This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A Man in Black, in his usual helpful manner, has deleted or merged the entire Mods article with absolutely no discussion on the subject whatsoever. Typical that he would just ram whatever he personally wants done through without any consideration for the views of others.
I would like the position of some other people (preferably those who actually have experience with the subject) before we just let this pass unopposed. -- Grandpafootsoldier 20:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I highly recommend you read both WP:BOLD and this enlightening quote from Jimbo:
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.
It's especially tacky to see a revert from you, Yukichigai, given that this is one of the links I removed.
Please add any sourced information to this article, and we can split it off if and only if the sourced info is too much to fit into this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 23:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The article should not be AFDed, as it has been merged. Please add sourced info to this article, and we can split it if it becomes necessary. As for the links, we should link mods about which there is commentary in reliable sources independent of the mods themselves; anything else is advertising. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 23:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
WTF? I reverted my own incomplete AFD nomination. This isn't some bureaucracy where half-filed paperwork is somehow binding. I considered sending it to AFD, then I realized that a good chunk of the article is salvagable and would benefit Deus Ex. I dumped the long unsourced claims about UnrealEd2 and the community, all of the advertising links (seven of which were not even complete projects) as advertising as non-notable mod projects, then brought the remainder of useful content here. Now, if there's some part I deleted you think you can source, please pull it out of page history and source it, but we don't need a bureaucratic AFD nomination to delete linkspam and unsourced info when nobody at all wants the page history deleted. (Such an AFD is likely to end with deal with it on talk anyway.)
Now, what, exactly, did I do to harm these articles? - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 00:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit disappointed to see the same basic issue rehashed every fourth subject on the talk page, always involving the same arguments, and always reaching the same conclusion: none. I understand people get testy about their pet projects -- I'm guilty of that, too -- but this is bordering on a level that is patently ridiculous. I've spent ten years involved in the speech and debate community, and this kind of "discussion" is what we refer to as "two ship passing in the night." Neither side is willing to accept that the other has a legitimate position, and attempts to reach the middle ground are thwarted by a refusal to accept anything but your own original ideals. Last I checked, we're trying to work towards a complete Deus Ex article, secure the Good Article nomination, and move on from there. That's going to involve give and take -- please, let's attempt that.
From what I understand, A Man In Bl♟ck is sifting through the series of Deus Ex articles with two things in mind:
And then I see the rest of you coming in and attacking him for his methods and behaviour, not his intentions. I see no evidence that his behaviour is malicious, and after looking at the edit histories and respective disagreements, I'm confused by the comments made against him.
Early on in this thread, AMIB specifically asked Y|yukichigai to cite "any sourced information to [the] article," and to recreate the page only if there "is too much to fit into this article." In an attempt to clean up the family of Deus Ex articles, he is merging content from small, stubby articles and placing them within our core article. He is deleting that which is not sourced, and that which is not encyclopedic, both of which are in line with Wikipedia policy.
The response from Y|yukichigai was that "merging cannot be used as a loophole to the AfD rule," and a tangential mention of the three-revert rule. From my standpoint, these not only assumes bad faith, but fails to respond to his original request. You are assuming that AMIB wants to destroy all Deus Ex content, and ignoring the beliefs on which he bases his edits, deletions, and merges. Unencyclopedic or unsourced information does not belong on Wikipedia. It dilutes the quality of the project, and damages our claim to credibility.
And then the process begins again, with the same accusations being leveled, and each side repeating what it said the first time around. Again, Y|yukichigai claims to have responded to AMIB's arguments, but such is not the case. Attacking the methods by which he makes his edits is not a legitimate cause to revert his edits. If there is anything to discuss here, it should be why the information was removed, not how.
Now. With that said, I hope that this external perspective will stop your bickering and let us get back to work. I agree with AMIB here. Unencyclopedic or unverifiable content should be removed, aggressively, until it can be sourced. This includes half-finished mods or mods with a limited community. We don't publish articles on half-finished novels, do we?
And we certainly don't publish articles about blogs, web sites, etc. with limited communities. His attempts to merge what content does meet the criterion for inclusion in the encylopedia into the main Deus Ex articles are not harmful, malicious, or any of the other thinly-veiled implications that you have tried to attach. They are simply something you don't agree with, and I'd really appreciate if everyone stopped treating it like its the end of the world. Consequentially 03:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of sourcing, we really need to shore up the quality and relevance of our sources. Using the numbering in this version...
Plus, we need to use citation templates, like {{ cite web}}. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 23:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
what the hell happened to weapons in deus ex???!!?!?!
I just remembered this quite long article (about 8 pages) over at Gamespy.com that was written in part by the actual team who worked on Deus Ex and its sequel, called the "DX 1 Continuity Bible". Though I have just skimmed through it, it seems like a really good source to use for info on the development of the game (which Consequentially mentioned as being needed), and pehaps for some of the smaller related articles (if we decide to keep them that is).
Here's the link:
Seven or eight interviews with game designers/writers. Consequentially 02:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I made an image that shows the methods of getting past obstacles in Deus Ex. Anyone care to put that in the article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Methods.jpg ThunderPower 16:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Hrm.. This is odd. For all the complaints of "cruft" that AmiB has lodged against the articles of Deus Ex.. He hasn't said a damned peep on the FF pages. "Airships in Final Fantasy"? Explain how thats any more valid then Robots in Deus Ex? It elaborates an equally menial detail, and yet those strange evasive responses and deletion markers haven't left a mark on those pages. Why not target Classic Doom Enemies? Enemies in Doom 3? How about an article about the damn BFG-9k? What, does cruft only matter if you can have an easy time deleting it? -Durandal- 04:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Give him a break. AMIB is only one man (in black, lol) fighting against the cruft. He's just concentrating on a couple of items right now. Cruft is a lot easier if it goes uncontested, sure. He could definitely work faster if it wss uncontested, but as it isn't, he has to stop, argue, and argue until consensus is reached. Hbdragon88 21:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Next Generation Magazine called Deus Ex the greatest PC game of all time when it first came out. Is this worth noting (if we can find a source other than my memory)? -- Marco Passarani 02:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Unless anyone objects I'm going to remove the "ambrosia canisters" image from this page. Not only is it not really adding anything, it's taken from another site and should be replaced with a self-taken shot anyway (as should a couple of the other more useful pics). -- Grandpafootsoldier 10:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone added Linux to the list of supported platforms for DX. Now, I know that there are companies who are working on it, but I haven't heard about a completed Linux port for the game. It can be played via WINE, but that's a port of the Windows libraries rather than the game itself. Can anyone provide a link to a finished port of the game? Chrismith 23:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay. It's two months later. Nobody has come up with a single reference for the various Deus Ex organization articles, or even bothered to try to clean them up. This article now has a lengthy, detailed, useful plot summary, to which these inferior, incomplete plot summaries can now safely be redirected.
Rebuttals, after months of neglect on these articles, need to come in the form of useful references which are not direct observation of the games. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 06:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
First of all, as you can see if you read the article it depth, it is not just not just a "recap" of the plot of Deus Ex. It adds a bunch more info for the overall story that couldn't be included in the game for time/budget reasons, and which I think are worthy of mention in the articles. So, in answer to your two questions, yes and yes. Additionally, I could not find what you said about spliting off articles anywhere in WP:FICT, here is what is says to be sure:
1. Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article.
2. Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. The list(s) should contain all characters, races, places, etc. from the work of fiction, with links to those that have their own articles.
The difference between 'major' and 'minor' characters is intentionally vague; the main criterion is how much non-trivial information is available on the character. Some books could plausibly have several dozen major characters.
3. It is useful to add redirects to the article page or list of minor characters, from anything that's listed in there.
4. Plot summaries should be kept reasonably short, as the point of Wikipedia is to describe the works, not simply summarize them. It is generally appropriate for a plot summary to remain part of the main article, not a lengthy page of its own. In some cases, sub-articles and lists are created when the potential for an encyclopedic coverage is hindered by the recommended length guidelines of one article. Please see the Making good use of Wikibooks and Wikisource section below for guidance and examples.
Also, if what you said is true, than such FA articles as Link, or even the article on the main page, Torchic, shouldn't be allowed either (but I think I've pointed that discrepancy out before at least once). -- Grandpafootsoldier 20:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Huh. Link's article got FAR'ed and improved. This is neither here nor there; a handful of secret organizations that have a supporting role in a single game are dissimilar to the protagonist of a long-running, widely-known series.
Come up with some encyclopedic material that doesn't fit into this article. That's the point of WP:FICT. When you have that, make an article. Until then, leave the redirects. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 06:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think that my RFA isn't really relevant. I'm not laying down the hammer here; nobody is going to get blocked by me over this, and no articles are getting deleted or protected.
The Link article used to be a bad example. The new article is a good example of when to split an article. When there's that much non-lot summary info to say about the Deus Ex organizations, we'll split them off. ¬_¬
I redirected the articles because I felt that this article already had plenty of plot summary. Was there some plot summary that needed to be merged here? Because, right now, there's nothing at all but plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 06:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Dude, are you completely blind? I've already given a source which includes more info than is included in the game plot summery for the organization pages, and I have already shown that they IN NO WAY violate WP:FICT (which you nevertheless keep on citing to support your argument over and over again). If you are going to continue to beat this issue into the ground please come up with something new.
As CP/M said, this form of topic organization is completely normal on Wikipedia, and the ONLY reason this is an issue at this point is because with the relative lack of people working on these pages, you feel you have a better chance of ramming through your way of doing things. Really, at this point you should be the one to put up (a good argument) or shut up. -- Grandpafootsoldier 04:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The reason I'm blowing it off is because these arguments have been answered, time and again, for pretty much every single fictional subject on Wikipedia, and WP:FICT is the result of those discussions. If it's just plot summary, it needs to be merged, or just redirected if no article benefits from that level of detail. If there's some encyclopedic content not sourced to the game itself, then it needs to be merged unless there's too much encyclopedic, sourced content to fit in another article.
There is zero info other than plot summary in these articles. They need to be merged if we need plot summary in another article, and redirected if we don't. This is WP:FICT in a nutshell.
So. Where's the sourced, encyclopedic info that isn't original research based on direct observation of the games? - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 23:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I created the Weapons in Deus Ex article, and since it was merged into this one, it has disappeared!! it was made much better by other editors and users, and it was useful and deserved a page of its own!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.97.192 ( talk • contribs)
I think it's time we submit the article to Featured Article rank... it's very well written and... isn't bad. Should we? - ZFGokuSSJ1 19:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
FA status is recognition that this article is one of the best and most comprehensive on Wikipedia. I definitely think that's worth striving for - especially as this game is one of the most kick-ass around and deserves the acknowledgment. The wealth and fame for us that go along with that are secondary ;) -- Grandpafootsoldier 19:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've renominated the page for GA. -- Grandpafootsoldier 08:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi; I've placed the GA on hold, although it's fairly close. The refs should be referenced appropriately, without just providing a URL. Template:Cite web is a good way to do this. Aside from that, it looks good. It'll need more copy-editing, tweaking, and whatnot for FA status, but once those refs are fixed, it'll be passable for GA status for sure. — Deckill er 17:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the review! I added a rationale for the box art image, I'm pretty sure it's the only one which needed it. I've also changed the reference format. Let me know if they are detailed enough now, or if I still need to add anything. -- Grandpafootsoldier 21:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should add some details. Jamhaw 14:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)jamhaw
Personally I think the tagged merges for organizations should be merged into a single "organizations of Deus Ex" article since this current main article is 57 kilobytes. What are other peoples suggestions as to what to do? Radagast83 18:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Now that DX3 has been announced, is it time to make a Deus Ex series article for Wikipedia? - ZFGokuSSJ1 13:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It might be better to wait until the game is actually out before going in that direction. -- Grandpafootsoldier 05:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the info for Nicolette DuClare and Chad Dumier to their own separate pages. The previous setup of having substantial information on two separate pages was not working IMO - especially in regard to DuClare. Also, given the fact that all other characters that appear in both games have their own pages, this didn't seem too out of the ordinary. -- Grandpafootsoldier 10:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Is this for real? Jamhaw 18:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)jamhaw
on second thought it could just be a mistake check out the history of Tiberian Twilight
Would it be appropriate to add a development section to the article, similar to
System Shock or
Half-Life? Here are some sources of small info on development of DX (maybe... I know the first two are good ones, the rest are just good interviews with
Warren... which are probably better for the Warren article):
http://www.gameslice.com/features/spector/index.shtml
http://nuwen.net/dx.html#postmortem
http://pc.ign.com/articles/437/437677p1.html
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20070305/sheffield_01.shtml
http://www.gametab.com/news/516264/
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/category/437
-
ZFGokuSSJ1
20:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
With major character I believe you mean anna? well look at this youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hsh24FmYlNQ you might say this is a glitch, but on the other hand no character mention the death of anna, not even gunther.
Wouldn't it be helpful to mention this upgrade, and at least provide a link in the external links section? The System Shock 2 page mentions that game's respective upgrade packs. http://offtopicproductions.com/hdtp/ -- 70.234.44.17 07:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The factual accuracy of the claim to this being a best selling game is dubious. Citation (5) shows the game only sold around half a million units. This is peanuts, I'm afraid. If you read this article more carefully, you will see the first list is not best selling games but a random sampling of games. The later list shows the actual best selling games where, for instance, Final Fantasy VII racks up 7.8 million units, and the Pokemon games rack up 8 million units.
There is no getting around it: Deus Ex was not a best selling game. It sold modestly well. Enough for a sequel, but rather less than was hoped I suspect. I suggest ammending this claim. (I can't vouch for the Mac sales; Mac games sell rather less so it might be more significant in this context).
[CB] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.109.240 ( talk • contribs)
Hey, I was thinking about cutting down the "Popular Culture" section and turning it more into a Production-related section. Some of the stuff there could be kept (such as how the text system works in game), but it would just be put more in context of the overall game design. This seems pretty doable to me given all the info available in the Gamasutra postmortem. What do you guys think about it? -- Grandpafootsoldier 05:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A Man in Black, in his usual helpful manner, has deleted or merged the entire Mods article with absolutely no discussion on the subject whatsoever. Typical that he would just ram whatever he personally wants done through without any consideration for the views of others.
I would like the position of some other people (preferably those who actually have experience with the subject) before we just let this pass unopposed. -- Grandpafootsoldier 20:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I highly recommend you read both WP:BOLD and this enlightening quote from Jimbo:
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.
It's especially tacky to see a revert from you, Yukichigai, given that this is one of the links I removed.
Please add any sourced information to this article, and we can split it off if and only if the sourced info is too much to fit into this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 23:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The article should not be AFDed, as it has been merged. Please add sourced info to this article, and we can split it if it becomes necessary. As for the links, we should link mods about which there is commentary in reliable sources independent of the mods themselves; anything else is advertising. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 23:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
WTF? I reverted my own incomplete AFD nomination. This isn't some bureaucracy where half-filed paperwork is somehow binding. I considered sending it to AFD, then I realized that a good chunk of the article is salvagable and would benefit Deus Ex. I dumped the long unsourced claims about UnrealEd2 and the community, all of the advertising links (seven of which were not even complete projects) as advertising as non-notable mod projects, then brought the remainder of useful content here. Now, if there's some part I deleted you think you can source, please pull it out of page history and source it, but we don't need a bureaucratic AFD nomination to delete linkspam and unsourced info when nobody at all wants the page history deleted. (Such an AFD is likely to end with deal with it on talk anyway.)
Now, what, exactly, did I do to harm these articles? - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 00:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit disappointed to see the same basic issue rehashed every fourth subject on the talk page, always involving the same arguments, and always reaching the same conclusion: none. I understand people get testy about their pet projects -- I'm guilty of that, too -- but this is bordering on a level that is patently ridiculous. I've spent ten years involved in the speech and debate community, and this kind of "discussion" is what we refer to as "two ship passing in the night." Neither side is willing to accept that the other has a legitimate position, and attempts to reach the middle ground are thwarted by a refusal to accept anything but your own original ideals. Last I checked, we're trying to work towards a complete Deus Ex article, secure the Good Article nomination, and move on from there. That's going to involve give and take -- please, let's attempt that.
From what I understand, A Man In Bl♟ck is sifting through the series of Deus Ex articles with two things in mind:
And then I see the rest of you coming in and attacking him for his methods and behaviour, not his intentions. I see no evidence that his behaviour is malicious, and after looking at the edit histories and respective disagreements, I'm confused by the comments made against him.
Early on in this thread, AMIB specifically asked Y|yukichigai to cite "any sourced information to [the] article," and to recreate the page only if there "is too much to fit into this article." In an attempt to clean up the family of Deus Ex articles, he is merging content from small, stubby articles and placing them within our core article. He is deleting that which is not sourced, and that which is not encyclopedic, both of which are in line with Wikipedia policy.
The response from Y|yukichigai was that "merging cannot be used as a loophole to the AfD rule," and a tangential mention of the three-revert rule. From my standpoint, these not only assumes bad faith, but fails to respond to his original request. You are assuming that AMIB wants to destroy all Deus Ex content, and ignoring the beliefs on which he bases his edits, deletions, and merges. Unencyclopedic or unsourced information does not belong on Wikipedia. It dilutes the quality of the project, and damages our claim to credibility.
And then the process begins again, with the same accusations being leveled, and each side repeating what it said the first time around. Again, Y|yukichigai claims to have responded to AMIB's arguments, but such is not the case. Attacking the methods by which he makes his edits is not a legitimate cause to revert his edits. If there is anything to discuss here, it should be why the information was removed, not how.
Now. With that said, I hope that this external perspective will stop your bickering and let us get back to work. I agree with AMIB here. Unencyclopedic or unverifiable content should be removed, aggressively, until it can be sourced. This includes half-finished mods or mods with a limited community. We don't publish articles on half-finished novels, do we?
And we certainly don't publish articles about blogs, web sites, etc. with limited communities. His attempts to merge what content does meet the criterion for inclusion in the encylopedia into the main Deus Ex articles are not harmful, malicious, or any of the other thinly-veiled implications that you have tried to attach. They are simply something you don't agree with, and I'd really appreciate if everyone stopped treating it like its the end of the world. Consequentially 03:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of sourcing, we really need to shore up the quality and relevance of our sources. Using the numbering in this version...
Plus, we need to use citation templates, like {{ cite web}}. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 23:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
what the hell happened to weapons in deus ex???!!?!?!
I just remembered this quite long article (about 8 pages) over at Gamespy.com that was written in part by the actual team who worked on Deus Ex and its sequel, called the "DX 1 Continuity Bible". Though I have just skimmed through it, it seems like a really good source to use for info on the development of the game (which Consequentially mentioned as being needed), and pehaps for some of the smaller related articles (if we decide to keep them that is).
Here's the link:
Seven or eight interviews with game designers/writers. Consequentially 02:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I made an image that shows the methods of getting past obstacles in Deus Ex. Anyone care to put that in the article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Methods.jpg ThunderPower 16:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Hrm.. This is odd. For all the complaints of "cruft" that AmiB has lodged against the articles of Deus Ex.. He hasn't said a damned peep on the FF pages. "Airships in Final Fantasy"? Explain how thats any more valid then Robots in Deus Ex? It elaborates an equally menial detail, and yet those strange evasive responses and deletion markers haven't left a mark on those pages. Why not target Classic Doom Enemies? Enemies in Doom 3? How about an article about the damn BFG-9k? What, does cruft only matter if you can have an easy time deleting it? -Durandal- 04:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Give him a break. AMIB is only one man (in black, lol) fighting against the cruft. He's just concentrating on a couple of items right now. Cruft is a lot easier if it goes uncontested, sure. He could definitely work faster if it wss uncontested, but as it isn't, he has to stop, argue, and argue until consensus is reached. Hbdragon88 21:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Next Generation Magazine called Deus Ex the greatest PC game of all time when it first came out. Is this worth noting (if we can find a source other than my memory)? -- Marco Passarani 02:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Unless anyone objects I'm going to remove the "ambrosia canisters" image from this page. Not only is it not really adding anything, it's taken from another site and should be replaced with a self-taken shot anyway (as should a couple of the other more useful pics). -- Grandpafootsoldier 10:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone added Linux to the list of supported platforms for DX. Now, I know that there are companies who are working on it, but I haven't heard about a completed Linux port for the game. It can be played via WINE, but that's a port of the Windows libraries rather than the game itself. Can anyone provide a link to a finished port of the game? Chrismith 23:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay. It's two months later. Nobody has come up with a single reference for the various Deus Ex organization articles, or even bothered to try to clean them up. This article now has a lengthy, detailed, useful plot summary, to which these inferior, incomplete plot summaries can now safely be redirected.
Rebuttals, after months of neglect on these articles, need to come in the form of useful references which are not direct observation of the games. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 06:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
First of all, as you can see if you read the article it depth, it is not just not just a "recap" of the plot of Deus Ex. It adds a bunch more info for the overall story that couldn't be included in the game for time/budget reasons, and which I think are worthy of mention in the articles. So, in answer to your two questions, yes and yes. Additionally, I could not find what you said about spliting off articles anywhere in WP:FICT, here is what is says to be sure:
1. Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article.
2. Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. The list(s) should contain all characters, races, places, etc. from the work of fiction, with links to those that have their own articles.
The difference between 'major' and 'minor' characters is intentionally vague; the main criterion is how much non-trivial information is available on the character. Some books could plausibly have several dozen major characters.
3. It is useful to add redirects to the article page or list of minor characters, from anything that's listed in there.
4. Plot summaries should be kept reasonably short, as the point of Wikipedia is to describe the works, not simply summarize them. It is generally appropriate for a plot summary to remain part of the main article, not a lengthy page of its own. In some cases, sub-articles and lists are created when the potential for an encyclopedic coverage is hindered by the recommended length guidelines of one article. Please see the Making good use of Wikibooks and Wikisource section below for guidance and examples.
Also, if what you said is true, than such FA articles as Link, or even the article on the main page, Torchic, shouldn't be allowed either (but I think I've pointed that discrepancy out before at least once). -- Grandpafootsoldier 20:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Huh. Link's article got FAR'ed and improved. This is neither here nor there; a handful of secret organizations that have a supporting role in a single game are dissimilar to the protagonist of a long-running, widely-known series.
Come up with some encyclopedic material that doesn't fit into this article. That's the point of WP:FICT. When you have that, make an article. Until then, leave the redirects. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 06:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think that my RFA isn't really relevant. I'm not laying down the hammer here; nobody is going to get blocked by me over this, and no articles are getting deleted or protected.
The Link article used to be a bad example. The new article is a good example of when to split an article. When there's that much non-lot summary info to say about the Deus Ex organizations, we'll split them off. ¬_¬
I redirected the articles because I felt that this article already had plenty of plot summary. Was there some plot summary that needed to be merged here? Because, right now, there's nothing at all but plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 06:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Dude, are you completely blind? I've already given a source which includes more info than is included in the game plot summery for the organization pages, and I have already shown that they IN NO WAY violate WP:FICT (which you nevertheless keep on citing to support your argument over and over again). If you are going to continue to beat this issue into the ground please come up with something new.
As CP/M said, this form of topic organization is completely normal on Wikipedia, and the ONLY reason this is an issue at this point is because with the relative lack of people working on these pages, you feel you have a better chance of ramming through your way of doing things. Really, at this point you should be the one to put up (a good argument) or shut up. -- Grandpafootsoldier 04:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The reason I'm blowing it off is because these arguments have been answered, time and again, for pretty much every single fictional subject on Wikipedia, and WP:FICT is the result of those discussions. If it's just plot summary, it needs to be merged, or just redirected if no article benefits from that level of detail. If there's some encyclopedic content not sourced to the game itself, then it needs to be merged unless there's too much encyclopedic, sourced content to fit in another article.
There is zero info other than plot summary in these articles. They need to be merged if we need plot summary in another article, and redirected if we don't. This is WP:FICT in a nutshell.
So. Where's the sourced, encyclopedic info that isn't original research based on direct observation of the games? - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 23:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I created the Weapons in Deus Ex article, and since it was merged into this one, it has disappeared!! it was made much better by other editors and users, and it was useful and deserved a page of its own!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.97.192 ( talk • contribs)
I think it's time we submit the article to Featured Article rank... it's very well written and... isn't bad. Should we? - ZFGokuSSJ1 19:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
FA status is recognition that this article is one of the best and most comprehensive on Wikipedia. I definitely think that's worth striving for - especially as this game is one of the most kick-ass around and deserves the acknowledgment. The wealth and fame for us that go along with that are secondary ;) -- Grandpafootsoldier 19:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've renominated the page for GA. -- Grandpafootsoldier 08:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi; I've placed the GA on hold, although it's fairly close. The refs should be referenced appropriately, without just providing a URL. Template:Cite web is a good way to do this. Aside from that, it looks good. It'll need more copy-editing, tweaking, and whatnot for FA status, but once those refs are fixed, it'll be passable for GA status for sure. — Deckill er 17:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the review! I added a rationale for the box art image, I'm pretty sure it's the only one which needed it. I've also changed the reference format. Let me know if they are detailed enough now, or if I still need to add anything. -- Grandpafootsoldier 21:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should add some details. Jamhaw 14:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)jamhaw
Personally I think the tagged merges for organizations should be merged into a single "organizations of Deus Ex" article since this current main article is 57 kilobytes. What are other peoples suggestions as to what to do? Radagast83 18:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Now that DX3 has been announced, is it time to make a Deus Ex series article for Wikipedia? - ZFGokuSSJ1 13:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It might be better to wait until the game is actually out before going in that direction. -- Grandpafootsoldier 05:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the info for Nicolette DuClare and Chad Dumier to their own separate pages. The previous setup of having substantial information on two separate pages was not working IMO - especially in regard to DuClare. Also, given the fact that all other characters that appear in both games have their own pages, this didn't seem too out of the ordinary. -- Grandpafootsoldier 10:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Is this for real? Jamhaw 18:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)jamhaw
on second thought it could just be a mistake check out the history of Tiberian Twilight
Would it be appropriate to add a development section to the article, similar to
System Shock or
Half-Life? Here are some sources of small info on development of DX (maybe... I know the first two are good ones, the rest are just good interviews with
Warren... which are probably better for the Warren article):
http://www.gameslice.com/features/spector/index.shtml
http://nuwen.net/dx.html#postmortem
http://pc.ign.com/articles/437/437677p1.html
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20070305/sheffield_01.shtml
http://www.gametab.com/news/516264/
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/category/437
-
ZFGokuSSJ1
20:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
With major character I believe you mean anna? well look at this youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hsh24FmYlNQ you might say this is a glitch, but on the other hand no character mention the death of anna, not even gunther.
Wouldn't it be helpful to mention this upgrade, and at least provide a link in the external links section? The System Shock 2 page mentions that game's respective upgrade packs. http://offtopicproductions.com/hdtp/ -- 70.234.44.17 07:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The factual accuracy of the claim to this being a best selling game is dubious. Citation (5) shows the game only sold around half a million units. This is peanuts, I'm afraid. If you read this article more carefully, you will see the first list is not best selling games but a random sampling of games. The later list shows the actual best selling games where, for instance, Final Fantasy VII racks up 7.8 million units, and the Pokemon games rack up 8 million units.
There is no getting around it: Deus Ex was not a best selling game. It sold modestly well. Enough for a sequel, but rather less than was hoped I suspect. I suggest ammending this claim. (I can't vouch for the Mac sales; Mac games sell rather less so it might be more significant in this context).
[CB] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.109.240 ( talk • contribs)
Hey, I was thinking about cutting down the "Popular Culture" section and turning it more into a Production-related section. Some of the stuff there could be kept (such as how the text system works in game), but it would just be put more in context of the overall game design. This seems pretty doable to me given all the info available in the Gamasutra postmortem. What do you guys think about it? -- Grandpafootsoldier 05:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)