Talk:Fate/stay night

Archives: 1, 2, 3

Important: Consensus Needed

I’ve -finally- decided to get to work on (a) terminology page(s) for TYPE-MOON-related concepts, elements, artefacts and all other sort of stuff that is far too extensive to stick anywhere else. However, before opening that can of radioactive flesh-eating worms, we seriously need to agree on what terminology to use for all the translated stuff once and for all.

My idea is to create several pages for Spell-related stuff, artefact/weapon-related, organizations/groups, Creature-related and a Concept page for everything else. Feel free to accuse me of ripping off Arai on that, I won’t fight it, but it really does seem like the most logical organization. This is all far in the future anyway, the only thing I’ll be doing anytime soon is the spell-related page, which coincidentally is the one that requires standardization the most. Of course, if there is any problem at all with that idea, feel free to say so.

Have in mind that there are no official translations for any of this stuff, so choosing the most suitable terminology is our responsibility. Whatever we choose is not meant to become standard in all of the TYPE-MOON fan community, and in reverse, what is common in the community does not necessarily HAVE to decide what we choose. Especially since there isn’t one clearly predominant usage, which is exactly the problem to begin with.

To keep things in only one place and not make everything cluttered, I fleshed out the whole issue in my discussion page. Once a decision is reached (and this is my wishful thinking begging for more than two people to actually pay attention to this), we could paste the whole thing into the newly created page for future reference.

Anyway, go here and tell me what you think. Ephyon 23:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing copyright infringement links

Okay then, I'll have to provide you the actual text from Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking where it clearly states: Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. This article currently has a reference link to both Mirror-Moon and insani, and per this reason should be removed. If you want a reference, find somewhere that does not distribute these fan translations along with the information. Also, see the discussions at Wikipedia talk:External links#Linking to illegal content and Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#References that link to illegal content.--十八 22:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

insani's link is probably fine to keep around, since the trial is distributed freely online anyway. I suppose it doesn't really matter, though - people shouldn't be looking on WP for this kind of stuff anyhow. Moogy ^(talk) 01:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care about the legality of the links, but as far as references, I'm not sure if they would be considered reliable sources. -- Ned Scott 02:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL is not applicable to reference links. (No WP:RS problems exist here either, as the information being cited is about themselves.) More importantly though, since I realize that's really a WP:LAWYERish argument, they do not provide anything illegal to begin with. Mirror-Moon is one of the "BREAK THE SUPPORT DISK!"-type groups, and their translations are unusable without a copy of the game. --tjstrf talk 03:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, since they're reliable, being used as a reference, and seem to only be an a grey-area for copyright law, I've added the refs back in. -- Ned Scott 03:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A WEB reference provides a link to another website. How is it any different than just listing the website? On top of that, should it really be notable that an unofficial group of fans translated the game? What I mean is, why should the section on translation be in the article in the first place? --十八 03:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is, because any form of translation for a visual novel at all is notable. --tjstrf talk 04:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not agree with you. Why should Wikipedia care if a group of fans translated a game they do not even hold the license to? See Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#References that link to illegal content.--十八 04:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it's a significant, rare, and notable event in the history of the visual novel. --tjstrf talk 05:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

How is it significant and notable? It just seems like you're stating your opinion.--十八 05:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I answered that question already, repeating my answer won't help. --tjstrf talk 05:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Especially as your answer is no way way accurate or in line with Wikipedia policy... so if you can't be bothered to come up with some other reason, you've admitted your reason is totally bogus. DreamGuy 06:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What? You want me to find a line of policy someplace stating the (utterly self-evident) fact that rare events surrounding a subject are worth mentioning in the articles about them? --tjstrf talk 06:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, sure, because it sounds like sheer nonsense to me, and if you want to claim that it's obvious than certainly someone must have said so in Wikipedia policies and guidelines somewhere. But, to the contrary, this sort of thing is labeled as WP:TRIVIA -- which is encouraged to be removed, not kept. Not to mention you haven't shown that this is particularly rare either. All you;'ve done is say straight out that you are right and your right because you say you are right, which is not how things work. Looks like your "self-evident" is nothing more than wishful thinking. Rareness is not notability, not in the slightest. DreamGuy 09:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want evidence that translation of visual novels is rare, I suppose you could consult the Visual novel article itself, which mentions the fact. Or you could check the list I found here, which lists there as being a "grand" total of 31 fansubbed visual novels. Your claim that it is trivia is nonsense, as it is not an "insignificant trifle of little importance", but rather an attributable fact which violates no content policy, and is significant to the article it is being placed on. This is true if for no other reason than that it is the only English release the game has received.

I'm not arguing Mirror Moon deserves an article here, I'm arguing that the existence of an English release for a visual novel is a noteworthy fact about that visual novel. --tjstrf talk 10:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Translations and other derivatives of copyrighted works distributed in any way without the permission of the copyright owner are illegal whether you need to own a copy of the game or not. Illegality trumps references, and the thing is trivial and nonencyclopedic anyway. DreamGuy 06:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well then, I guess it's a good thing we are not doing anything illegal. Covering the topic of something illegal is not illegal. If we say "blah blah did this" we are stating a fact, not breaking the law. Don't believe me? Then look at AACS encryption key controversy, which, in the freaking article itself, we provide the encryption key to disabling copyright software, which is very illegal to do.

Now, if you want to argue that the information is trivial, ok, but then remove the whole section about the fan translations. -- Ned Scott 09:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

While *covering* something illegal isn't illegal, *linking* to it most certainly is, because we are contributing to the distribution of copyright violating material. The encryption key article should not be used to justify other actions, as the the Wikipedia Board was originally totally against including it but bowed to popular consent of very active and vocal editors as a political point even if under the risk of being sued. I'm sure the board doesn't want to take that same risk all over the place. It's an anomaly. Our policies are very clear on this. DreamGuy 09:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering it's not even completely clear if it's illegal (could easily be considered fair use, especially considering it requires the player to buy the game legally), no, our policies are not clear on this issue. -- Ned Scott 10:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Side note: Most of these people playing these games do not buy the game legally. So, pretty much, the game translation encourages the distribution of copyrighted material even more.--十八 11:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe you mean "derivative work". --tjstrf talk 10:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

And derivative works are illegal without explicit permission of the owner. DreamGuy 11:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely no way is it fair use. That's not just some term you can throw around to mean "I get to violate the law because I want to," there has to be a very clear rational defense, and there isn't one. And, yes, out policies are clear. Whether you choose to accept that or not isn't my concern. Take it up with the Wikimedia lawyers, they set the policy. DreamGuy 11:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, do not put me in the same category as all the morons who actually do throw around the term "fair use" like that.

To quote the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

It is not unreasonable to think that such a use could be fair use. And of course, we are talking about fair use for the players and the said websites, which differs from our stricter restrictions in regards to content we host ourselves.

My point was that this was not a black and white issue, and policy does not "clearly" back you up in this case. It is questionable, and it is likely that many people are using these fan translations in a non-legal way, but that's dependent on how players end up using the content, not the content itself. And while there is a level of speculation in my thinking, the same can be said for you. Unless you'd like to actually back yourself up on what you say. -- Ned Scott 21:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Err, sorry about that, I just got a bit worked up with the accusation that I was "one of those people". I don't enough care about this situation, and I'm not going to try to start an argument for something I am suggesting in a theoretical sense. It's not a black and white situation, policy is not clear on this, but whatever, it's not worth a debate. -- Ned Scott 22:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who seriously suggests that a fan translation of this scope is non-notable trivia doesn't know what they're talking about. Mirror Moon are probably notable enough to deserve their own article (first fan group to translate a longform visual novel). -- grm_wnr Esc 01:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, Mirror Moon had an article a year ago but it was deleted; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirror Moon. The group is not notable enough for its own article, thus anything they produce is non-notable material.--十八 01:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

They hadn't released their Tsukihime patch back then, you know. -- grm_wnr Esc 14:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get into this discussion, but that is a flawed argument. A non-notable group could definitely produce notable material. What if a group like Mirror Moon came up with a medicine that cures cancer if taken daily for a week? Hypothetical, but the point is there. Voretus 14:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that would make the group notable. Anyway, the reason why I'm not going out and restoring the article about them is that there's not much verifiable stuff to say (which is mostly due to the fact that no respectable sources even care about them). But notability? Come on. In fact, I'd say this article does not deserve its GA status as long as the game translation isn't mentioned. -- grm_wnr Esc 15:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Basically what I meant is that a group is notable if they produce notable material and non-notable if they produce non-notable material. Fan translations are not only non-nonable, they're technically illegal since they do not own the rights to make and distribute a translation of any of Type-Moon's games. And notability, I'll reassert, is not an opinion. You said yourself that "no respectable sorces even care about them", so what argument could you possibly assert to include their translation patch in this article?--十八 23:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We're not linking to them, so what are you even arguing about here? --tjstrf talk 23:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"Fan translations are not notable?" How is that not an opinion? It must be, since I have a different one. What you mean is verifiability. And I can easily verify that said patch exists, since the file is readily available. So we can't directly link to it because it would be against a certain interpretation of policy, but that does not make it not exist. It is an important facet of the topic and must be covered if this article is to be called comprehensive. -- grm_wnr Esc 23:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, point made, but I'll just point one more thing out. If a section on the translation was added back in, wouldn't that then intice future editors to add in the link to Mirror Moon's translation site? So, to deter this from happening, the translation section was removed, and I believe it should stay that way.--十八 01:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I only removed it because there wasn't much to say about it. Once we have more information on it, then it will deserve its own paragraph/section. That something might "intice someone" to do something is not a reason against it. We're on a Wiki where we openly invite people to change our content (thus inticing vandalism). --tjstrf talk 01:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

We may be openly initicing vandalism since anyone can edit Wiki, but if we can devise a way to lessen vandalism, edit wars, and general disregard for policy, then shouldn't we? You say that there wasn't much to say about the translation, and I agree on that point; what more could be said for it to warrent inclusion?--十八 02:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I've opened a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. To put it briefly, my position is that we should refrain from linking to blatant copyright violations, but that pursuing the copyright status of questionable or marginal off-site links - which we aren't even responsible for the content of - is a waste of Wikipedians' time and effort that could better be spent elsewhere. We are not responsible for policing the entire Web, or even endorsing the content of every single external link in every article on Wikipedia. *** Crotalus *** 23:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

By putting links there we are endorsing them, and your attempts to rewrite the copyright policy to impose your contempt for the law have been reverted. Please do not try to recruit people from this talk page, especially when you know that they lack any real knowledge of copyright law and are only pissed off at their link to pirated material was taken down. This is a bad faith attempt to try to overturn policy by sheer mob tactics, and it won't work. DreamGuy 05:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, DreamGuy, we're not "pissed because 'our' link got taken down", nor was I pissed at all until right now when you started flinging about nonsensical accusations of bad faith. May I humbly suggest you tone down the self righteousness 5 or 6 notches and keep a civil tongue in your head? --tjstrf talk 05:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not nonsensical. Crotalus above tried to modify the Wikipedia:Copyright page to reflect his own views and suggest that everyone who disagreed with him is just wasting their time, and he is here clearly trying to encourage people to go over to the other page and support him even though he was reverted by countless numbers of people, with more waiting in the wings to revert should he or anyone try to put that nonsense back. If you do go over there to try to cause trouble, then that's a credit to you. The fact that he is trying to recruit people to defend his anti-policy actions doesn't mean any of you are stupid enough to fall for it, but I thought I should point out that his actions are going to get him in trouble, and so that anyone who might be foolish enough to try to go change the policy to encourage copyright violations can get a heads up that he's not getting anywhere with it. Might I suggest you not call things nonsensical unless you know what you are talking about. Oh, but then from the debate above I see that it never stopped you before. So, hey, if you do feel brash enough to go try to change policy, don't say I didn't warn you, as the people here might be open to copyright violations, but obviously on the copyright page itself people who care about it are there at all times.DreamGuy 11:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't intend to discuss this issue with you, DreamGuy, until and unless you are willing to comport yourself with the requirements of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. This is not the first time you have violated these policies, and I don't intend to get into an argument with someone whose discussion style consists of flinging around insults. *** Crotalus *** 20:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

More Pages

Terek here, sorry to be brief. I think we should include a section about the locations in Fuyuki City, as well as establish pages for stuff common to all Nasu themes (like, say, "prana") so we can avoid descriptions within the FSN article. I'll devote some time to Arthur/Heracles research in the future to improve the backgrounds of the articles. Cheers, good luck on finals and the lot. 169.237.235.71 21:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, expand on the "Reception" box by noting the following: the impact of FSN on the doujin world, such as the creaton of Fatal/Fake and Battle Moon Wars, the participation of some characters in SaiMoe 2006 and FrenchBread's Notorious Brand. Terek 08:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Status Charts

User:69.234.104.212 has rather hastily gone ahead and wiped out every Servant status chart in every article so far, I assume under the logic of… actually, I’m not too sure since he/she/it only linked to a pair of policy articles without discussing it. I assume this person believes this information is not relevant enough, or doesn’t mean anything, or something.

That’s not quite right. While http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#INFO does mention statistics as being not ideal, it clearly states that the articles should contain enough information to make sense of them, because let’s face it, there’s a whole lot of stuff that can’ be done any more efficiently than pasting a good data list like that. Simply saying Berserker is way strong and fast doesn’t quite drive the point home as well as showing a comparison of HOW stronger and faster he is than others.

There IS a problem though: While the status boxes ARE relevant, someone who doesn’t know anything beforehand won’t understand much. AGI isn’t raw speed, bur overall movement capacity, STR is power + weapon, etc

Why Am I bringing this up instead of fixing it myself? Because I haven’t got time to do it all right now and someone else might take it up. In short, we need a way to explain what each statistic… a good place to put it would be something like an overall description of what a Servant is, which I believe is largely overdue. --Ephyon 15:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)