Jump to content

User talk:A Man In Black

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jynx (talk | contribs) at 13:40, 1 December 2005 (→‎More Metal Gear cleanup.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello there. If you're going to leave me a comment (or yell at me, which is seeming increasingly common lately), please start a new header (or add to an old one), and sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of them.

If you're coming here to reply to a comment I made on your talk page, STOP, go back to your talk page, and reply there. If I made a comment on your talk page and expect a reply, your talk page is on my watchlist. I'd rather not follow conversations in 79 million different places if I can at all avoid it.

Archives:

File:Nixon.jpg
A picture of Dick on my talk page

Great Wheel

I see you've got plans for a Great Wheel article. Interested in collaborating with someone who has almost every planescape sourcebook ever published? --||bass 03:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure; I added that to my to-do list a looong time ago. Plus, you've got at least three different, conflicting but somewhat-similar versions of the cosmology (Gygax's/1e, Planescape, and 3e/MOTP/PlHB).
I'm not sure how an article like that would necessarily be structured, or that it would be encyclopedic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good if for no other reason than to have a place to merge all the current D&D cosmology articles (currently numbering close to 20). --||bass 05:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Aieeee. Well, any ideas for a structure, then? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I knew you'd appreciate the benefits of a good article merge. We can start by laying out an overall structure of the great wheel cosmology and an explination of the 3 variant forms. Then we can proceed by giving brief descriptions of the various prime worlds. Next we can move on to give explinations for the various inner planes and merge the existing articles about the inner planes. Then do the same with the outer planes + sigil, merging the various articles relating to the outer planes (there are at least 10 articles to merge that i know of). Finally, we can end with a list of the various books published by TSR and Wizards that document the D&D Great Wheel cosmology. --||bass 05:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you're a lot more on the ball with this than I am. @.@ So we're explaining the shared features, then describing the differences among the different settings, then launching into a list of each major plane/demiplane? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's basically the idea. If you want to see an example of the mergers I'm talking about, just look at the fact that Pandemonium has its own individual article as well as 10 other outer planes. --||bass 05:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I understand exactly what you're planning to do. Take a look at User:A Man In Black/Cruft; I spend a lot of time merging articles that are cruft on their own into lists or other whole articles, to lend enough context to actually understand what's being described.
So, do you want to make the skeleton for the merges, or shall I? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Up to you. I won't have time to put the skeleton page together until Friday. If you get it done before then, we can get to work on the merger. --||bass 17:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'M Article

I think the vast majority seem to be in favor of merger for the 'M article. You said to drop you a line so... here I am. As an added request though. When you do the merger (perhaps merging all three into a single glitch article) could you remove that rediculous image from the 'M article? I think we can all survive by calling it 'M. --||bass 16:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of it tonight or tomorrow. I've been meaning to merge those for a while now as it is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fuchsia City challenge

Drop me a note when you're done rewriting this. I saw the version you just posted, and it had me pondering what's appropriate for a list or not. (I'm not quite convinced that this isn't better suited to a list, but I wanted to let you finish rewriting.) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contrast the article as written with User:A Man In Black/Poketasks/Merge/List of places in Kanto. I'm ambivalent; I really feel the context is an aid to understanding and that places in Pokémon are way down the list of notable subjects, but this list would have 12-15 items on it, all about that length or so. (Note that some of them would be breakout See Alsos, similar to List of Pokémon items#Poké Ball.)

Your thoughts? Any worries about lost info here? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 01:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not specifically about information lost but anvigation is made lots more difficult. Fuchsia City is significantly longer than Professor Frink. 6-8 times the length of that?!? That will be huge. Almost as long as the Simpsons minor characters article. And that needs to be split up considerably. I think that they chould stay separate. --Celestianpower hab 09:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* Someone went and spun off the Professor Frink listing from the big Simpsons character list, and it has all the problems I see with fancruft. It's a collection of useless, contextless factoids. The events of one episode (the hamburger earmuffs), his lab phone number, a one-off joke about how computers have improved in the last several decades; after the first two paragraphs, there's little that gives you any understanding or context, but instead random fannish factoids.
There's a point where minutae starts to obscure the meaning, and when you're talking about, say, a less-important one-off setting in a long-running series, there's a point where more data starts to turn into less meaning. Fancruft isn't just articles about things that don't bear encyclopedic mention; it's also data that doesn't contribute to understanding.
This is partially why I was disappointed (and also somewhat bemused) by the outcome of the Poképrosal; instead of coming to some sort of conclusion about why all the Pokémon articles should be kept, they were simply kept by default when everyone interested in establishing consensus went and actually worked on them for a bit. (Would that that would happen more often on Wikipedia.) The only downside is that a fairly silly standard (all Pokémon are notable) for notability was established by default, in the face of some fairly strong opposition to that idea.
While the notability of this or that Pokémon is water under the bridge (and, with the benefit of hindsight, the Pokémon species are better off as individual articles because there's really no better way to have them on Wikipedia other than cutting them down to extremely terse lists), it's not a standard that's reasonable when talking about every single person, place, and thing in the Pokémon world. It's one thing to have said "We're keeping (say) Beldum as a standalone article because it serves such-and-such purpose, despite the fact that it meets no standard of notability whatsoever" but it's another thing entirely to say "Beldum and all Pokémon-related persons, places, or things of equal or greater notability merit their own articles."
Fuchsia City, for example, is mentioned in passing in Pokémon Adventures, appears in one episode of the Pokémon anime, and isn't very important except as just another town in the games it appears in. It fails the Professor Frink standard of notability miserably, especially since the city itself is generic personalityless background in the anime/manga and has little claim to fame in the games other than its proximity to a more interesting place (the Safari Zone). Even if you can write an article's worth of things about it (and a significant amount of that article is episode synopses, I notice), it just doesn't bear its own article.

Okay, done arguing about notability. Without the Safari Zone stuff (which belongs in a Safari Zone article or listing) and the two-paragraph episode synopsis of ep 32, this article boils down to:

Fuchsia City (Japanese: セキチクシティ Sekichiku City) is a fictional city located in southeast Kanto, a region in the Pokémon world, and its motto is "Behold! It's Passion Pink!". The town is mainly notable for its proximity to the Safari Zone. Residents of Fuchsia City include Safari Zone owner Warden Slowpoke, the grandfather of Bill (the inventor of the Pokémon PC), and the local Gym Leaders Koga and Janine.

Koga is the Fuchsia City Gym Leader in Pokémon Red, Blue, Yellow, Fire Red, and Leaf Green, as well as in the Pokémon anime and in Pokémon Adventures. He is replaced by his daughter, Janine, in Pokémon Gold, Silver, and Crystal. Whichever of the two is in charge of the Gym, the Gym's interior is a confusing maze of invisible walls, supplemented with mirrors and pit traps in the anime.

In the video games, Fuchsia City is also noted as the only place to catch Gyarados in the wild, and as the first place in which the player can purchase Ultra Balls, the best Poké Balls that can be bought in the games. In Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen, it is also home of the Move Deleter, who has the ability to make Pokémon unlearn any move, including HMs.

Other than the description of the Safari Zone (which is valuable information and would go into a proper description of the Safari Zone elsewhere) and the synopsis of exactly what happens in ep 32, is any significant information lost in this rewrite into list-appropriate form? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There would be a lot of entries (10ish?) in this list and, including the anime info which is important, would make for a very large page. I do agree with the principle of a merge but not the practicalities of it. Can we find a better way to merge them? If not, the separate articles would be the best sollution in my opinion. --Celestianpower hablamé 10:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CruftWatch!

Amazon Trio potentially should be merged to Sailor Moon, as it claims that the three characters are a subset of another group. I lack the knowledge to make an informed judgment, though (for which I offer silent thanks, although as a railway modeller I arguably have no excuse for same) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Un)fortunately, my Sailor-Moon-fu is also weak, and I can't find a Wikiproject to refer this to. Looks like there's a lot of more-or-less unmaintained SM cruft on Wikipedia.
Hahaha, it looks like a friend of mine from off of WP was the one who merged this article, though. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of possible merge candidates:

Twilight Princess is a large-budget game coming out at the beginning of next year. No merge target and clear expansion potential = no merge.

As for the Monsters list, I don't know where I'd merge it and it's a nice list on its own, but I'll keep an eye on it as a merge target if anyone makes a stub on a Lyoko monster. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 06:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Mario & Luigi the Super Mario Brothers? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, but it's also the name of two games starring Mario and Luigi. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See? I told you my ignorance of computer games was encyclopaedic :-) Seriously, I am well-known around my circle of friends for not playing games despite having an improbable number of computers in my house. My kids play, I don't. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, don't worry about it too badly; one of those two games hasn't been released yet. I'd merge those two, but there's no point; they'd end up split again in a few months, when the second game is released in the US. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does FreeWorlds qualify? It looks like gamecruft to me, but I'd burn all mods that sell less than a million. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC) Oh no! How about Opening credits history of Smallville? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More Metal Gear cleanup.

Hey! It's me again! Good job of cleaning up some of the Metal Gear articles. While not perfect (good thing you have a factual checker like me), it helps condense some of the crap that Wikinoobs keeps adding. With that in mind, I have the following proposals in mind:

First of all, I think we should merge The Philosophers, The Patriots and Philosopher's Legacy into one article. At the very least, I don't think Philosopher's Legacy really belongs into a seperate article, since it's basically it's just extending info covered there. Jonny2x4 03:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think they should just be merged into their respective games. You can't really understand what's going on with the conspiracies without a full plot summary of MGS2 and MGS3, so let's put them with the full plot summaries of MGS2 and 3. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There's enough backstory material about the Patriots/Philosophers to justify its own article. I just think it should merge into article, rather than three as it is now. And since we're talking about merging, we could merge the S3 Plan too if it hasn't already been already. Jonny2x4 01:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, one article about the Philosphers, the Patriots, and their various machinations, at most. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, I think we should make a List of locations in the Metal Gear series and merge Outer Heaven, Zanzibar Land Shadow Moses Island, the Big Shell, Tselinoyarsk and Groznyj Grad into it. I'm not too sure of merging Zanzibar Land and Outer Heaven, since these are actual sovereign entities in the game and not just mere locations. Jonny2x4 03:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of those should probably be merged into the games, too. There's not much to say about those locations save for the events of the games set there.
Outer Heaven should probably be merged into Big Boss or Metal Gear (series), because of its iconic role. Not worth an article, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on both counts. Some of the locations have an established backstory and history besides the events that transpired during the games. At the very least, we could describe the unique characteristics of each place without bloating down each of the game's articles. Jonny2x4 01:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, that backstory is the same as the backstory of the game they appear in. I think possible Outer Heaven is too much to merge, but there's not much to say about, say, Shadow Moses, the Big Shell, Zanzibar Land, or Tselwhatever besides the events of the respective games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, I think the Genome Soldiers (as well as the Gurlukovich Mercenaries for that matter) are a distinct enough presence from Big Boss to warrant a notice. I think we should do a List of enemy units in the Metal Gear series and have the Tengu Commandos, Solidus Snake's Private Army, KGB, GRU and Ocelot Unit. Jonny2x4 03:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They're cannon fodder, with only a "Well, they came from foo, work for bar, and protect foobar" to say about them. I really think they belong in the respective game articles. The only reason I merged the Genome Soldiers into Big Boss is because that info belongs in a general section in the Big Boss article about his genetic legacy.
Maybe so, but the Genome Soldiers article contained info about the backstory, as well as a description of each type of Genome Soldier encountered in the game, which you decided to ommit when you merged the article with Big Boss and I think it should be restored in some form or another. Likewise for all the zako characters. Even if they don't have an established backstory, a list could still be justified. Jonny2x4 01:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference among the types of Genome Soldiers is the color of their uniforms. I deleted if for the same reason I've deleted the exact age, height, and weight of the characters: it's trivia, serving little purpose.
There's even less to say about the other units. I even AFDed the Gurlukovich Mercenaries articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know what you think. Jonny2x4 03:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I'd rather see info in the game articles themselves, unless it's something that can't reasonably be handled in one game article (the Metal Gears, for example) or including it in the game articles would bloat those articles too much (the lists of characters). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
True. Although, I think a lot of the stuff I propose deserve their own articles and could prevent the game articles from bloating in the future (as well as discourage new users from making their own articles). Please consider it seriously though. Not that I need your permission, but your assistance would still be appreciated. Jonny2x4 01:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, I appreciate you seeking my input.
Honestly, I don't think there's a lot of value in documenting the obscure backstory facts and every place and organization separately. In rewriting the Metal Gear articles and the character articles, I think I've deleted about a half-dozen plot summaries of each Metal Gear game, and any separate article tends to attract that sort of useless bloat.
That said, I'm not sure how to handle groups like the Philosophers/Patriots. Their backstories are told as grand reveals at the end of the game, and making it hard to explain what's going on in MGS2 and 3 without cramming a LOT of detail into the end of the plot summary. I'd rather not have a separate article about the information delivered in that dramatic reveal, though. :/ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Kutaragi

Please, I ask your help in Ken Kutaragi anonymous edit wars and lot of POV non-reliable sources informations. Protect the article. --Brazil4Linux 13:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Site resources

I don't know where to put this or who to ask, so I put this here. (I think you can answer me anyway) In your policy, there was something that says somewhat like "Personal sites have no one to check it" which was the reason why wikipedia does not trust personal sites. But really, most personal sites, in general do have some sort of contact, e.g. guestbook, shoutbox, valid E-mail addresses, and if people find errors, they can just contact the webmaster via methods listed above. On the other hand, some commercial sites or companies' websites do NOT have a valid contact, or mail box is always full. It doesn't mean that they have someone to check their work really. Some big sites do make mistakes and because of invalid contact, does not receive any complaints or suggestions. Moreover, personal sites may contain extra, specialised information, that group sites/ commercial sites do not bother to have. Rejecting links from personal sites is a great lose of information resources. Afterall, the Wikipedia policy does NOT reject totally about personal sites, it says "approach with caution". And the main reason is to prevent false/ made-up information. So in my opinion, as soon as the information on the site, no matter personal or group or commercial site, is correct and readable and does not contain made-up contents, the link should be used. On the other hand, if the information is incorrect made-up, it would be pointless to have its link regardless what sort of link it is.

If you are not the correct person to deal with this, please transfer this to the person appropriate, and please give me the username of that person/ group of people. Thank you. jynx 13:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A_Man_In_Black&oldid=29802598"