Ok, that's it! This is being ridiculous!
First was adding Assassin and Berseker as main characters, which I deleted, and then someone returned them. So, in order to make an arragement, I putted them in "Other Characters", althought I'm still unsure about leaving them or not since those profile are almost empty, specially Assassin's, and they have alredy some information in "Minor Character" section.
Not to mention the adding of a non-existing link to a movie of Soul Calibur of which there is still no hint at all, which I had to delete twice, and shall not allow it unless there IS a page about the movie with proper information.
Futhersome, a list of Bonus Characters had been added, which I think is good, as long as the one who made it is planing to make pages about them, cuz if not, that list shall be deleted and left to the "Chronicles of the Sword Characters" Characters section.
Now, this list about the Bonus' Characters Weapons is something I'm not allowing, since this is not the section to add it. If someone wants to give information about them, it will have to be directly related to the characters.
That's all I'm saying, and I expect this Template to stay as it must. ( Alexlayer 14:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC))
Ok, this is turning into a serious trouble. First it was the thing with Assasin and Berserker, which turned into nothing more than a ridiculous fanfiction idea of sort. Right now the articles are established correctly, but as nothing more than stub.
But now there is a list of the non-combatant characters in the Template, which, even if them are well done, it's the same as with Assasin, Berserker or the recently added Lizardmen: They can't be more than stubs.
To make these articles individually seems absurd, since there is an article about all the minor characters in which there it is said all that there is to say about those characters.
For that, I propose that the articles of Assassin, Berserker and Lizardmen, along with all the Non-Combatant list, shall be deleted, and unless someone gives me a good reason for not doing so in the next days, I shall delete them for good. ( Alexlayer 06:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC))
No objection, and the stubs weren't upgraded. I'm cleaning up this Template. If someone is going to add something to it, make sure that it won't be about a stub. ( Alexlayer 16:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC))
A better format is to list all characters as per introduced in each installment. It is more comprehensive and gives a clear picture about who are the veterans and who are newer characters. Not all characters need to be given as links. Its better than some randomly chosen characters in the list. This format can be carried over to other series like dead or alive tekken etc. For someone who has never played the series before it gives a good chance to get familiar. 65.218.181.189 ( talk) 05:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
66.193.79.189 ( talk) 05:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, take a look at "street figheter", "tekken", "dead or alive" (yes, only 3 characters have articles) or "mortal combat etc.". (And welcome to Wikipedia.) -- 194.145.185.229 ( talk) 17:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and one more thing. Actually... NONE of Virtua Fighter characters have an article on Wikipedia. Guess why? -- 194.145.185.229 ( talk) 17:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
And no, you won't change this template, which is a STANDARD template as used not only for ALL video game series (and no, not just the fighting games) but also ALL SERIES OF ANY KIND (films, books, you name, anything), for several YEARS, and for a good reasons: it's small and not absolutely-needlessly bloated, it's clear and obvious (just a simple alphabetical order), it's not CONFUSING (if I didn't know better, I'd thought it lists the characters exclusive in each game or something, because NOTHING indicates it shows their introductions). So again, no. And I mean NO.
And Kung Fu Man: I'm disappoint, I thought your job here is watching for annoying clueless newbies and shooting down their various stupid ideas, and not enabling them instead! Get your shit together, it's like losing you edit war with the guy pushing-back Edward Carnby made you weak or something. -- 194.145.185.229 ( talk) 16:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and Kung-Fu Man: there's nothing to "discuss" here, STOP ENABLING HIM. -- 194.145.185.229 ( talk) 17:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
"To 65.218.181.189 (nice name btw for an experienced user)": The template about George Lucas covers dozens of films by one of the most famous and influential directors/writers/producers in the world/history, known to hundreds of millions (billions?) of people, and spanning a period of several decades. Instead of just a total of 13 articles about some very fringe stuff important to a bunch of fighting vidya nerds (I did help to write some of these articles myself, but I'm realistic about it). Also, this template is very obvious, instead of being confusing/misleading (if I didn't know better, I'd think that your stupid list is about the characters that are exclusively in these games, instead of being introduced in them, because nothing at all indicated this). And now please go away, probably back to Wikia or wherever you came from. -- 194.145.185.229 ( talk) 15:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
And if you want an actual comparison to the works of George Lucas, rather check Template:Star Wars characters. Becuase something that coukld be compared to Lucas' would be rather Template:Namco Bandai. And this is the end of this really, really stupid discussion. -- 194.145.185.229 ( talk) 16:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Removed Heihachi. Kung Fu Man cited the fact that some official media has said he was "present" in the events of the second Soulcalibur. But the fact is, he's only been playable in one game as a guest character. Using similar logic, we could probably include Spawn and Link and that dude from those Star Wars games, since technically they were given storyline explanations for their presence in the games well. It can be argued that they're not in any official timeline because of rights issues. -- Jtalledo (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Video games Template‑class | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Ok, that's it! This is being ridiculous!
First was adding Assassin and Berseker as main characters, which I deleted, and then someone returned them. So, in order to make an arragement, I putted them in "Other Characters", althought I'm still unsure about leaving them or not since those profile are almost empty, specially Assassin's, and they have alredy some information in "Minor Character" section.
Not to mention the adding of a non-existing link to a movie of Soul Calibur of which there is still no hint at all, which I had to delete twice, and shall not allow it unless there IS a page about the movie with proper information.
Futhersome, a list of Bonus Characters had been added, which I think is good, as long as the one who made it is planing to make pages about them, cuz if not, that list shall be deleted and left to the "Chronicles of the Sword Characters" Characters section.
Now, this list about the Bonus' Characters Weapons is something I'm not allowing, since this is not the section to add it. If someone wants to give information about them, it will have to be directly related to the characters.
That's all I'm saying, and I expect this Template to stay as it must. ( Alexlayer 14:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC))
Ok, this is turning into a serious trouble. First it was the thing with Assasin and Berserker, which turned into nothing more than a ridiculous fanfiction idea of sort. Right now the articles are established correctly, but as nothing more than stub.
But now there is a list of the non-combatant characters in the Template, which, even if them are well done, it's the same as with Assasin, Berserker or the recently added Lizardmen: They can't be more than stubs.
To make these articles individually seems absurd, since there is an article about all the minor characters in which there it is said all that there is to say about those characters.
For that, I propose that the articles of Assassin, Berserker and Lizardmen, along with all the Non-Combatant list, shall be deleted, and unless someone gives me a good reason for not doing so in the next days, I shall delete them for good. ( Alexlayer 06:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC))
No objection, and the stubs weren't upgraded. I'm cleaning up this Template. If someone is going to add something to it, make sure that it won't be about a stub. ( Alexlayer 16:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC))
A better format is to list all characters as per introduced in each installment. It is more comprehensive and gives a clear picture about who are the veterans and who are newer characters. Not all characters need to be given as links. Its better than some randomly chosen characters in the list. This format can be carried over to other series like dead or alive tekken etc. For someone who has never played the series before it gives a good chance to get familiar. 65.218.181.189 ( talk) 05:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
66.193.79.189 ( talk) 05:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, take a look at "street figheter", "tekken", "dead or alive" (yes, only 3 characters have articles) or "mortal combat etc.". (And welcome to Wikipedia.) -- 194.145.185.229 ( talk) 17:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and one more thing. Actually... NONE of Virtua Fighter characters have an article on Wikipedia. Guess why? -- 194.145.185.229 ( talk) 17:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
And no, you won't change this template, which is a STANDARD template as used not only for ALL video game series (and no, not just the fighting games) but also ALL SERIES OF ANY KIND (films, books, you name, anything), for several YEARS, and for a good reasons: it's small and not absolutely-needlessly bloated, it's clear and obvious (just a simple alphabetical order), it's not CONFUSING (if I didn't know better, I'd thought it lists the characters exclusive in each game or something, because NOTHING indicates it shows their introductions). So again, no. And I mean NO.
And Kung Fu Man: I'm disappoint, I thought your job here is watching for annoying clueless newbies and shooting down their various stupid ideas, and not enabling them instead! Get your shit together, it's like losing you edit war with the guy pushing-back Edward Carnby made you weak or something. -- 194.145.185.229 ( talk) 16:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and Kung-Fu Man: there's nothing to "discuss" here, STOP ENABLING HIM. -- 194.145.185.229 ( talk) 17:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
"To 65.218.181.189 (nice name btw for an experienced user)": The template about George Lucas covers dozens of films by one of the most famous and influential directors/writers/producers in the world/history, known to hundreds of millions (billions?) of people, and spanning a period of several decades. Instead of just a total of 13 articles about some very fringe stuff important to a bunch of fighting vidya nerds (I did help to write some of these articles myself, but I'm realistic about it). Also, this template is very obvious, instead of being confusing/misleading (if I didn't know better, I'd think that your stupid list is about the characters that are exclusively in these games, instead of being introduced in them, because nothing at all indicated this). And now please go away, probably back to Wikia or wherever you came from. -- 194.145.185.229 ( talk) 15:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
And if you want an actual comparison to the works of George Lucas, rather check Template:Star Wars characters. Becuase something that coukld be compared to Lucas' would be rather Template:Namco Bandai. And this is the end of this really, really stupid discussion. -- 194.145.185.229 ( talk) 16:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Removed Heihachi. Kung Fu Man cited the fact that some official media has said he was "present" in the events of the second Soulcalibur. But the fact is, he's only been playable in one game as a guest character. Using similar logic, we could probably include Spawn and Link and that dude from those Star Wars games, since technically they were given storyline explanations for their presence in the games well. It can be argued that they're not in any official timeline because of rights issues. -- Jtalledo (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)