (nice name btw for an experienced user)": The template about George Lucas covers dozens of films by one of the most famous and influential directors/writers/producers in the world/history, known to hundreds of millions (billions?) of people, and spanning a period of several decades. Instead of just a total of 13 articles about some very fringe stuff important to a bunch of fighting vidya nerds (I did help to write some of these articles myself, but I'm realistic about it). Also, this template is very obvious, instead of being confusing/misleading (if I didn't know better, I'd think that your stupid list is about the characters that are exclusively in these games, instead of being introduced in them, because nothing at all indicated this). And now please go away, probably back to Wikia or wherever you came from. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

And if you want an actual comparison to the works of George Lucas, rather check Template:Star Wars characters. Becuase something that coukld be compared to Lucas' would be rather Template:Namco Bandai. And this is the end of this really, really stupid discussion. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that there should be a separate template just for the characters of Soul Calibur? btw its apparant why you are not administrator of any page. You dont have patience for any discussions. Look at the way Kung Fu man has carried himself throughout the discussion while you have acted nothing more than a temper throwing teenager. 65.218.181.189 (talk) 07:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Heihachi[edit]

Removed Heihachi. Kung Fu Man cited the fact that some official media has said he was "present" in the events of the second Soulcalibur. But the fact is, he's only been playable in one game as a guest character. Using similar logic, we could probably include Spawn and Link and that dude from those Star Wars games, since technically they were given storyline explanations for their presence in the games well. It can be argued that they're not in any official timeline because of rights issues. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually my point was he's included on the US website unlike Link, Spawn, Vader or Yoda. With that said, Ezio and Lloyd are also there so there is a counter-argument.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I see. I think there's enough ambiguity to leave Heihachi and the others off the list. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)