User talk:A Man In Black: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:50, 24 September 2006

Hello there. If you're going to leave me a comment (or yell at me, which is seeming increasingly common lately), please start a new header at the bottom of the page (or add to an old one), and sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of them.

If you're here about a specific page, be it an article, talk page, user talk page, AFD page, or whatever, PLEASE LINK THAT PAGE. Odds are I'm going to have to check back to it anyway to reply, and more than once someone has left a comment about an unspecified page and gotten no help from me because I had no idea what they were talking about. LINK THE PAGE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

IF YOU'RE COMING HERE TO REPLY TO A COMMENT I MADE ON ANOTHER PAGE, STOP, GO BACK TO THAT PAGE, AND REPLY THERE. For example, if I made a comment on your talk page and expect a reply, your talk page is on my watchlist. I'm not interested in starting parallel discussions on my talk page.

Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

File:Nixon.jpg

A Dick on my talk page

List of Advance Wars COs

Dear self:

Revert more or less back to this version, while doing cleanup along the way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox CVG syntax guide

I began drafting a syntax guide to go along with aforementioned infobox and I'm inquiring if there's any interest in one being made. I suppose the reason is mainly to clarify certain fields and bring it closer in line with other projects such as films and books etc. Anyway, you'll find it at User:Combination/Sandbox. Thanks for your time. Combination 18:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Fire images

Hi. I just closed Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 July 19. While removing the images you nominated from articles, I noticed a number of other images from the same source. I did not include them as part of your deletion request, but I'm not sure if it makes sense for us to be republishing them. Thoughts? Jkelly 23:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything from Atomic-Fire not attributed to a specific primary source is copyvio, and the only user who could have sourced most of it recently left Wikipedia, so I think they all need to go. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to identify them all? Jkelly 00:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Identify them how? List the images from AF, or identify where they came from? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant list the images from this website so that there is a list one could go through for deletion. Jkelly 01:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been tagging them with {{nsd}} whenever I see them, but I don't know any good way to list them other than going through Category:Mega Man media one by one (a laborious task on dial-up). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That's not ideal. The thought of going through that cat is intimidating. By the way, given your comment here, would you mind repeating it? This is still going on, even after both of our comments on AN/I and a comment I made at the user in question's talkpage. Jkelly 19:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request if possible

I've been working on the UNATCO article. I've been trying to gut it of fan speculation, remove the factual sounding fiction, and condense it into a factual correct article from the perspective of outside world. I'm thinking of eventually condensing all these Deus Ex fictional organization into one article.

To get to my request, I was wondering if it's possible for you to resurrect the old Silhouette (Deus Ex) article into my user space. I want to see if there's anything worth saving. I would appreciate it much if you could do this. --Mitaphane _talk 01:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MM

If you are going to propose a merge, please state your opinons why you wish to do so. You have been randomly tagging articles since at least July 2006 without stating why you think it should be done. Please read the guidelines. --Pinkkeith 14:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there one in particular you're talking about? The Mega Man merges I brought up at Talk:List of Mega Man X characters. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thing

Okay, so, perhaps I overreacted towards your being bold (even though I still don't agree with what you did). Make-up kiss much? :<>

Additionally, I was wondering if you were interested in joining a group devoted to discussing and listifying/merging/redirecting articles. I'm trying to get people from all fields, and was hoping you'd give it a chance and I would try and ensure that all views were taken into account and respected. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linky? I might be interested. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought you just didn't like me anymore :< but then I remembered that you don't leave messages on others' talk page much. But here it is. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comics Cleanup

You are one of the best editors working on comics-related articles on Wikipedia. I'd like to inite you to join the new WikiProject I've started: WikiProject Comics Cleanup. Similarly to how the WP:CMC collaboration works to elevate articles to Featured Article status, the primary goal of this new project is to coordinate group cleanup efforts on articles, copy editing, condensing, and providing citations where needed. The secondary goal is to remind good editors that there are other good editors who have the same goals.

This will also help prepare articles for Wikipedia 1.0 assessment, a project I am currently working on pulling together for WP:CMC. I'd really appreciate your membership, but I do understand if you find yourself to be too busy to participate. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only know a bit about comics (I mostly hang around WP:CMC to help with what I do know and contribute template know-how when it's needed) but I'd be happy to help. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poke Ball

you know it's just my luck... every time someone does something to an article that I'd like to discuss with them, they put up a wikibreak sign.... basically i question your removal of the images at poke ball. the latter part of the article is used to discuss the variety of Poke Balls out there, and offer information on specifically notable balls (e.g. Master Ball). The images are used for the purpose of eliminating redundant prose, "This ball is green on top and white on bottom," and illustrating the evolution of poke balls themselves throughout the series. Perhaps with a more detailed intro parapgraph under "Varieties of Poké Balls" you would find the images more appropriate? My final point is that Wikipedia claims no policy on the use of montages and this article is drastically reduced in quality by the removal of these images. Your statement of "variations on a theme" sounds familiar but i couldn't find it on the policy pages about photos, perhaps you could help me out. I'll give you a few days to respond with ur POV before I change it back, but because you removed the images instead of just commenting them out, if there are a lot of edits made I may put the images back sooner. -Zappernapper 19:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm around. The Wikibreak is over.

That article needs major cleanup. There's no need to be describing every single Pokéball in explicit detail in that article; we don't need a field guide to identifying Pokéballs, but instead some encyclopedic summary prose explaining that there are many types with a few representative examples.

This is also a copyright/fair-use issue. We need not to have dozens of fair-use images when one and some prose suffices. WP:FUC is clear on this, and WP:FUC, unlike many other rules, isn't flexible. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

would you concede that a full paragraph for "Master Ball" is necessary? It seems to be one of the most notable. That, along with the notes section from "GS Ball" seem to me to be the only information worth keeping. Are you also then proposing that instead of a table, just describing in prose the differences in poke balls brought about by each generation is adequate? I understand your point about a "field guide", but remembering that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia - there's no reason why one can't discuss a topic in an in-depth manner. For example take a look at Seagulls. The gallery at the bottom does indeed represent a "field guide" to seagulls. While more specific information about each gull is located on its own page, types of Poke Balls do not merit their own articles, so a table is introduced to represent a list. Would you be satisfied with a "See also: List of Poke Balls" ? and tansporting the tables there? I never thought it neccessary because it's not quite expansive enough that i feel it slows load times down. Assuming a table of poke balls is of encyclopedic value (I am, but you may still not) the second question is of fair-use. You directed me to WP:FUC and after reading through the list of requirements I found that the images seem to meet all the requirements. I say seem, because there are a couple reuqirements that may be subjective, and another I don't completely understand. Your main disagreement with me seems to be #3. "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible... Do not use multiple images... if one will serve the purpose adequately." Again I cite that "field guides" serve an encyclopedic value for visual comparison and the images maintain their relevancy because the article discusses each of them. For example, one could write that, "typically different pokeballs feature different colors on the top and remain white on the bottom." Insert a pic of the standard poke ball, a hyper ball, and a safari ball. "However occasionally the entire ball can become differently colored." Insert a luxury ball pic. Seems adequate enough for standard balls, but then we have to go on about how poke balls in the anime and movies can vary widely (Crystal Ball, "Chansey Ball"). And write prose and still use many of the pictures. Then when a speficic ball gains some notoriety another paragraph needs to be worked in there. But what if someone writes the paragraph, just tagging it on the end? Is this alright because it's the newest data? Or should it stay grouped with other poke balls from its generation? It just seems like the tables are the best way to maintain the data and present it in an easy to read format. In regard to WP:FUC number 5 seems met, and 8 seems to be another point of disagreement we may still have. Also, number 6 is the one I don't quite get, perhaps (if unmet) you could further explain it. Finally, asking the test question, "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" I find myself saying no, when talking about how the giant stone poke balls were used to capture the giant claydol, if i wanted to illustrate just how big these balls were (giant to someone could be 7 ft high), there is no other adequate image to use. BTW, I'm fairly certain the Johto Balls (like this one [1]) were created free content, but they may have been cut out of the TCG cards (i don't know enough about the TCG to make this assertion). Additionally, the screenshots are technically taken from different episodes and movies so I believe that having one image from each is not considered "too many" - please direct me to a discussion if i'm wrong. Thanx 4 taking the time 2 read all this, and happy editing -Zappernapper 05:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We just don't need a list of every single Pokéball. It's overly specific info of interest only to hardcore fans. We should certainly describe them in general terms, but all of these are variations of a single design so we only need one design. The Master Ball doesn't need a full paragraph (unless it's way more important in the manga or something); it's just another Pokéball in the games only you only get one per game and it always works.

The giant stone Pokéballs are exactly what we shouldn't be describing in detail. They appear in exactly one episode of the anime and never appear again. They're nothing but trivia.

As for free content, a dozen images of Pokéballs, from any source, is not going to be acceptable, no. It's not really possible to make a free alternative, either. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so you don't feel the mentioning of the stone poke balls in the context of variance or orgins of poke balls is signficant? in fact the idea that ancient pokemon were of gigantic size is expressed in two episodes. in an article about the poke ball i don't get how its orgins (however little mentioned they are) aren't important. i concede though the mentioning of the "chansey ball" is prolly the most trivial entry in "Other Poke Balls." I realize you are coming from the perspective that you'd like to keep cruft out as much as possible and fiction comes under more attacks than other categories (you like merging, check out a majority of animal species), but for comparative purposes the mentioning of different pokeballs seems justfied. Were the number ever to get unmanageable i would agree with you, but as of yet there are relatively so few that it's very feasible to discuss each one, and explain it's differences in a table. Again, I cite that Wikipedia is not paper [2]. Also, while considered a poor argument, i'll reverse the Pokémon defense to ask if Seagulls can post a dozen images birds that are prolly of no interest excpet to a few avid bird-watchers or locals, then why not the same for Poke Balls? Many pages, and even real encyclopedias, offer images of differences within a group. The only time a full list can't be propagated is when the amount is too cumbersome (I would not agree that a page on the AKC should have pictures of every recognized breed, and since each breed, say under terriers has its own page - images of all the different terriers is not appropriate either). Perhaps we have a difference of opinion as to how much encyclopedic value an image can add to an article. Personally I find images much more helpful than someone's personal view of them. An article on Van Gogh would lose much encyclopedic value if his paintings were removed - I don't care how well they are described in prose. To me, "information important only to hardcore fans" includes detailing every time Beedrill made an appearance in the anime, likewise how many people really care how many eggs the Dolphin Gull lays? They aren't apparently notable for being either endangered or having an unusual number of eggs. I understand the guidlines proposed in WP:FICT are strict, but as a notable aspect of the game variations in poke balls are important to discuss in detail - along with the history and symbolic significance gleaned from the anime and movies. (also the Master Ball entry discusses it's significance outside of the world scope, along with its appearance in the anime) -Zappernapper 06:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it'd be nice to know the Pokéball's origins. Making up an origin based on conjecture from two episodes isn't going to cut it, though.

Also, those images in the seagull and terrier articles are free images. These are not free images. The rules are much stricter for fair-use images.

The problem with "gleaning" info from the anime and movies is that much of it is listing one-off objects or conjecturing based on things implied or mentioned in passing.

The Master Ball section is exactly the sort of cruft that article just doesn't need. Suggestions on what Pokémon to use it on? A mention of a one-off appearance in the anime (with no reference to what episode, of course)? Discussing using a glitch to duplicate it?

It's not important to discuss every variation of the Pokéball in detail. Instead, it's important to write an encyclopedic overview in summary style, aimed at a lay audience and drawing from reliable sources. Right now, this is a highly detailed description of every variation of Pokéball, aimed at a fan/enthusiast audience and drawing from the anime/manga/games. That's not what Wikipedia is for. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for a late reply, i've been ill, and don't have much time even now. I can cite the master ball episode as easily as anyone who knows about serebii, but i don't think that's the main issue. the origin isn;t made up, and there shouldn't be conjecture. This is why just listing the appearance of the balls and relating the info said in the anime is what's been done. I was saying that this info is useful for people who want to know it. And again, if the mention and casual overview of each ball is included in the article, WP:FU allows the use of those images, as detailed in my first reply to you. I wasn't using seagulls as an excuse for the images but as defense against your "field guide" argument. Poke ball is meant to be a centralized discussion of all things poke ball, little detail is supposed to go in each "Notes section" especially if it's one time info (the crystal ball the girl uses in Secret of the Unown) those "one-off" references are most pointedly aimed at the "Other Balls" section? that section does need cleanup, and i'm not sure if images should be included there (except maybe having a sub section of it titled Early Poke balls for critical analysis - the fact that while early pokemon were consistently huge - the anime has shown two methods for containg them). The master ball entry as cruft is an opinion - i could state that listing every weakness and strength for the fire type on Quilava's page is "not needed" (and i have - in vain). The fact that it is often used on legendary or rare pokemon is an established fact that would not meet with any serious disagreement. the two pokemon mentioned are not recommendations, but examples of rare legendary pokemon (reread the paragraph) - their names are easy enough to remove though. The glitch (again not saying to do it, or even how, barring an argument that this is FAQs-ish) caused a phenonmenon (that's a little over-the-top) in the real-world - people exploiting it specifically for that purpose, this is not disputed and accepted as fact. I was under the impression that a fictional subject's effects in the real world were worth mentioning in an article. You have constantly been referring to the list as "important only to hardcore fans/enthusiasts" except for the "Other balls" section i can't agree that someone who has just bought the game would not find this information appealing. Or even a layperson who decided to look up the article. Again - the argument of cruft is fallacious, especially since there is no policy or guideline concerning it. Only things that fall under WP:NOT are excluded, and I'm trying to eliminate them, maybe i haven't been doing a good job. Sentences that tell the locations of all the hidden Poke Balls in RBY are definitly FAQs-ish and How-to, but those things are all aggressivly removed. You'll have to provide a better arguement than "cruft" and specifically mention a policy or guideline that states why listing what a small group of items in a video game do is not allowed in Wikipedia especially if the use is to demonstrate the evolution of those items in the game over time. -Zappernapper 17:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC) PS, I won't be home until much later today, so i'll prolly respond tomorrow.[reply]

There's a great difference between telling people how to best play a game and describing real-world impact.

As for Wikilawtering about WP:NOT, what Wikipedia is is an encyclopedia, and all of the rules exist only to promote that idea. Right now that page is a highly specialized fanpage, not an encyclopedia article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"There's a great difference between telling people how to best play a game and describing real-world impact." - we are in complete agreement here. I actively remove prose written in this article that says things like, "You only get one Master Ball in the game, so when playing RBY you should save it for the battle with Mewtwo." Apparently you don't see anything better with:

"It is the games' rarest Poké Ball. In the original games... there was only one to be found. Since ..., there have been ways to get additional Master Balls, but the player still only finds or is awarded a single ball.... Master Balls are so rare and powerful that they are normally used to capture the rarest of Pokémon, like Mewtwo or Lugia."

I'm at a loss due to confusion. That is what people have done. It is not something even remotely likely to be disputed, but if you'd like i could point to the hundreds of FAQs out there telling people to do that and the logical sense that it makes as proof. If this is not what you're talking about then pls better explain y you feel I'm happy with this article "telling people how to best play a game" and i don't understand what "describing real-world impact" is.

In response to your second statement - WTF is wikilawtering? My use of citing Wiki guidlines and policies in my defense? I feel the artice (a large majority anyways) as is does serve as an encyclopedia article. You feel it doesn't. I'm not trying to flash them in your face going, "SEE! SEE! lemme do what i want!" I'm offering them up for a re-reading so you can try to understand where i'm coming from. I've been giving lengthy explanations about my thoughts on the matter and you seem to write them off with a few sentences, largely ignoring any points i've made. you don't give any examples - just your opinions. I've gone through and added the names/numbers to episode references like you mentioned were lacking (ironicaly i missed the Whiscash one still), but i don't think that's your main concern. The rewrite tag has been up there for a long time, and i haven't removed it because i agree it is still in need of work; many prose sections could be completely rewritten - a few of them have, references should be added, and the tables are still "under contsruction". No one seems to interested in writing about it on the talk page, even whoever put that tag up, i haven't bothered tracking down who it was to ask them their thoughts, maybe i will. Please give examples of highly specialized fandom, and if it's the list of pokeballs - re-read my previous arguments and respond to those. I think it may be best to move this onto the talk page as anyone else editing it could take advantage of it. -Zappernapper 15:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I don't see any value in a "field guide" to Pokéballs, especially given the utter lack of a basic encyclopedic overview. It's of interest to fans only, many entries can only be game-guide-only info, and such a list cannot be sourced save to direct observation of the games/anime/manga. I removed the images because they needed to be dealt with immediately, but the whole list desperately needs to be removed and replaced with a prose summarizing with examples, instead of listing every single variation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok... check out this. let me know what you think, preferably on its talk page - that way i can be more quickly aware of it. it's not wholly wikified, but we're going for content here. cheers! -Zappernapper 19:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POKE... busy? -Zappernapper 14:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real-life intervened. That's the sort of thing we need to be aiming for; it may not end up looking exactly like that, but if that prose replaced the gigantor tables, it would be a great start. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i gathered as much, same with me, was just surprised when i came back 3 days later and you hadn't responded... any suggestions for improvement? happy wiki-ing! -Zappernapper 21:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you prefer to discuss things on your talk page, but if i'm going to make this drastic of a change, i feel like people need some kind of explanation on the actual Talk: Poké Ball page, so I'm copy/pasting the pertinent discussion there. If you have any further comments about the changes please discuss them there for the mere sake of ease. Whenever you archive this discussion a broken link at the talk page saying "See here for why i made this huge change" won't really suffice or allow others to give input on it. If you'd like to delete the relevant discussion and add a link to the Poke Ball talk page, that's fine, it'll save space here on wiki. -Zappernapper 22:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (comedy)

I've created Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) to help editors in deciding the notability of comedy- and humor-related articles. You are an editor whom I respect and admire. I would appreciate any commentary you may be able to provide to help hammer it into shape. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look when I'm done with this infobox. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks! Hurray! I am glad to see you are helping Fram. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may end up being bigger than helping Fram; it's shaping up to be both a graphic novel infobox as well as possibly code that could be imported into the other boxes to handle translated comics in general. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, man, you better lay low for a while. "They" will be after you. But seriously, I'm glad to hear it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Base Set

Why did you revert the Base Set page? I first saw that the early Pokémon sets did not have any articles so I added it. (Iuio 19:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

They don't have articles because they were merged into a list. Why did you split it out of the list? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did that because the newer sets had articles. (Iuio 19:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Why is it that you don't touch the articles on the newer sets? They are basically the same as the Base Set one (minus the list of types of Pokémon, that is). (Iuio 19:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The new ones just haven't been merged yet. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does that prove? Other card games like Yu-Gi-Oh! have seperate articles for each set they publish. (Iuio 00:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

So? There's no information in those stubs that I merged that wasn't sourced directly to personal observation or personal experience. If you think you can write an article sourced to reliable sources about an individual set, feel free, but you're probably better off working on Pokémon Trading Card Game, which is currently dire. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean you don't think Pokébeach is a reliable source? The articles for other sets link to it. Or, if that's what you're aiming at, I can look for a source quickly. Since that's the case, why don't you merge the other articles on the newer Pokémon sets? (Iuio 06:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hey wait, you're the guy I talked to in September 2005, about the Pokédex entries right? Remember? See: User talk:24.86.124.111 (Iuio 06:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

That link isn't a source for anything but a checklist, and checklists emphatically do not belong on Wikipedia. Do not revert that again if all you're going to do is split out the appropriate prose from the list and add an inappropriate checklist. You haven't addressed or even bothered to address any of my concerns. I haven't merged any of the other sets because I have had other concerns and I'm not doing it now because I'm currently on a stop on a two-day bus ride. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, any infomation you suggest I add to the page? (Iuio 14:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

What are your concerns? Explain them and I may be able to adress them. (Iuio 15:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

There isn't anything to say, and you're adding a checklist and a pile of fair-use images, neither of which are appropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SW Collabaration....

Hello just dropping in to let you know that I'm organizing a huge Star Wars collabaration, if you want just go to this discussion page..... Cheers, --Sadow (talk | contr.) 19:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft alert - help

Creatures in the Metroid series it split up into three pages and goes into such detail about so many characters that I'm drowning here. Would like some input here - can this all be condensed down into a single character page? I can't help, unfortunately, because I've never played a Metroid game (yeah, shoot me now). Hbdragon88 00:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh noes :( Why in the world is there a list of EVERY type of enemy encountered? In a creatures of metriod series article, there should a section for each type of weapon (turret, space pirates, chozo, etc.), not a little minientry on every subtype of enemy. Merge and rewrite IMO. — Deckill e r 00:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superherobox

No offense, man but the superherobox looks amatuerish and like a infobox not a superherobox. Also the affialiations are way too confusing. It stinks. Brian Boru is awesome 00:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easy issue first: the affiliation code is really confusing only because it's got a bunch of legacy support. In practice, all you need to use is the alliances parameter.

As for the rest, the intention was to make it look like an infobox. Can you explain better what your objections are? The only major style change I made was to remove the color scheme, per discussion at WT:CMC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Super Mario Bros.

I wasn't using my POV for the game. Many critics found it too short. Unless these sources are very unreliable. Frankyboy5 04:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your references are a grab-bag of minor game sites, cherrypicked from Gamerankings to find reviews that agree with your POV (except for the G4 review, where you cited the ONE SINGLE NEGATIVE COMMENT from an overwhelmingly positive review). You've decided how you feel and have gone looking for sources, however iffy, that support your POV. That's not how things should be done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Man ZX and the Metroidvania Genre

I'm going to refrain from re-adding to the article for now because I'd like to avoid an edit war over this and both of us are coming fairly close to the 3RR as is, but what exactly is your problem with Metroidvania being listed as a Genre (or, more correctly, sub-genre) for this game? Adding that Megaman ZX is comparable to Metroid and more recent 2D Castlevanias and explaining how would only serve to repeat information in the Metroidvania article. Furthermore, the term is something which has seen use in both print media and in online media for comparing games using a gameplay formula like the one seen in this game.

Adding the tag doesn't take up space and DOES provide a wealth of information about similar games. The Metroidvania article is both well-sourced and fairly detailed, so I really don't understand your objection here. Lankybugger 15:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's OR. Nobody but you has ever described it as that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, OR would be me making UP a genre like Metroidvania. Like I said, Metroidvania has been used fairly often to describe 2D platformers that fit into the basic concepts of Super Metroid and the more recent 2D Castlevanias, mainly consisting of a one main contigious map and powerups which allow the player to eventually progress farther and farther through territory which they've not yet covered.

Please read the Metroidvania article before you continue to discount the edit as OR. It's been thoroughly fought over already and is quite well sourced, something I'm pointing out for the second time. I'm not the one who pointed this game out as fitting into that category, and again... after the links I posted in the edit history I don't see how this game doesn't fit into the general Metroidvania description. Again, I'll restrain from edit warring with you for now as I'd like to reach a consensus or at least a mid-way agreement on this... but that seems hard when you don't appear to be investigating any of the information I've presented. Lankybugger 06:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a simple process I use to identify OR. I ask, "Who said that (such and such fact) is true?" If the answer is "The Wikipedia editor who added it," then it's OR. If it's someone else, then that someone else should be cited. In this case, the person applying the term seems to be you. If you can cite someone describing the game as a "Metroidvania", then add it to the article and cite it. Until then, please don't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "unnecessary duplication," I strongly disagree. If the game is often compared to similar games in reviews, the Mega Man ZX article is definitely the place to mention this. We should be concentrating more on what has been said about this game rather than on direct observation of the game itself. Look at Shadow of the Colossus, a recent game FA; the article is written almost entirely without reference to the game itself. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here we go...

This calls Mega Man ZX a Metroidvania. Toastyfrog says the same thing. This page says it in French. This is discounting all the forum posts which came up in the google search, which are of course non-notable themselves and can't be used as a reference. I'm re-adding Metroidvania as a genre. Cheers, Lankybugger 12:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you now that maybe there should be a paragraph on all the comparisons to Metroid and Castlevania, so I'll take a run at writing that for the article as well. Cheers, Lankybugger 12:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda agree with the edit summaries A Man in Black has said in the article. The term is in no way official and is a fan made classification, and shouldn't be called an actual "genre". It should go in the critical reaction section. Also, maybe this issue should've been raised on the actual talk page instead of here.. - Zero1328 _Talk? 13:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me spin my wheels the other way. There's no such thing as an "official" genre, merely terms with widespread currency and those without. It's silly to be splitting things into "official" and "unofficial". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we worked this out, and thanks for the support in regards to Metroidvania as a genre. My apologies for not thinking to pull up some specific citations before I added this. Lankybugger 05:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galatasaray article

On the page of Galatasaray i saw a mistake but i cannot revert it becauce the page is under protection , in the Managerial area Yılmaz Gökdel was the manager in 1974-1975 season could you fix this?

Johnny200 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest mentioning it on Talk:Galatasaray. I don't know anything about that article, myself. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

discussion on Pokemon episodes

because you seem to have been very active at List of Pokemon episodes i'd like to draw your attention to this discussion at WP:PCP. I'm interested in getting feedback and input from as many editors as possible. THANX! -Zappernapper 21:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LIST

I respect your opinion, I'm getting bored of people wielding WP:LIST like a big club during AfD debates. I was thinking of putting it up for MfD but that guideline has such a strong suport I'm sure it won't last long. And I was wondering if there is anything we can do to stop becoming swamped in lists of all types? Whispering^(talk/c) 23:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep converting them to prose and merging them to an appropriate article. It's not like any job on Wikipedia can ever be truly complete. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Image

What do you mean by representative? Because the MP7 image is almost 3 years old and her appearance has changed since then.

Because it isn't representative of her appearance in the bulk of the games she's appeared in. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still dont understand what your saying here, are you saying because shes looked liek that in more games thats how she should be represented? That doesnt make sense.

That's exactly what I'm saying. We shouldn't use her specialized outfit for one single recent game, but instead the most-common, most-recognizable appearance. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should be using her Mario Kart DS art, no?

That would be her in a dress sitting on a kart. What's wrong with the current image? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No your thinking of Peachs art. I jsut dont like her current art because even in game (mario hoops) her face is different then any past art, and not to mention her skin has more color. I know she may be in her sports outfit but before long her Strikers art will come out and who knows how shell have changed then.

These are extremely minor differences. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldnt say extremly minor, if the only thing you dont like about the Hoops art is the fact shes in her sports clothes then I think you should let it slide cause I'd rather show current character design then past. But I guess I'll just leave it up to you cause I dont wanna keep editing it to do that over and over again.

So youre saying its correct to get rid of the rest of the pages with trivia sections right? Asking to make sure.

No, I'm saying that nothing in that particular trivia section is worth keeping. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal on Mew page

Why did you remove the information on Mew being a giveaway at Toys R' Us I put on there? It came from the official Pokémon website. 71.221.226.106 13:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)71.58.211.22071.221.226.106 13:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr on List of ...for Dummies books

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ST47Talk 21:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon TCG

Dude, I want to make a complete database style thing for the TCG, like of all the sets and promos. Tell me why you dont want to do that?? I mean why do you have a problem for that anyway?? I just find it unbelieveable that you would be so against having all the sets going back to the base set and promos too. I mean theres articles on here about gym class and bananas. Why can't there be pages on here about them. And I don't want it just to be the new sets as already on there. The new sets suck. I mean why is this just such a problem to have them on wikipedia?? It seriously blows my mind you wont allow them on here...

That's an admirable goal, but it's not part of this project. If you want to make a database of all the cards, feel free to find some hosting and go ahead and do that. This project is for encyclopedic overview, not in-depth description of every single object. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just want a total database of all cards on here. I see lots of individual databases that are like only for the older cards or new cards. I want a total one. And what do you mean by hosting anyway? Im just confused to what your alternative would be. Like I just think that this has to be somewhere on wikipedia or something. and you say encyclopedic overview. I see bands pages all the time, and i just was gunning for something similiar to that. Like you go to an album page of a band, you will see all the songs and everything. Why cant we do that same format for all the sets involved in pokemon tcg, both nintendo and wizards eras? you get what im saying here, cause with that kind of mentality of what your saying, shouldnt we delete all the album pages of bands or at least their older album pages?