Template talk:Metal Gear/Archive 1

Archive 1

Color

The new colour scheme isnt really working for me. I like the blue.. :) - UnlimitedAccess 11:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Same here, the new green is a bit garish. Amren ^(talk) 15:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

In that case, I'll change it back to blue. I wanted an olive green color scheme, since that's a standard military color, but it doesn't quite work well with what I wanted. Jonny2x4 19:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

"Other games"?

The movie doesn't fit there. I say we change it to "Non-canonical". After all, Twin Snakes isn't canonical; the original Solid is.

Non-canonical might work, you could just change it to plain Other

†he Bread 23:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Twin Snakes has the same story as MGS, MGA has its own canon of sorts, the movie might end up being canon (stranger things have happened), Portable Ops might be non-canon...let's not fiddle with "canon" and "non-canon" in the template, and stick to "Main series" and "Other". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Portable Ops is canon, But The Movie isn't a game; I think Other or Other Works will work

†he Bread 01:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with "Other"/"Others". And Portable Ops should be put between Metal Gear Solid 3 and Metal Gear Solid 4.

New Template?

It has few information. The other one was a lot better. Can someone change it back?

Plain and simple, the new one sucks, no offense to those who changed it. I'll change it back, but just watch until it's changed back again again.

†he Bread 02:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding MGS4, MGSPO, and the Metal Gear article...

The MGS4 and MGSPO article just aren't very good, and this is a series with a tradition of headfakes. Portable Ops could turn out to be a story fork or something even weirder, and MGS4 is a long way off and a lot can happen in that time. They're not essential to the other core articles because there's just so little to say in the way of verifiable statements.

As for the Metal Gears article...why? All you need to know to understand any game's article is that it's a bit robot that shoots nukes, because that's all you know until the final act of each game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

How did this happen? How did someone manage to get away with transforming a perfectly good template that summarised the series' chronology, characters and setting nicely into this simplistic, clunky, badly-planned piece of crud?

So the MGS4 and MPO articles aren't perfect. Fair enough; it's because they haven't been released yet. But they are going to be released. So why is this a valid reason for altering the series template? The series' articles looked far more professionally written and set out when the template carried more detail and was planned properly. Now it makes the articles look amateur. Can we not get this changed back?

GODDAMNIT! Stop editing the damn template! Somebody put it as it was and lock the article, because this starts to seem like vandalism to me. It was good enough like it was before, full of information and with all the most important articles present. The Metal Gear series is more than just the list of the games - it has a story good enough so that the template shows the articles about the story!

Man this is becoming tiring. Does the guy even READ the discussion? People are choosing this one, he has no right to impose himself over us all who prefer the old one.

Please come join the (lengthy) discussion on standarizing the appearance and use of navbox templates for game series at WT:CVG#Navboxes yet again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You COULD have put "Metal Gear Solid 4" in the template, couldn't you Man In Black?...

There are lots of templates about videogames that haven't been changed; why MGS's, that a lot of people seem to prefer and hasn't given anyone trouble?

Template

The "simple" template isn't good enough; this one is THE one, so stop changing it. If you need to put it back the way it was, just copy this:

I tried to integrate a list of Metal Gears in the template. What do you think? I personally think it looks good.

I really prefer the simple template. --Tristam 17:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If you read the discussion aboce, you'll see the others don't seem to.

Oh and, apparently, users are having a discussion about generalizing the templates. Personally I think it's a bad idea, but hey, I'm not even an user, I'm just an ordinary guy who just wants to help a bit. But there are games series that are a lot more complex than others, and the Metal Gear series are an example. A person can't find every information about it in the "newer" template, but the "older" one has all the info needed.

The Metal Gear series

Is there any reason why I'm actually navigating through the MGS content on Wikipedia through this discussion page about a template than through the actual MGS pages themselves? The one I'm seeing looks slapped together in a few seconds. At least the one above is clearly organised, and has every major starting point for searching through content on it.

Read the entire discussion; by the way, I've added "RAXA" to the template, if it is decided that we should return to the old one. I know RAXA is the name of that Metal Gear's prototype, but it's just so that people don't confuse this Metal Gear with TX-55.

Agree, that template is much better than the new one. I vote to revert to this one. Dboyz-x.etown 17:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This is SO much better than the new one...

This one tends to screw up on my screen, I don't know why though. The border on the left is VERY large and what's inside only covers about 2/3+ of the box. I'm fine with what's there now, since it seems there was a consensus on Video Game NavBox style, except for adding Metal Gear (weapon), Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, and maybe some other important in-universe articles. -th1rt3en 04:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Metal Gears, seperation of spinoffs and Acid series - A Man in Black

There's technically been no violation of 3RR, but let's face it, you've done it. I have nothing to say about separating the Acid series, but the addition of Machinery I do.

There's no reason to remove it. You claim the Machinery list is a "minor fictional-object article". Untrue. Metal Gears are the "star of the show" - it's the center of nearly all of the games. How is that minor? It doesn't have as much importance as the characters, but it surely has importance. Contrary to what you claim, the article isn't easily accessible from the appropriate places. Although it is linked on most of the pages, every Metal Gear-related article links to the Metal Gear (series) article. So why not remove it? :)

I also recall the original "standards" you wrote allowed for weapons and items. What changed your mind? Regardless, your standards are pitiful. Who knows why you want centered text, which any average design-student would strongly be against. Although there needs to be standards, and good ones, you've gone on the wrong track. The current "standards" don't cater for a lot of articles. Remember, it's not a "bare-bones" box. If directly-related articles exist, they're worth linking. If not, the articles should be deleted or merged. Of course I don't mean loosely-related articles like Hideo Kojima should be linked, but Metal Gear (weapon) should.

I won't even ask for a "consensus" on these kind of things, because most people don't have a clue. I just want your judgment on the situation. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey you stole that "Star of the Show" thing from me. But I agree it's a bit hypocritcal from AMIB, asking for his judgement as if he's the "Big Boss" (No pun intended it just came into my head as I wrote this) of Metal Gear articles is a bad idea he already thinks that. I'm reverting for now. †he Bread 02:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a minor fictional-object article. The Metal Gears themselves aren't significant subjects of commentary in the real world, nor are they significant to the vast majority of the games (pretty much all but MGS2) save as a MacGuffin and a final boss. Lastly, and most essentially, there's no need to read the Metal Gears article to understand the game articles or the series article (which are the core of this article series).

There are lots of articles we could cram into this box based on the fact that they're important in the fictional universe; Solid Snake, Big Boss, Revolver Ocelot, and The Patriots all come immediately to mind. If we add this and those, however, we're back down the road to a kitchen-sink template, linking to everything in Category:Metal Gear and its subcats. I think a better solution might be to add a proper link to the Metal Gears article to the main list of characters, to be honest.

As for centered text, that's a point I'm largely indifferent to, as long as we have a standard appearance without unnecessary metadata, unnecessary links, or problematic appearance hacks (hide/show comes immediately to mind). I'll freely admit I'm not Captain Design; I picked centered text only because it explicitly encouraged a flat (as opposed to hierarchical) arrangement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are very few. Those articles are featured in the character list, making it redundant. What do we have left? Metal Gear (weapon), soundtracks, Close Quarters Combat and Outer Heaven. That's besides the point I was going to make in this message - since when are you allowed to break the 3RR rule? I've seen 5 reverts now. How is that allowed? Aren't you a fucking admin? --TheEmulatorGuy 02:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

He's an absolute fucking disgrace of an ADmin. He left me a message about how many reverts I've done, I always try to keep to 3RR but not with AMIB, he breaks the rules then changes them so that he can. I'll continue to revert

†he Bread 04:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Whenever anyone is planning to civilly refute my points, I'll be watching. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

We've tried civilly, but as per usual you ignore us, play your smug little game, and sooner or later you'll get some other person who wants to treat WP like a bureaucracy from that P.O.S. CVG project to help you out. Also your points were bollocks to begin with.

†he Bread 07:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your point AMIB, is you're unwilling to accept a consensus. You must have it your way - regardless of how "civil" we act. Remember The Twin Snakes? Although I agreed with your merge decision, consensus was to split - you didn't want any of it. Let's take a look at the templates. Very little agreed with your standards. Yet you just had to use them. You were unable to reach a good consensus and kept your template. They had a terrible design and completely disagreed with what an infobox was. I've said it before - if an article related to the entire series shouldn't be linked, then it shouldn't be an article. Alongside that, you break the rules and are clearly not civil (we're not the only ones to swear about the template matter) - you're a poor admin. Your basic ideas are good - kill cruft and keep standards - but you fail to do it well. --TheEmulatorGuy 08:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

if an article related to the entire series shouldn't be linked, then it shouldn't be an article.

This is an interesting argument, and speaks to a fundamental disagreement about what navboxes, lists, categories, and umbrella articles (such as Metal Gear (series)) are for.

The point of a navbox is not to link every single article that may be related to each article (something I think we all agree on) or even every article that is related to the bulk of the articles linked in the template. Instead, it's to link to a series of articles: a group of closely-related articles, describing individual parts of a larger subject. Theoretically, an article series could be merged together into a single article if this were a paper encyclopedia.

Moving away from an ideal "What should we include?" to a more-pragmatic "What should we exclude?" we should err on the side of excluding odds and ends unless they're critical to understanding the larger series. The characters umbrella list is on the outside edge of what's valuable; it isn't strictly a part of the article series, but it provides a useful way to offer access to a half-dozen articles without having to cram a half-dozen links into the template. The Metal Gears article has all the problems of the list of characters, without offering the utility of being an umbrella article. I feel it should be excluded for the same reason Solid Snake is excluded; certainly important and relevant, but not a part of the series of subjects (it's not a Metal Gear game) and not required for understanding of the larger series.

As for the rest, I'm not willing to deal with personal issues here, and I try to make a practice of ignoring personal abuse. Feel free to discontinue wasting your time with it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A note to the worlds worst admin, I can't revert anymore because I like to keep to 3RR but why does it have to look good in your resolution when it looks (even more) like shit under my resolution, when did your needs outweight that of the majority, oh that's right you ignore the consensus

†he Bread 04:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not optimizing it for my resolution. The second line is going to break in some resolutions, and not break in others. With a linebreak, you always have a short additional line, which looks bad. Without a linebreak, you have a short additional line in some resolutions, which sometimes looks bad. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

So you're trolling for a Template that's gonna look bad either way? I believe that was said from the start, that it looks not good that is

†he Bread 07:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that the name "Machinery" is not entirely correct. If you want to name it "Machinery", then put all the machinery that appears in the games - the M1 Tank, the Hind, etc. Or get a new name, like "Metal Gear and Related Weapons", or even dividing those in two. I'm gonna divide those in two as an experience; if you want to change, change it, but don't put "Machinery" back, is not entirely correct.

Template Vote

I don't know why anyone didn't suggest this, but apparently there's only one person supporting the existing template. Why don't we vote about which one to choose? A democratic solution would be nice, instead of one person imposing his opinions, wouldn't you say? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.196.5.120 (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

I completely agree, and vote in favour of the one in the middle of this discussion page.--80.73.212.226 09:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I abstain, I'd like this to work out but alas it won't

†he Bread ³⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Then it seems like I'll continue to move around the MGS pages from this discussion, and not from the current template. Surely you agree the one at the bottom of the MGS page looks slapped together in seconds, as opposed to the layed out and thought out approach of the one shown above? I would love to change it myself, but I'm still learning about making things bold, let alone replacing tables and templates --80.73.210.25 16:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I would gladly change it, but unfortunately A Man in Black keeps changing it to this simple thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.180.128.145 (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

So why is MGS4 left out?

The game exists. There have been trailers for the game, done in real time in-engine. Gameplay movement has been shown, even though it wasn't shown as how a player would see it. It has a release date of this year. And from what I can tell it was removed without consensus. -th1rt3en

The rationale (not mine) appears to be that no-one has played it yet

†he Bread ³⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, looks that way. I suggest it be added back in, anyone else agree or disagree? -th1rt3en 03:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm good either way

†he Bread ³⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if no one has any objections I'll go ahead and add it (though I'm sure it'll be reverted). -th1rt3en 00:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have a firm release date, nor has it ever been shown in playable form. The article is entirely based on claims made by a single, primary, unreliable source. It isn't necessary to understand the articles about the other games, nor are any of the claims in that article even necessarily going to be true when the game is released.

I thought I had already made this case here, but I must've neglected to do so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you've just made a very poor case. The game as been shown in-engine ([1]), with gameplay animation in the most recent trailer ([2]). The game's creators have fully discussed the game as well ([3], [4]). You can even find the game featured on Kojima's website ([5], [6]). And from the looks of it, you seem to be the only one convinced that the game does not exist. The game existing itself is enough to answer the question "what's next in the series", is it not? -th1rt3en 18:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

According to whom is the game shown entirely in-engine? The single, unreliable source?

I'm not saying the game isn't going to come out. I'm saying that linking to an article composed entirely of claims made by a single unreliable source isn't necessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Why and how is Hideo Kojima is an unreliable source? In-engine demonstration here with Hideo Kojima and another programmer discussing the real-time demonstration. The article may contain claims, however it does contain information about the next game to be released in the Metal Gear series, which is Metal Gear Solid 4 (see here). The {{Future game}} tells anyone reading the article that information may change as it becomes available. -th1rt3en 05:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

MGS2 is a study in why we shouldn't take primary sources completely at their word, and the fact remains that all information about the game is filtered through the single primary source. Additionally, the game still doesn't even have a finalized release date. All you need to put a game in a navbox is:

1. A finalized name - So we have something to call it.
2. A finalized release date for some region (doesn't have to be NA) - To fend off vaporware.
3. To have been shown in playable form - So there exist sources other than people recapping or repeating what the game's creators (a primary source) has said.

This is a very low bar to set, and MGS4 fails two of them miserably. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Again MGS4 is not the only one that fails those categories. Halo 3 has a release date of TBA 2007. Halo Wars' doesn't have a year, and its trailer was CGI. Super Smash Bros. Brawl actually fails all three I believe. Duke Nukem Forever is vaporware and it's still in a navbox.

MGS4 has:

1. Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
2. TBA 2007 (far from miserable, see above)
3. Although no gameplay has been shown, real-time engine footage has. There's a chance the game is still pre-alpha and is currently under development of gameplay.

It sounds like that set of rules/guidelines doesn't really holds much as much merit as you think. -th1rt3en 06:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the game is so far from complete that it cannot be shown in playable form is the crux of my argument to omit it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

However, again, some of the aforementioned games also are far from completion and are still in their respective navboxes. If you're going to be strict with one box shouldn't you be strict with all of them? And just because the game is not shown in playable form does not mean it doesn't exist that way; and story, voice recording, physics engine, graphics engine, levels, objects, characters, and several other elements might actually be completed just not released to the general public. And isn't the sake of navboxes to help those browsing see all the information possible on all of the main elements of a group? MGS4 would still be a main element within the series. -th1rt3en 17:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Then go to those templates and remove those games too, for the same reasons.

The game is just too far away for us to evaluate its importance, and there exists the significant probability that it will change dramatically before release. The article is entirely speculative, and is not necessary for understanding of any of the other articles in the template. There's no reason whatsoever to include it other than completism, and completism has no place in a small-as-possible navigation tool. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not strictly following those rules for all navboxes, you are. I'm fine with conformity, but that means you shouldn't use a set of rules for one navbox and not another.

Again, the change in information is standard for all future games. If the article contains speculative information, then it should be removed from the article. The article still states factual information about the game; most importantly: that the game is being made, who is currently working on it, and what is known about the production of the game. I would find that information necessary to understand where the series is going and what's currently being worked on in the series. And does adding 20 characters or so to a mostly white-space navbox really threaten to oversize it? The game will be added eventually, and should it be canceled in future time it can always be removed then and there. -th1rt3en 21:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

ALL of the information is speculative. There is no possibility for definitive, third-party coverage of the game, because it hasn't ever been shown in playable form. There's no definitive information about where the series is going; there isn't even definitive information about when the game is coming out.

This is the standard for all the navboxes, to keep them from bloating needlessly. The fact that a few navboxes aren't yet up to that standard is no reason to screw up the ones that are.

We need a standard. This standard is rational, with reasoning behind it stated above. What standard do you propose replace it? Saying "Well, I think MGS4 is important, so there" doesn't offer any alternative; it merely boils down to "Give me my way or I'll edit war until you do." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not at all what I'm saying. What it comes down to is that originally you made the decision on your own to remove MGS4 from the navbox, and whenever anybody (either one person or several people) tried to add it back in you would revert it. I believe that falls under "follow my rules because I think they're a good idea" and not under consensus (see an above section for example). How many people have tried to change it back compared to how many have tried to keep it how it is? And the points you keep making about the MGS4 being unimportant to the general knowledge of the Metal Gear series tend to be incorrect, in my opinion, because the articles are not just about the fictional stories but the games themselves. And there's also the fact that MGS4, whether it is a good article or not, is a related article to the Metal Gear series, which is the point of having navboxes, is it not (see WP:NAV)? And if Sony, Konami, and Hideo Kojima are unreliable sources, what exactly are reliable ones? -th1rt3en 08:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Then offer an alternative standard.

Reliable sources are (among other things) independent of the subject. Sony, Konami, and Hideo Kojima want to sell you the subject. Right now, we're entirely taking their word about anything about this game, something that has lead gamers astray in the past. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's my alternative: 1) Confirmed production of game and 2) confirmed title, or at least a working title that reflects the project (no Untitled...Project).

MGS2 may have had purposely misleading information on ONE aspect, but there's also Metal Gear Solid 3 and Metal Gear Solid: Portable Ops which weren't lied about, correct? -th1rt3en 15:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That would throw the door open to articles no longer than two sentences. That's not a workable standard. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, okay. Then how about something along the lines of, instead of showing gameplay demonstrations, how about production demonstrations. Which would mean something more than a CGI trailer, concept art, etc. Things like pre-alpha builds, game engine development, things like that. In this case it would be the real-time engine demonstration, and real-time trailers. -th1rt3en 19:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, it throws the door open to arguments about what constitutes a "real-time" demonstration, as well as articles based on a single trailer. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It happens either way: Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Halo 3. I don't see how real-time vs CGI trailer demonstrations would be that confusing. Basically something shown in-engine to show that the game has a developed (or developing) graphics engine. On that note, the MGS4 article barely talks about its trailers. -th1rt3en 16:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not always clear what is a real-time demonstration and what is merely a tech demo or "development target". On the other hand, it is always clear if someone has played the game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Not always. You may see someone playing a development version of the game, even alphas and betas can be changed completely, take Duke Nukem Forever for example. Usually tech demos don't have games attached to them. In this case we have several in-engine trailers, on of which is demonstrated real-time by the game creators. Also in this case we have a trailer which shows gameplay elements being developed, even though it was not someone playing it.

Also, careful when you revert, you're going back to one which has Twin Snakes removed from it. -th1rt3en 17:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You've wandered off point. The reason that the game needs to be shown in playable form is so that there can be some commentary on the game in sources independent of the games' developers, as opposed to commentary on purely promotional material. (The firm release date requirement is there to chase off vaporware, and obviously notorious vaporware like DNF gets a pass.)

Trailers and tech demos, in-engine or otherwise, are promotional material.

Lastly, I don't see how this diff removed Twin Snakes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh my mistake, someone had just moved it incorrectly to the top row, and messed up the bulleting.

Promotional material aside, your guidelines aren't always working either. For one, even a confirmed release date can be changed at the last moment. Several other articles with less information then MGS4 are included in their own navboxes. And above all you originally removed without discussing for a consensus. Same goes for the Metal Gear (weapon) inclusion, which seemed to be you, and only you, deciding on that. Adding only the needed links is fine, but that differs for each game series and navbox. -th1rt3en 18:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The confirmed release date is not so we know when the game is coming out, but instead that it is coming out. If we have a firm release date then we know the game has been solicited to retailers; the only way to set a more-consistent bar is to exclude unreleased games entirely (or include every speculative game that has ever been mentioned ever).

As for the articles with less information; again, it's not the quantity, but the quality. MGS4 has zero info that isn't from the primary source (and thus promotional) or speculative. Excluding articles that are only promotion/speculation is the whole point.

Metal Gear (weapon), a horrible and utterly in-universe article I'm ashamed of creating, is not at issue here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking no side, i see both arguments sadly, but on MGS2; Kojima merely omitted to tell us stuff about the plot, with this it's just technical and commercial elements that he never messed with before (to the best of my knowledge)

†he Bread ³⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, MGS4 should be included by now, I don't know why this one guy keeps thinking he can over-rule so many other editors. -DS

You yourself said it in your talk page: "It's a navbox. It's for navigating between articles in a interrelated series.". Then why can't Metal Gear Solid 4 be accessed through it? And I'm not going to even go back to mention that crude template that doesn't help to access most of the pages related to Metal Gear.

While I can see MiB's reasoning, he seems to be discussing the value of the article as a whole. First off- is it valuable? It provides a suitable pre-release plot summary, confirms key cast and crew, describes the included gameplay changes and gives all the general videogame guff you'd expect- formats, etc. Is it accurate? Needs sourcing on some stuff, but it's better reffed than a lot of existing, released-game articles. And is there any serious debate as to whether or not the title is going to be released? No. It's got a release year (at the very least), a heavily documented development with extensive demonstrations of the engine and proported (and believable) gameplay footage. If this article is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, then it is surely suitable for inclusion in its own series' template, IMO. Hyperspacey 23:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The point remains that the article is entirely speculative and composed of promotional material. The bulk of the "content" there likely won't remain after the game is released (assuming it doesn't get cancelled between now and the unspecified release date.) These problems plague all articles about far-off unreleased games, and MGS4 is no exception. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. The directors, cast, composers and title are all confirmed, as is the Octocamo system, the new camera and the basic plot. Granted, it could concievably change without warning- hence the "Upcoming Game" tag at the top of the page- but there is no obvious sign that it will. Removing or considering material as potentially unreliable because it may change is not in of itself enough to render the article suitable for exclusion- the probability of change must be considered, and IMO the probability is extremely low. The information we have is accurate and representative of the game, and if we dropped stuff that was liable to change every Current Event article in Wikipedia would vanish in a puff of smoke. It's not as if the game is slated for release in the distant future- if Konami's date is accurate (it invariable is) it'll be out within 10 months. We have movie articles on here with later expected releases. Hyperspacey 09:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Konami's date is not "invariably" accurate; they haven't even specified a date, leaving it to an estimated quarter. This isn't a current event; it's a future event, and the article is composed entirely of prognostication based on a primary source that is far from reliable. Every single word in that article takes Konami's, KCEJ's, or Kojima's word at face value. There's exactly zero independent commentary save for speculation because it's impossible for there to be independent commentary because nobody has had a chance to play this game yet. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And as I've already said, Konami's quarterly predictions usually on-the-nose (I cannot remember any point in the past seven years where a n announced KCEJ game missed its release period, inevitable PAL delays not withstanding). Also- how unreliabe is Konami, KCEJ, and Kojima's word? Even with MGS2, they simply chose not to mention certain details- all the pre-release info was essentially accurate, bar some whiley editing on the E3 2K1 trailer. It is hardly the first, last, or only "future event"-type article, and as I've said, there are literally dozens of major articles- from Spiderman 3 to Duke Nukem Forever- that rely upon first-party material, be it promotional interviews, material, videos, etc. IMO, this is one user implementing Wikipedia policy for the sake of it, and in probably a matter of a few months we'll have playable demos of the the title and final pre-release details and it'll get added back in again- a minimal change. Hyperspacey

Now look what's happened the template is locked on the less popular one, alot of people will be quiet unhappy. I want to end this soon. I remember comming across a precedent where issues were fixed using a simple straw pole, such as Woman used one for whether or not there should be a nude at the top of the page. I believe we should do that, I don't care about other templates if they've got a problem, they can solve it themselves, but otherwise this template is going to be locked for a long time

†he Bread ³⁰⁰⁰ 19:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is apparently going nowhere- we've voiced our opinions at least. For my money, the article is hardly ideal and isn't a shining beacon of Wikipedia (I fully intend to compress its contents and scrub any unverified material later today), but it is IMO suitable for inclusion in the series template as the final part of the series (according to reports in a dozen interview by its creator). Seems we have a few options: leave it without MGS4 and let MiB have it his way; have a straw poll to see who wants it in or not, but the result seems pretty likely to be we include MGS4 (tyranny of democracy); or get some external arbitration and outside opinion. I'm for the latter. Hyperspacey

I say we contact Kojima. Dboyz-x.etown 22:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, so the existing template isn't bad, anyone looking for MGS4 will probably find it (though find it inconvenient that it isn't in the template, IMO), though granted it's so much like the MG Characters template as to confuse me. If AMiB is going to revert edits that include MGS4 every time they're posted there's no point doing it anything but his way for sake of wasted effort. However, my objections still stand as previously noted. I say, go for unprotection and stop going in the huff over the inclusion (or exclusion) of a massively important videogame franchise entry in the template for the series it will apparently be closing. Hyperspacey 01:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The only two articles I believe should be added to the article are Metal Gear Solid 4 and the Metal Gear (weapon) articles. But it seems that the only person who deems these articles unimportant enough to include is AMiB. Taking straw poll would probably show a majority for including at least MGS4, and obviously a majority isn't always a consensus. However, if we do one and AMiB is the only one against MGS4, than leaving it out would be even less of a consensus. It really just appears that AMiB has "hijacked" the navbox to include only what AMiB says is a good or important enough written article, rather than finding a consensus on what should or should not be included. -th1rt3en 02:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for keeping the most people happy, as often as possible. At the moment it seems its The World vs. AMIB in terms of whether or not MGS4 is added. Alot of people are unhappy with the current situation, so I say we go with MGS4 until a bunch of other people back up AMIB's rationale

†he Bread³⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally against including a seperate "Metal Gears" entry, primarily because the current one is mostly plot and story detail on a non-existant weapons system. If the article were to be about the narrative purpose of the weapons and their metamorphosis from post-Hiroshima atomic boogeyman to information-controling nightmare and computerised, automated killing machines (a strong analogy is Raiden, whose flash-and-blood properties don't stop him being under the control of GW as much as the RAY units he's forced to fight with), then I wouldn't mind it. Hyperspacey 16:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Even though the article is poorly written, I still see it as a few things: 1) it's essentially a boss list, and a bit of an extension to the character list, 2) an explanation of what Metal Gear means, and 3) it's something that ties all of the games in the series together. The article can be given cleanup tags and the such. -th1rt3en 17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, we seem to have reached some form of concensus- MGS4 goes in, given it's proximity to release, series' notable history and title's significance. The article does, however, need expanding- recent KojiProReports, Edge interviews and the like look to provide good sources for additional info. So I'm going to request unprotection and add it in. I assume AMiB's unwillingness to comment up to this point is presumably because he cannot address my reasons for including MGS4. Hyperspacey 03:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Proximity to release? What release date?

What points haven't I answered? I've mostly neglected this page due to other distractions, not because of any development. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please get over it, it's going back in, kicking up a fuss only causes unnessisary problems and pisses folk off †he Bread³⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, wait a moment. We have a a larger, ongoing discussion on the subject of including or excluding far-off unreleased games, and I haven't even had a chance to find out what Hyperspacey's unaddressed points are. Don't go declaring an ongoing discussion closed, especially based on a three-person "vote". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Make that four "votes." -DS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diracsea (talk • contribs) 10:09, 1 March 2007

Make it five. - DoubleCross 03:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about the larger dicussion, just this one, the other templates can do whatever they want to

†he Bread³⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's make this argument a lot simpler, then.

Metal Gear Solid 4 is an article about trailers and predictions about a game. (Note that all of the articles are about trailers, or about Konami/Kojima's predictions about their game.) Game navboxes are for articles about games. (Note the references in Metal Gear Solid 3; those are written based on analysis of the game.)

See the difference? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What of an article about a game citing a trailer? The article is titled Metal Gear Solid 4, not Metal Gear Solid 4 (Trailer) of course. I say the link goes back in. Also, can you finally establish a definitive guideline about the link's inclusion into this specific navbox? If you can not and can only point to another discussion (that is not definitive) then I think we (that is, the consensus) should be allowed to include it until a guideline is set. -DS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diracsea (talk • contribs) 08:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, knock it off, all of you. Not even three hours and all of you are at it again. Can we just resolve this and get on with our lives? Hbdragon88 10:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Who's side are you on Hbdragon88? because above you we have yet another person for the game going in

†he Bread³⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Could we please have some discussion, instead of nosecounting? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can agree to work towards a consensus rather than reverting every attempt at change at the drop of a hat. -th1rt3en 23:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is pointless when it's one guy with one opinion and no-one supporting that idea, against everyone else. It's fairly obvious what has to be done

†he Bread³⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Was anyone planning to address any of my arguments? I'm seeing more "fuck off, there's more of us so we can out revert war you" than "We should include MGS4 because..." and it's rather frustrating. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you find anyone to support your arguments? So far, you are the only one who has reverted MGS4's inclusion, if I'm not mistaken. You also originally removed with without finding a consensus on the issue or even discussing it on the talk page first. And it's very frustrating when you keep doing that. -th1rt3en 04:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

So pretty much "Fuck off, we have more heads on this talk page so that's all that matters," then? I removed MGS4 after a lengthy discussion at the CVG Wikiproject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please Don't put words in my mouth. -th1rt3en 04:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This is pointless, someone delete all CVG templates, coz this isn't gonna end.

“ Fuck off, we have more heads on this talk page so that's all that matters ”

I wouldn't put it exactly that way. But I agree with it's sentiment. Some rebute your arguement, you rebute theirs, they rebute yours....and the cycle continues, so with an endless spiral of rebuted arguments, the side with the greatest support wins

th1rt3en you should put in for adminship, you're handling this a hell of a lot better than the other admin involved

†he Bread³⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, this AMIB character is causing all sorts of headaches in other CVG navbox discussion pages too. I wonder if there's a way to cast a vote of no-confidence on this so-called "admin," that would be nice and we certainly have the numbers. Something has got to be done about this, too many pissed off people on account of one stubborn !$%#*@, and for what, a single entry on a navbox that 99% of users concerned are asking/looking for. -DS

Is the argument to have it in the navbox really so weak that the only defense is to personalize this or count noses? Was someone planning on engaging in polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What would your suggestion be for moving towards a consensus? -th1rt3en 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Responding to my argument. It's in brief form immediately above, if previous versions were TL;DR. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Your aforementioned reasonings are rather unpopular. Out of curiosity, is there any other person who agrees with AMiB's reasonings to the extent of leaving off/removing a link to the MGS4 article? -th1rt3en 02:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No †he Bread³⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

One of your arguments was that Hideo Kojima was not a reliable source because he misled us about MGS2. By assuming he'll mislead us about MGS4, I would say that is a form of crystal balling. -th1rt3en 16:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My final two cents, though AMiB has never responded to my rebuke of his reasoning earlier... I would like to finally add that while excluding MGS4 will make the encyclopedia only superficially better, it makes it less informative, rather less navigable and ultimately less useful as an information resource. At the very least we must acknowledge the existance of a game under development by KCE studio Kojima Productions entitled Metal Gear Solid 4 with at the very least a tentative release date of late 2007, and include the thoroughly confirmed developmental staff and vocal cast current engaged in its creation. If it's a question of removing potentially changable information then fine, we'll strip out any references to gameplay, graphics and plot, despite the strongest of first-party sources, and just keep it similar to film-in-production articles of a similar standing. Nevertheless, excluding MGS4 from the navbox for sake of the article's lack of content is implementing policy for policy's sake- the game's being made, we have (some) info on it, and it's a verified part of the series. The article will improve over time, for for the time being I, and the vast majority of readers I would assume, would expect it to be included for ease of access. Hyperspacey 23:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:IAR. The template is just simply better with MGS4 added, and along with what Hyperspacey said, the reader is going to expect it to be there. --Cmsjustin 00:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is getting silly now, there is a massive amount of opposition to the plan to remove it, the template is protected (on the less popular one). Can we please get it unprotected and have MGS4 added

†he Bread³⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing it is requisite of AMiB not getting into another edit war and demanding we all listen to him. We'd possibly get a good 24 hours of the clearly prefered version of the template if he gets another ban for breaking 3RR (his similarly unpopular edits of other CVG series templates have already earned him a couple). It's pointless if he's not going to listen to reason, so we basically sit here until he agrees, or we get external arbitration. Hyperspacey 04:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that having the template locked with the inclusion of MGS4 would encourage more discussion than there currently is from AMiB. -th1rt3en 04:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I had that Arb idea also, but i thought it too extreme. But the idea of unprotecting it, adding MGS4 then re-protecting it is idea. I'll check out WP:RFARB

†he Bread³⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why must we acknowledge the existence of this project on some template? It's already linked in comprehensive lists and categories. Why must a template be comprehensive, when it comes at the cost of comprehension? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That sentence makes no fucking sense. --Cmsjustin 20:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's stated above that we must acknowledge that MGS4 exists. Konami is promoting a project they haven't shown to anyone; why must we acknowledge that? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree that MGS4 is the next in the series at this point in time? If so, it makes sense for it to be in there. The reader will expect it to be there. The template is simply better and more useful with MGS4. There are numerous trailers and interviews floating around for this. I understand that it has not been shown in playable form, but since when does a game need to be publicly playable to be in production. Nobody is trying to set in stone that the game will come out on a certain date in the exact form shown in the trailers. If something changes, it can be removed. The bottom line is that the template is better for the reader if it includes MGS4. The whole reason I am involved in this mess is because I was navigating the MGS3 page and couldn't find a link to MGS4. I think that says it all. --Cmsjustin 21:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It frustrates expectations. Hrm. So where do you draw the line, then? We can't very well have "Untitled Metal Gear project" or "Metal Gear Solid X+1" in the template when it's "Kojima alluded to making a new game at some point." A final title, a final release date, and showing the game in playable form seemed like a reasonable place to separate the vapor from substance. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

How about we leave the decisions of what to be included in a navbox up to those who follow the series, rather than having a single set of rules for all VG navboxes. Each series will be different so it would make sense to use the rules as an important but non-binding guideline for format and inclusions. -th1rt3en 22:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

How about we don't go back to having all of the navboxes handled by whatever two users are on hand? Let's set some sort of reasonable standard so we don't run into shouting matches of "I want to include it!" and "I don't!" Cmsjustin raised the point that excluding some upcoming games frustrates expectations. So how do we keep from frustrating expectations without including crap? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I said we used the current navbox rules as a non-strict 'guideline instead, since people saying "I don't want to include crap" and then having an edit war about it are just as bad as people who want to stuff everything into a navbox. There can be a nice consensus between the two extremes of confusing bloated navboxes and confusing bare-bones ones. -th1rt3en 22:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. Which is why we need a reasonable standard for non-confusing templates. Which means setting a standard that includes necessary links and excluding unnecessary ones. So, are we arguing that the current standard is broken or that MGS4 should be an exception? I lost track in the footstomping and "MGS4 MUST be included!" - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No-one here is advocating including vapourware or nonsense; I personally wouldn't want to include the title in the template, say, if it was only announced as in pre-production (as it was in late 2004). Nor would I want the navbox to link to organisational details of the game universe or suchlike- there are appropriate links in each game's article. However, adding MGS4 in no way or form makes the navbox confusing, ambiguous, arbitrary in content, or misleading- it's a template for Metal Gear games, and MGS4 is clearly a Metal Gear title. As I've already said, removing the title only compromises Wikipedia's primary purpose- to be an easily-navigable information source for verified and accurate information. If you are going to continue to go against the clear and well-supported concensus for the sake of shaping Wikipedia according to your own arbitrary concept of what a navbox shouldn't have in it then I suggest it is you who are being unreasonable. If you can justify your position, then allow the edit to include MGS4 and then do so. the only reason you will not is because your argument is paper-thin. Hyperspacey 15:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that following the current guideline strictly is very unpopular among many navbox templates and their discussions, which must mean the guidelines themselves are not in a complete consensus, and is therefore not reasonable enough. That is why you've been "forced" to break the three revert rule on several navbox templates. And the fact still remains that you are the only one repeatedly reverting this template and stomping your feet about how your guidelines overrule the rest of the Wikipedians on this template. So please explain why you and you alone are the deciding person on which games are notable enough to be included in the navboxes, while everybody else here seems to feel it's notable enough to include. -th1rt3en 01:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've requested unprotection, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Template:Metal_Gear_series_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 --Cmsjustin 14:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Note the two templates at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Navboxes: {{Disputedtag}} and (more importantly) {{guideline}}, the latter of which states "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." -th1rt3en 16:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

So why should Metal Gear Solid 4 be an exception, given that it is sourced to a primary source with a vested interest in selling a product and with a questionable history? "Guidelines should have exceptions, and I want this to be an exception" is unconvincing without reasoning. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

How questionable is the history? If you're talking about how we were misled about some (but not nearly all) aspects of MGS2, then I would have to say that that is not nearly enough to discredit Kojima and/or Konami completely. There's more games they released that we were not misled about. The navbox is there to link between the more important articles in the series, particularly those that the average user would be interested in. MGS4 is one of the more anticipated games on the PS3, has been in development for a few years, and is wanted in the navbox by several users. You still haven't answered my question about why you the only deciding person on what is notable enough to be on a navbox. -th1rt3en 16:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly they've never misled on the cast, crew and gameplay aspect of any title, which is at present all we've got in the MGS4 article (bar a minute plot summary). Right, anyway, as AMiB is still not responding to my criticisms and I assume he agrees with me, I'll move onto a more irrefutable points. This is daft- the article's contents shouldn't be up for discussion unless it's an AFD, and it's not. This is a primarily a user-interface issue, about how easily navigable Wikipedia is with or without the inclusion of MGS4. CLEARLY it's worse off, most users' mental models of hypertext interfaces tend assume that expected pages that are not linked to in main navigation apparatus do not exist. Therefore leaving MGS4 out is essentially misleading as well as adding additional keystrokes to accessing what should be a simple data access. Hyperspacey 02:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to urge more/faster discussion

This is going nowhere fast. I suggest that the template be changed to the more popular choice, and still protected, to promote more discussion from the (current navbox) minority, and to see if there are any more users that wish agree with the current minority. Any comments? -th1rt3en 23:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

For MGS4 Inclusion. Hyperspacey 02:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

For MGS4 Inclusion †he Bread³⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

For MGS4 Inclusion DoubleCross 02:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

For MGS4 Inclusion Cmsjustin 04:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

For MGS4 inclusion -diracsea

So it's "Fuck off trying to discuss, let's count noses," then? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've delivered about ten viable reasons for the inclusion of MGS4- usually in direct response to your dubious reasoning for removing the title- none of which have recieved any form of comment from yourself. Other users have done similarly, with little response. The roadblock in dialogue between those for and against inclusion starts and ends with yourself, and this is just an attempt to confirm it, I believe, and provide an accurate summary of the situation to suitable external powers. Hyperspacey 16:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes Fuck off, we'll count noses †he Bread³⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, do not put words in my mouth. You are the sole user keeping this navbox from having a consensus. Your "guideline" is not in any consensus either, yet you continue to stomp your feet and (in my opinion) ignore and prevent any attempt at resolving the issue. Our straw poll is our attempt at seeing if you really are the only user who wants to keep MGS4 off the template. Then it'll be up to the admins to decide whether or not protecting the page with MGS4 included would encourage the discussions that you seem to be ignoring. -th1rt3en 05:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what happened to the request for unprotection. I've requested edits to a protected page to go along with the discussion above. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Template:Metal_Gear_series. Thanks. --Cmsjustin 17:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Good job. -th1rt3en 17:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Request was declined; suggested dispute resolution

We'll have to go though the steps of WP:DR#Further_dispute_resolution. We may even have to ask for arbitration. It was also suggested to discuss it on WT:CVG. -th1rt3en 21:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Any updates from anyone? This conversation needs to come to an end and not go stale. —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 19:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a whole debate going on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Navboxes_III:_Son_of_Navboxes about video game navboxes all together. ♦^TH1RT3EN™ _{talk ♦ contribs} 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Updates

It appears AMiB has left, though this might be temporary; however, he was the only one objecting to the inclusion of MGS4 in prior discussions. In leiu of this I'm asking if there are any objections to requesting unprotection as to include MGS4 and possibly other articles. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 18:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no immediate objections, I'll go ahead and request unprotection. (Can be found here.) ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 02:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It's nice to see that the source of a major headache here is gone. Diracsea 07:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Note on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Navboxes

Just a note, the "accepted policy" template has been changed to a "proposed policy" template. -th1rt3en 17:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A compromise of sorts

Given the current amount of info on MGS4 is relatively limited, I'd suggest adding it onto the main series page as a section, condensing any non-redunant information from the existing article to suit and then setting Metal Gear Solid 4 to redirect to that section- keeping it in the navbox, seeing as it does, obviously, exist to some extent. Then AMiB gets his cake and we get to eat it in the form of the information being available in an easy and obvious manner to users. Hyperspacey 04:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well those mass discussions get nothing done and take forever so, if you can get the thing unprotected, go right ahead

†he Bread³⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Better than nothing. Dboyz-x.etown 03:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations everyone!

Wikipedia_talk:Lamest_edit_wars#Metal_Gear_Template —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 22:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to thank everyone, only one person is responsible. Congrats! -DS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diracsea (talk • contribs) 04:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Lol —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 23:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

New discussion for inclusion of MGS4

While we're waiting to see if AMiB returns or not, we need to see if there is still a consensus for placing MGS4 back on the list:

1. It was originally removed without consensus
2. It was subsequently repeatedly reverted and edit warred against by only one user (AMiB)
3. The VG Navbox guidelines have been under debate for some time now

Any comments or objections? ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 17:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for inclusion —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 02:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

He's gone, looks like we'll have to find someone else to boss us around. Go ahead but it back in

†he Bread³⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it another day to see if AMiB returns after his changed block ends. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 17:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, I had my dates wrong, I'll put in for unprotection again. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 20:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for it. Hyperspacey 19:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeay! Dboyz-x.etown 01:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Kojima Productions?

Anyway to fit Kojima Productions into this navbox? Strongsauce (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

MGS Mobile - canon

Metal Gear Solid Mobile is canonical, hence I added it to the main series group. One proof of this is the Gametrailers MG retrospective, part six more precisely. IJK_Principle (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Soundtracks

Shouldn't they have their own row?

Each of them are notable, real world wise.happypal (Talk | contribs) 17:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

13 entries with long names would be a bit overkill; a link the the list works well. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 18:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid: Rising

Everything we've been told so far points to this NOT being just some spin-off; it seems to be a full-fledged entry in the series. As such, it should be added into the canonical series section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.164.31 (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing's been confirmed yet, but we'll probably hear more information tomorrow. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 00:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Why is Rising in the upcoming games category and Peace Walker isn't? Because Rising isn't Sony-exclusive?--Yuefairchild (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's ridiculous that there's even an "Upcoming games" section in the first place. No other video game template on Wikipedia has that; just put both Rising and Peace Walker in the "Canonical series" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.164.31 (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Either put both MGSR and MGSPW in the "upcoming" section (which seems the only logical way if this section is to be maintained), or both in the canonical section. Differenciating the games here is POV-pushing. Kojima called both games "MGS5", with Rising as the "next-gen 5", and PW as "his own 5" (see here, and for more reliable, here. Sure, Kojima is more involved with PW, but he does state that he produces R and takes part to its development a bit. And in the Konami E3 press conf, he does stress that he was involved in the new way Rising is being developped (more open to the west), refering to the GDC conference he himself presented about the "next MGS".

Seriously there's nothing even hinting at the game possibly being "non-canon". I agree with the changes made to the template, and it should not be changed again, unless Kojima says it's not envisionned as MGS5 and not in the main storyline.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Structure of Template

I find it a little confusing that the Template doesn't match the Series List in terms of breakdown of the Series. The breakdown present there is a result of a consensus after long discussions. I'd say, it's appropriate to present a common breakdown (e.g. "Original Series", "Solid Series", "Acid Series", instead of the on second thought difficult "canon" "non-canon" breakdown (what about MGS Touch?)).87.174.231.7 (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

RE: Axem Titanium's demands

Well, I honestly believe that your removal of content from this template is completely unnecessary.--King-9 (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the links to remakes because they are merely links to sections of the main articles which are not distinct enough to warrant including. If someone is looking for MGS3: Subsistence, the logical thing to do would be to click on the main MGS3 link. As for the voice actors, why is that necessary at all? Are you suggesting that Metal Gear is the most important work these actors have ever worked on? And even if I was curious about the voice actors, I wouldn't know who voices whom based merely on their placement in the template since it doesn't tell you anything. It just clogs up the navbox with excess links without adding anything useful to navigation. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I thought that the remakes, regardless of having only sections in the main articles, were still quite noteworthy and I think they should be mentioned. But the voice actors? I never said anything about that. But I don't care if you remove the voice actors or not.--King-9 (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Noteworthiness (aka notability) isn't usually a criterion for inclusion in navboxes. The main purpose of navboxes is to aid in navigation and adding those extra links doesn't do that because those articles are already linked on the template (with the exception of Twin Snakes). Not having a link on the nav template doesn't mean a thing isn't noteworthy, merely that a section link is redundant to the main article link. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have an issue with this interpretation? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Where exactly has there been a discussion or consensus on the inclusion of section links in a navbox? I've seen this brought up before as criteria for removing sections but haven't seen anything to support it. There's nothing at WP:NAV that mentions it. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 22:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it was in a previous version of the essay. The essay also does note to "avoid repeating links to the same article within a template". However, in this case, I'm not arguing based on that essay, I'm arguing that the remake links are redundant to the main game links since it would be manifestly obvious to a user looking for the remake to go to the relevant main game article. Perhaps this is not true for the supplements which is why I didn't dispute your reversion of that point. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your point that it would be "obvious" that people would simply click on the main article link for the remake section... I'm not sure how to put it, but I do think that (at least with someone unfamiliar with Metal Gear) that they wouldn't be aware of the remakes.--King-9 (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case, then why would they be looking for them in the first place? Axem Titanium (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

To learn more about related games. I've gone down to navboxes plenty of times to look for a related article to read. I don't always go through the entire article. Also, they might not be starting at the Metal Gear article, they could be at one of the remakes/supplements and use the navbox to get back to the main article. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 04:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait, but the remakes don't have their own articles. For example, a random reader heard about a game called "Metal Gear Solid 2: Substance". He could search it in the search bar and get redirected straight to the MGS2 article, which mentions it in the lead. Or he could go to the main Metal Gear series article and see that there are remakes in this series and click the link from there. In order for those links to be useful, a naive reader must somehow magically appear at an article that contains the Metal Gear template and be looking specifically for this remake. This just doesn't happen since the search bar is used much more often for this function. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Someone may be familiar with MGS2: Substance but unfamiliar with MGS3: Subsistence. Upon completing the section (instead of the article) that user jumps down to the navbox and sees the related Subsistence link. This is actually where the Harry Potter-like navbox that King-9 made would work better actually, or at least something that places the related games grouped with the main article link. The Dead Rising template does something like this, though with much less games. Maybe it's time for redesign of the template. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 18:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't make that "Harry Potter-like navbox". It was made by some other user whom I don't know about.--King-9 (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, it was anon user 85.180.86.162. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 23:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Although, it doesn't sound like a bad idea to group the articles that way.--King-9 (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I thought the Harry Potter-like method looked terrible. Only 4 out of 9 even had something to put there, and only one of them was an actual article instead of just a section link. I think the reader you're trying to describe is in such a minority that he can safely be discounted. Even without a direct link, he could still just click on the MGS3 article to find out. Ideally, the Substance section would mention other remakes since it's such a relevant bit of info. In fact, I'm going to add that right now. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes the HP-styled one was a bit excessive, but the game grouping was a good idea. Only issue with grouping games with parentheses is that there are a lot of games. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 23:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It would look something like this:

This isn't too bad actually with the <small> tags. The supplements and MG Online, Touch, and Arcade could all also be added.^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 23:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I still disagree that the anchored links should be included at all, but this is much preferable to the current template. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll make this change as we continue discussion on the template as a whole, then. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 14:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's what a highly condensed version of the Navbox with columns would look like.

This one does has a fair amount of whitespace though. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 15:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The first template suggestion (w/out the columns) looks fine. The second template suggestion (w/ the columns) looks pretty disjointed.--King-9 (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone care to comment further?--King-9 (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the current setup. Everyone else? ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 04:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I'll live. There was some talk a while ago about how we should avoid acronyms in navboxes, since not all readers are familiar with the acronyms. What are your thoughts? Axem Titanium (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

While not everyone will be familiar with the acronyms, it's possible to infer (Metal Gear = MG, Metal Gear Solid = MGS).--King-9 (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments, anyone?--King-9 (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll assume this conversation is dead. I'll be archiving it now.--King-9 (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)