Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Mega Man weapons (2)

List of Mega Man weapons

Meets criteria, has gone through extensive overhalling, processed through peer review, and properly refernced. Much time has been spent on making this list as comprehensive and as high-quality as posssible. -Zero^Talk 21:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object:

List is not comprehensive; does not contain robot master weapons.
Needs inline citations for non-obvious statements such as [The mega buster] is a particle-based energy weapon that uses compressed solar energy to create physical impact.
Images need fair use rationale.
~~Check the licensing on this image and others from the same source, is that correct?~~

--Pagrashtak 04:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concensus was already reached on the talkpage to not include the robot master weapons. If we did so, we'd have to include EX skills from Mega Man Zero, varible weapons systems attacks from Mega Man X, and a full chip listing from Megaman Battle Network. If we do document those attributes, they'd warrent a entire different list. This documents the weapons that stay consistant between versions and have full analytical basis. Sometimes the community confuses "the comprehensive interests of Wikipedia" with having exhaustive lists on the most trivial of aspects. Go figure.

03:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC) I think this will most likely end with this Flc concerning the List of Mega Man weapons, and not the List of Mega Man skills which you are refering to. I've no idea why your opinion is on this, but I do have a knack for coming up with something reasonably sensible regarding Mega Man series criteria. As for the images, I'll rectify that; many thanks for bringing that to my attention. -Zero^Talk 07:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the image info. Anything else..? -Zero^Talk 11:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~You still have images marked as public domain, which I very much doubt is correct.~~ I don't see the consensus you refer to on the talk page, which only two users (including yourself) have edited. Even if consensus does exist, a list that is not comprehensive by consensus is still a list that is not comprehensive. My other points have not been addressed. --Pagrashtak 03:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. See your talkpage. -Zero^Talk

Yes, I saw your comment on my user page and have replied. --Pagrashtak 03:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright info fixed. -Zero^Talk 03:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:What is a featured list? (point 2 - useful) says that a FL should bring together several related articles through links. This list doesn't meet this criteria, but I am happy to support if we were able to ignore that specific part (the list is useful, and seperate articles for each weapon would be unrealistic and unnecessary). Secondly, could it be more specific than saying things like "it's only useful two missions" (Aqua blaster) and "this weapon doesn't do much damage" (reflector arm)? AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 12:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -Zero^Talk

- That is an interesting point. Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. R adiant _>|< 13:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object: ~~Layout could certainly be improved. Currently the TOC is bloated with subsections that consist of only one line. I suggest replacing with a bulleted list or even a table.~~ -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 16:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're getting at. Some weapons aren't as expansive as others, and are placed here for complilation status. Certainly can't object to its neatness, and the subsections allow easy refernce. -Zero^Talk 19:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is something I mentioned in the CVG peer review. Having multiple sections with approximately two sentences each creates a page that is harder to read and an unwieldy TOC. They should be reformatted into one section. --Pagrashtak 03:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. -Zero^Talk 03:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see where this has been fixed. --Pagrashtak 03:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to hit "save". Problem fixed. [1] -Zero^Talk 03:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vastly improved now, good work. The references section still needs some work. For instance, you need to provide information on when the sourcebooks where printed, authors and ISBN if available. The link to gamefaqs is not useful unless you point to the section that deals with Mega Man. The link to the fan site should point to the subpages you used as a reference (this means you probably have to list several subpages if necessary). The web links in general also require last access date, date of copyright and author. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 17:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot of work went into this list and it looks like a good reference for people who are interested in the Mega Man games. It's a very good list. I'm not sure it's a featured list. The three main difficulties are inconsistent format, lack of line citations, and difficulty of reference. The format issue might be related to differently structured games within the series (I'm not a Mega Man player). Line citations on featured lists normally include footnotes, Harvard referencing, or external links. What I mean by difficulty of reference is, the list isn't really structured in a way that a player could pause a game for a few seconds and glance at the Wikipedia page for quick information.

I suggest adding a table just under the introduction for quick reference. List every weapon and the game it appears in with a single sentence description and an internal link to the full description farther down the page. My other concerns should be easy to address:

The introduction should explain which weapons were omitted and why.
Consecutive images break up the text in some places. I suggest alternating right aligned images with left aligned images to fix this.
Weapons appear out of alphabetical order. What is the organizing principle within a given Mega Man game. Is it relative weapon power? If so, the text should say so and explain whether the order is ascending or descending. Durova 00:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, MegamanZero has a work in progress here that is how I envisioned this article looking. --Pagrashtak 04:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a step in the right direction. Durova 09:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but please refrain from misunderstanding. This is intended to be a second article entirely, and is only meant to enfore the comprenhensive aspect of this list (via links) and the encypledia as a whole. I still stand by the current layout of the List of Mega man weapons article (with some small changes of course). -Zero^Talk 11:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the format for the skills and special powers page. I'm not asking to merge the pages. I am asking to imitate that format on this page. Also, I still don't understand the logic for presenting skills or weapons out of alphabetical order for a given game. If some other principle is at work then please explain it. Durova 16:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed the list in alphabetical order and added links from each section regarding the other list in each subsection. -Zero^Talk 17:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I appreciate the work, I just can't get behind this. Too much white space in some places, too much chunky text in others. It's full of information. It just doesn't have the ease of reference that characterizes Wikipedia's best lists. Durova 03:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]