Talk:Razer (robot)

NPOV dispute

A while ago this article, which at the time was rather woeful, was hit by a NPOV dispute and a cleanup. I've done some work on it, but I don't know if its satisfactory yet. Someone please take a look.

I was the one who put the tags in. It's looking much better, but I'll hold off on a closer look until I'm done with some other stuff. Could be a couple days. Of course, this being Wikipedia, anyone else is free to decide if the tags are no longer needed.--Drat (Talk) 09:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the NPOV tag--it's no longer needed.

Sumo Basho

Razer did not win the Sumo Basho tournament. I saw the filming myself, and I did see Razer knock Shunt off the ring, but for some reason this did not make the final cut. Consequently, Panic Attack won it, as they, in the final cut, did knock Shunt off the ring. Lenin & McCarthy 05:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi folks. user:Lucy-marie has requested some help resolving the dispute over the content of this article. I've now looked through the edit history and would like to offer a few comments and suggestions to get a discussion started.

As a preliminary comment, please try and keep your edit summaries civil and a plain summary of the edit - there is no need to try and conduct an argument via the summaries. If you think you need to do so, the edit is probably not right and it would be better to discuss the matter via the talk page. Please locate all discussion on the talk page of the article to which the comment relates - that way it is near the relevant material and people can read the course of the discussion easily. I note that User:Lenin & McCarthy has attempted to discuss this on [[user_talk:Lucy-marie

It seems to me there are two issues here - firstly, a disagreement over the style of the page, and secondly, over the presence of certain succession boxes.

The second one seems simple to resolve - which party is correct in their assertion as to who won the contest? Please post references to back-up what you think is correct.

The first one is more difficult as it is personal taste. User:Lenin & McCarthy prefers a shorter style, while user:Lucy-marie prefers a longer style. For my personal preference as a total outsider to the subject (well, other than doing some of the electronics work on SMIDSY), the shorter version is far more readable. I open the floor here for the parties to explain why their version is preferable and hopefully a conclusion can be reached.

In the meantime, can I request that both parties refrain from editing the article - OK, so its not in the style everyone would want, but stopping editing will hopefully prevent an edit war and allow a discussion to ensue. Kcordina ^Talk 08:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal of common ground and personal veiws by Lucy-Marie

For my personal taste of the edits being longer there should be as much information avaliable to new users who do not know much if anything about the subject. as i advocate more inforamtion is a better page then there should be a way of making the pages easy to read but also to contain the maximum amount of information possible. I think that the pages on wikipedia should be of a liquid nature. by that i mean that each page should have a form of its own indivduality and not one of that of a 'standadised' page generic form advocated by L&M. I understand that the pages my be easier to read but it is not necessary to remove absolutly everthing about all the battles, and the have note-worthy battles. If this was to be the case what constitutes a note-worthy battle. Some people will argue like myself all battles are notworthy as thay show how that robot progressed thorugh history. Others will say that only a grand final will be noteworthy, and some will say no battle is noteworthy. My opinion is that the more information avaliable the better it can then be seen as to the precise nature of the history the robot had. Also for people who view these as too hard to read there should be a section such as in the tonado page of a summary aswell. I think there should be a merging of both ideas rather than all down one road.Lucy-marie 12:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Save This page

This page should be saved from delletion as the robot Is the most successfull robot In robot wars history there was also an edit war over this page so that proves that is page should be saved as It Is cared abbout by some people. This page also has mediation verdicts binding to It so deletion would beiniapropriate as time has been spent sorting this page out. There was almost an arbitration verdict on this page so the wikipeida arbitrators obviously thought this page was important enough for there considerarion. If this page get deleted then every other robot from robot wars may as well get deleted as well as this is the most successfull robot of them all deleting this page would leave no reason for any other page of robots to besaved so I think we should keep robot wars on wikipedia and not delete it.--Lucy-marie 14:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Notability

Not sure how you would want to reference it, but Razer is mentioned in the book "Build Your Own Combat Robot" by Pete Miles and Tom Carroll (ISBN-10: 0072194642). As it has mention in third-party publications, it is going to pass Wikipedia's general notability requirements. Adding that as a reference should support the official 1st-party references.144.92.206.92 (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Tone

Hello. I've re-written the article to address the issue of the unsuitable tone or style. Shall I remove the "unsuitable tone or style" tag on the article now? Is it fixed now? Tell me as soon a possible. Thanks. 86.28.171.246 (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Here is a sample, "Chaos 2 was eliminated horribly... immobilised as a result of a number of merciless attacks from Razer and 13 Black". These are biased against Chaos 2.EdGilmour (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There's still a lot of 'fan fic' style writing in this article that would be more appropriate on a separate wiki (e.g., Robot Wars Wiki) than here. I fully intend to reduce down these unnecessarily "blow-by-blow" accounts over the next few days, with a single section titled "Combat history" or similar. This can be sub-divided into sections containing verifiable factual accounts for each series/event.

Should anyone feel this would be a negative change, perhaps you could respond to this message. This being Wikipedia you'd be well able to alter/correct my additions, but let's not start an edit war! ;-)

Best wishes, CountdownCrispy ^{talk contributions} 08:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... sounds good to me! 86.28.171.246 (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've now completely rewritten the match descriptions, but still reckon there's just too much there. Any suggestions as to how to 'simmer it down' a bit? My feeling is that it needs to be a lot more pithy. -- CountdownCrispy ^{talk contributions} 16:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits Countdown.EdGilmour (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was: Moved as uncontroversial capitalisation fix by another editor. Station1 (talk) 07:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Razer (Robot) → Razer (robot) — The bracketed disambiguation descriptions in article titles are usually in lower case. Making the small change from "Robot" to "robot" for this article would bring it in line with the rest of Wikipedia. CountdownCrispy ^{talk contributions} 14:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Refer to Village Pump - Pointless semantic suggestion better discussed at the village pump. Not worth wasting time over discussing here.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have requested a speedy move as it's pretty uncontroversial; forgive me not seeing before that this was the done thing. I certainly don't think putting this article in line with the rest of Wikipedia is "pointless". -- CountdownCrispy ^{talk contributions} 20:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Its to small to warrent this whole section and it is better discussed where more people will care and that is at the Village pump.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. What is the purpose of an article talk page other than to talk about an article? To quote WP:TPG, "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page... is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." No need to consult the pump - yet! -- CountdownCrispy ^{talk contributions} 20:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the talk page is to discuss the content of the article and not semantics over that standardisation of Wikipedia policy and the standardised implementation of Wikipedia policy. This is not content which relates to the article directly it is not even proposing changing the article name. It is only proposing that Wikipedia policy is implemented in a standardised interpretation. Discussions on Wikipedia policy and its implementation do not belong on article talk pages.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we're talking cross-purposes here. I had no idea I was being controversial! At any rate, the alteration has been made. -- CountdownCrispy ^{talk contributions} 08:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Images

I've just removed the supposedly fair use image of Razer from the article. Firstly, its fair use rationale is rather flawed - if needs be I will improve it in due course. However, I am going to contact Ian Lewis of Team Razer and politely ask if he has an image we could use under CC-BY-SA or a similar free licence. -- CountdownCrispy ^{talk contributions} 18:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Quality-scale

Ok, since CountdownCrispy is re-writing the WHOLE article, shouldn't the quality-scale be re-assessed? I think it could even go for a "Good Article"! 86.28.171.246 (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but after it's done. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I was certainly considering putting it in for WP:FEED, as I'd like advice from other editors less directly interested in Robot Wars regarding how long the "Combat history" section should be. To my eyes, it just looks and feels too long and drawn out. Other obstacles to cross if we want to make Razer a good article will be the lack of images (as mentioned elsewhere, I have contacted Ian Lewis to ask if any of the photos from the old website could be released as WP:CC-BY-SA), and the need for references for Series 6 and Extreme II. What other suggestions/criticisms do you guys have? Remember to be bold! :-) -- CountdownCrispy ^{talk contributions} 13:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we should have images of Razer over the years. For example, for Extreme 1 the scoop was re-designed; where's the image? And in Series 2 it didn't have the "wings"; again, where's the image? Razer changed over the years, and some images will help the reader see the "evolution" of Razer. The Robot Wars Wiki has a few images of it; does it help? 86.28.171.246 (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)