Talk:List of Ultima characters

Sherry in U3

Not sure about the computer version, but didn't you get the compass hearts from a character named Sherry in the NES version of U3? Or is the chart referring to Sherry the Mouse? Y0u | Y0ur talk page 20:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This list can't hold all the characters

The The Companions of the Avatar has a lot of characters which would not fit on the article here, therefore it perfectly reasonable to put them elsewhere. Otherwise many notable characters would be lost. Also, the ones who get mentioned here already, don't have nearly enough information about them, as they do over there. Individual articles for all the companions were deleted/merged into the companions article. Wikipedia isn't running out of space people. No reason to destroy valid information, just to make it all fit here, and then to erase some notable characters from the list. Dream Focus 20:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Merge discussion merge Lord British, Avatar (Ultima) and The Companions of the Avatar into List of Ultima characters?

The merge discussion should be here, not at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Lord_British. Dream Focus 01:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been suggested that Lord British, Avatar (Ultima), and The Companions of the Avatar be merged into this article or section. I say Keep for all three.

• Keep Avatar (Ultima) which just closed as Keep at AFD.
• Keep Lord British as a highly notable character, with plenty of mention in the real world press, as the game character and the persona of famed game designer Richard Garriott.
• Keep The Companions of the Avatar as the information would make this article too long, so its valid to place it in a separate article. Removing a large chunk of the content to merge it over, as someone has tried to do, and eliminating most of the companions to make it all fit, is ridiculous. Just keep it over there. Dream Focus 01:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

First, as the closer stated, the result of the AfD has no effect on a merge discussion, so please do not use that as a reason to keep it. Now for a few quick questions: Do you even care about quality articles? Do you see any of these three becoming good or featured articles? If I just said "Screw it, it's not worth it.", would you even touch these afterward? Really, I mean, you whine and moan about the evil deletionists destroying such important information, but do you honestly even care about anything more than the principal of these characters having articles? It is so annoying playing this whole game with people like you, who go on and on about how important this stuff is, and then when its all over, the articles just sit in the same poor state for years.

How exactly is the section on Lord British any different from the article? The first paragraph deals with the creation, the second deals with the character's role in the series, and the third deals with the whole "immortality claim." That is no different from the article, but it is nice and compact. Does it really make the character unimportant just because it has a few paragraphs and no title? In the time that you've wasted trying to protect it, you probably could have at least gotten one Ultima game article to GA status, but instead, all you have is a single page that does not assert any sort of real notability at all. TTN (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality level is not a valid reason to eliminate something. You may see 99% of the articles on Wikipedia is unimportant, but they matter to someone. I see nothing wrong with the articles, having found them interesting to read, and believe they meet all requirements to exists on Wikipedia. The article sent to AFD closed as Keep, proving its notability. Only the nominator thought it something that should be deleted. Dream Focus 02:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Reduced the whole Lord British to four paragraphs. In the process, no encyclopedic information was lost, and it could probably be shortened further. Stuff like "how to kill British in this or that game" violates WP:GAMEGUIDE and got chopped out. As for the rest, not much when you really work on the text is being said: the majority is just drawn out wording or unrelated details.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The finished result could easily fit into the list as the four paragraphs now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

In order to get your way, you went over and deleted more than half of that article, erasing not just the well covered assassination bit, but other valid content. I undid your changes. Please use the talk page there to discuss things before editing again. Dream Focus 03:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There was not point in "getting my way", I edited so that a) trivia was removed b) it was worded so as to not be as overly wordy and c) primed it for any real world information that can readily be added. So if you want to keep it, start adding reception and other real-world content.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep the AFD was !voted as keep, Dreamfocus, you can contact everyone in the AfD about this attempt to merge, as long as it is a neutral message, and you contact everyone. Ikip (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Well I made a reasonable attempt to give the article some much needed Exlax so notability can be proven. It's a shame because I think with some work it might be important enough for an article, but apparently Dream Focus wishes to assume bad faith, conspiracy theories (yes I said it, deal with it) and onwership. Bleh.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  You don't want notability proven, since as soon as you were done, you went over to the merge discussion and said you had hacked it down enough to be easily merged. It isn't a conspiracy theory, to notice what is obvious before you. I have contacted everyone who participated in the AFD, other than those who already posted here, since they of course know about the merger discussion. Dream Focus 03:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  • No that would be an observation on my part. I never said "support" or "merge" or whatever, just that it could fit into a list. It's you that jumped the gun. :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not in favor of a merge. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we move the material to the talk page until we reach consensus, or am I going to have to request it be protected? Ikip (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears like large sections of referenced material was removed, but the material seems rather trivial, and the sourcing could be better. Ikip (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The only one that seems a clear case for merging is The Companions of the Avatar. Merging a list of characters to a list of characters seems uncontroversial. Furthermore, the Companions article is completely unsourced, and game-guideish, but the other two have at what looks to be real world info. Abductive (reasoning) 03:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support merge per what I said here i.e. a few miscellaneous sourced statements isn't enough for a decent article. bridies (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge: The point stands that both the Avatar and Companions of the Avatar are not referenced enough to be character articles according to Wikipedia standards. In fact, it seems that the AFD consensus was actually to redirect/merge, but it was shut down for not being a valid AFD anyway. There is no reason for the article to be deleted, but it should still be merged.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  It closed as Keep[1]. And 7 people said Keep, with 5 saying redirect, and one saying merge. Dream Focus 03:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Merge would make article too long. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC).
• Keep. Merging would make the article too long. Lord British and the Avatar are notable characters and covered in reliable sources, including academic ones. Offliner (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Someone should cut them down the content verifiable in independent reliable sources, and then see if they "would make the aricle too long". bridies (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I'll have to have a good look through next week before I give my opinion. I'd just like to ask people to read WP:Writing about fiction if they haven't done so already. I quickly looked at the Lord British article. The sources presented don't come close to the GNG. A bullet-pointed list of ways to kill the character? Our coverage of this aspect should reflect the attention given to it by our sources, which would seem to be a few sentences at most. Plot information should be included in the plot summary of the games. This can probably all be cut down to a mergable level. Will look at the "List of" article another time. Marasmusine (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Per above. With the thousands of sources it should be possible to write at least good articles about these subjects independently, so best not to merge. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge Avatar: Though the result of the AfD was "Keep", I feel that there are several issues which were not properly taken into account. Yes, there was only one "Delete", but I believe that was the result of the comment about GDFL's impact on merged content. That's why there was a chunk of "Redirect" and "Merge"'s. However, many of the "Keep"'s did not cite any policy or guideline. Most simply stated that the character deserves its own article based on common sense that the character appeared a lot, which is not how Wikipedia is structured. When asked to provide sources, very few were supplied despite the assertion that many exist. If those in favor of Avatar remaining its own article, then I suggest the quickest way to end this is to provide said sources to satisfy WP:V and WP:RS. Because in the article's current state, I have to agree the article is not up to standards and a merge would strengthen this list. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

  Wikipedia is not a set of rules. You are to use common sense, and ignore all rules, they just suggestions on what to do in most cases. The founding principle, it a policy/law, which was there long before the suggested guidelines of notability came about, reads WP:IAR "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." It all comes down to consensus. The AFD established consensus was to keep. Dream Focus 16:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  Dream- While I agree common sense must play a part in our practices here, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules clearly states "if", not to always ignore all rules. And regardless of age, the other guidelines still have to be taken into account as one of the Five pillars also clearly states "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy; unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references."

  So again, I suggest the best way to end this quickly is to provide said sources that establish Avatar's notability. In it's current state, the sources in such an article of its size does not meet standards. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

  The character has notable mention in various third party media publications, as well as in studies done, and is the star of 14 Ultima games, all of them notable, many redefining the industry. Did you see the parts I added earlier this week? Dream Focus 16:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  Yes I did Dream. In fact I linked the version I examined in my response above. It is a good start, but in it's current state not enough to warrant a separate article. So again, I ask that you present and add the "various third party media publications" and studies. That is what will bring this matter about the Avatar to an end. I guarantee you that if you provide a slew of sources, the above opposition will see no point in continuing the matter. Most have conceded the character is an important gaming element, but that does not cut it by Wikipedia's standards. And that is what they are trying to enforce. Despite the lengthy argument, we all want the same thing: quality, informative video game articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

  Quality informative video game articles? How do you get that by destroying an article, or some of the informative content? The character is notable enough to be on a list with other characters, but not by his self, even if the valid information about him wouldn't all fit properly on the merged article? It seems some people are just obsessed with mindless rules. You don't need someone to tell you something is notable, you able to think for yourself. Video game characters didn't get as much coverage back in those days as they do now. Old media sources aren't always archived. If the character was notable enough to be in 14 Ultima games, all of them quite notable, plus a Japanese Anime and manga series, then common sense would say, that character is notable enough to have their own article. Dream Focus 23:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "mindless rules." Managing articles that are not up to par is just basic cleanup work. As it stands, none of these have a chance of reaching GA status, and they have been given enough of a chance to reach that point, though if you actually provide some real sources, that can easily change. The list itself can be expanded upon and possibly reach FL status with some work, so including these within the list to strengthen it makes perfect sense. While you keep mentioning the importance and the status of the characters, you need to actually show that through substantial secondary reliable sources, not through one or two that can easily fit within the list. TTN (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Dream- TTN is correct that this is not about mindless rules. Though you say we are destroying the article, can you honestly say that this version is optimal quality? If you think it can be better, then improve it by adding the sources you say are out there. If you need time to research, then take a week. There are a number of video game sources you can search if you need some help. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

Quality level is not a reason to destroy an article. Otherwise most of Wikipedia would be wiped out. I see nothing wrong with the article. I judge things by content, not how well others believe them to be written. The notability of the topic is what you are suppose to be considering, not how the article is written. Dream Focus 10:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because a topic is (barely) notable does not mean it cannot be merged. Most of these article consist of unreferenced or in-universe information which should be removed. It's no use saying "oh someone might get round to adding some substantial worthy content some day". Most of the articles are appallingly bad; that content should be removed; the articles will thus be small enough to be merged. It's that simple, unless someone can prove otherwise by adding substantial, reliably (and independently) sourced content to the article, but no one will. You should also leave out the bad faith accusations, it's getting tiresome. bridies (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Most people have thus far said Keep, not merge. It is unlikely anyone will convince the other side of their opinion, so no sense to try to debate it any further with you. There is no consensus for merge, so the articles must remain. Please don't try to wipe out half their content, so you have an excuse to try to merge them. Dream Focus 10:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You have an inability to debate anything coherently. bridies (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you just have a low reading comprehension skill, and thus can't understand the writing of others if not presented in a certain way, thus the reason you don't like the current wording of the articles you wish to destroy. Dream Focus 11:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

A certain way? As in an intelligent, coherent manner that shows some semblance of understanding policies and guidelines and does not resort to "YOU GUYS ARE TRYING TO BURN MY ARTICLE TO THE GROUND WAAAH"? Damn, you're right. bridies (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

←Let's please keep this discussion civil.

Dream- I am considering the notability of the article. Given the sources and content presented, I have to say it is not notable enough. You can always change my mind by presenting me with more sources though. Also, I can't help but feel we have different definitions of "notability". Yes the Avatar is an important and well-known character. But per Wikipedia:Notability, "a notability determination does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic". "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The article in its current state does not meet that criteria.

So again, the quickest way to settle this is to present the sources you and others have said existed. The fact this is the fifth time I've asked you to do this is very disconcerting. If they don't exist, they don't exist. If they do but are hard to find, take some time to search. If you are unable to find them, we can merge the content for now. The article name will remain as a redirect and it can be turned back into an article once enough sources is found. Mergers and deletions are not the final stage of articles on Wikipedia. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 12:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

Most people have already said Keep not merge. Most people are convinced the sources found throughout the article, are enough to establish notability. I'm sorry I can't convince all of you, but the majority have already stated both in the AFD and in this discussion to keep it, not merge. Dream Focus 13:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a discussion not a vote, and the various "keeps" have been spurious arguments based on article length and unproven claims of "thousands" of available sources. bridies (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Merges are based on consensus. And you shouldn't insult or dismiss the opinions of others. Most people said keep, then that's the consensus, and must be followed. The fact that a small number might not agree with that, is not relevant. You can not move against consensus. You can try to convince them of your point of view, and see if they change their mind, but don't go trying to ignore their opinions entirely because you disagree with their reasoning. Dream Focus 14:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus does not equal votes. Policies and guidelines have wide consensus and your arguments have absolutely no grounding in them; neither does "article too long" (the actual valid content is not too long) or "thousands of sources available" (prove it?). bridies (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Dream, while I agree merges are based on consensus, consensus is not a democracy based on majority. And I hate to keep repeating myself, but many of the "Keep"'s did not cite any policy or guideline. Most simply stated that the character deserves its own article based on common sense that the character appeared a lot, which is not how Wikipedia is structured.

So for a sixth time, please provide further third-party sourcing for the article. I find it very disconcerting that this issue of sourcing keeps being ignored. I've listed several options above that can be pursued including a time extension. If you have no intention of addressing my above post about finding sources, then I am not convinced the article complies with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

Ignore all rules is policy, which outweights any suggested guideline. It reads "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." If consensus is it'd be good for Wikipedia to keep this article, since many people will enjoy reading it, and those who don't won't be likely to ever find it anyway, then it should be kept. The notability guidelines are just the suggested guidelines, just as Common sense is a guideline. Bestselling novels are often nominated for deletion, but even though the rules say to eliminate them if they have no reviews(many don't), consensus and common sense often ends in keep. See this [classic example]. I have not found any more references than what have already been added. I believe them to be enough. If you don't agree, I'm not going to convince you otherwise. Dream Focus 15:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now we're going in circles. I seem to recall pointing out that WP:IAR clearly states "if" and bringing up another policy on par with WP:IAR that says "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy; unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references."

Anyway, I thank you for address my sourcing question. In regard to the extent of the sources in the article. The following content is from the sources.

• "Players could chose their avatar's gender and race. This was a first in computer games. The models the artists used for the female avatars were female athletes, and the armor they were was femine, but not hypersexual. Overall, they were a good representations of both gender and race." -Ray
• "The ethical character building of the Avatar character in Ultima IV, develops in the game morally as what he describes as the same as religious architecture." -Haysediscusses
• "The term 'avatar' was first used in a virtual context in 1985 in the popular Ultima series of video role-playing games. Ultima IV (1985) named the player character "Avatar" and later games in the series followed suit." -Waggoner

While this is a good start, it doesn't offer that broad of information and is rather minimal in my opinion. If this is as good is it's going to get, I think the sources would better strengthen this list. Why have two weak pages, when you can combine them into something greater? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

How exactly would combining it make it something greater? That makes absolutely no sense at all. Its the same information, minus a large chunk reduced for size problems, so it can't possible be improved by being combined. And the only people interested in reading this sort of article, won't be as interested with a lot of the information interesting to them removed to make it short enough to merge. So you end up with less people clicking around to read the Ultima articles at all, assuming they had all been equally gutted. Dream Focus 15:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• I recommend a request for comment. DreamFocus has all but admitted he doesn't have a leg to stand on, yet is still claiming consensus. There is recent edit warring on the Lord British article over the removal of unsourced content so it seems no progress is being made on the actual article content either. bridies (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I did not admit to any such nonsense. And at the Lord British article we discussed, two editors disagreeing, I asking for a third opinion. And there was progress made there, references added to the assassination part, proving it had plenty of media coverage, and was even the subject of a university professor's study on the video game history that people remembered, that an event everyone questioned recalls. Dream Focus 15:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep rather than merge as these seems capable of being larger than stubs as well sourced articles that are relevant to at least some segment of our readership. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC
• Comment If a merger does take place, some of the Lord British material could go into Richard Garriott, as I would have thought the fact that this game designer puts his fantasy alter-ego into his games is notable, in the context of an article about Garriott. Hobson (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Those against the mergers

• Dream Focus
• Ikip
• A Nobody
• Peregrine Fisher
• Xxanthippe
• Offliner
• FeydHuxtable

Those for mergers

• Kung Fu Man
• bridies
• ZXCVBNM
• Guyinblack25

• Abductive is for the companion article being merged only, saying it was the only clear case.

7 against the mergers, 4 for the merges, and 1 guy for one but against the other two. I think consensus is to not merge anything. Dream Focus 16:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Dream- With all due respect, Wikipedia is not a democracy and Polling is not a substitute for discussion. A vote count does not equal a consensus. This has been mentioned several times before during the course of the discussion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

I looked on the Wikipedia page for merging, and it didn't say any of the sort. Consensus means what the majority of people agree upon. In the AFD its different, but merges are in fact, determined by what the majority of people want. Dream Focus 16:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but per Wikipedia:Consensus, consensus "is the communal process of collaboration to create content." The process "should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons." (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

I think that this discussion is heated by strong feelings coming off a contentious AfD, and cannot come to a consensus. The fact that my perfectly reasonable suggestion of merging two lists, or for that matter each of the articles were not debated individually, is proof that people did not come here to reach consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 22:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Dream, while I know you are doing what you can to improve the articles for the readers, you have to keep Wikipedia's intended audience in mind. Encyclopedic video games are not written for gamers and as such Ultima articles are not written for Ultima enthusiasts. Our articles here on Wikipedia are written for general readers that may or may not know anything about the subject and its related topic. So while you may consider the fact that the Avatar rarely speaks, the general reader may not. As such, we have to tailor the content to provide proper weight to facts, and real-world perspectives are always favored over fictional ones.

Combining them will make the topic greater by eliminating excess detail that does not further the general reader's understanding of the topic. See Characters of Kingdom Hearts and List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow for examples. Each major character previously had their own article, but they provided nothing of real-world importance to a general reader. A few, however, kept their own article space because they were cleaned up, like Soma Cruz.

Regardless, the sources are rather minimal, they look like just passing mentions, and I don't believe that equates to "significant coverage". I'm sorry, but other than WP:IAR and WP:UCS, which is really just a detailed extension of the former, no other policy or guideline has been presented that supports Avatar (Ultima) remaining a stand alone article.

Bridies- If this discussion will only result in an edit war that better the two sides, I also believe a request for comment would help. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia's intended audience? Where is that listed at. Wiki means casual, doesn't it? And these character articles have been around for years, then suddenly a small number of people decided to change the notability guidelines, without a general vote or most being aware of it, and then got together in various wikiprojects, to find every single character page there was, and eliminate them. Even Princess Zelda has her page challenged. And I don't need any policy other than the one I have cited, no one caring about your suggested guidelines. No one can take them seriously anyway, since there was no general vote, they just the opinion of a small number of people who camp out there and argue nonstop to get their way. Most people have stated it should be kept, it just a small number of you determined to eliminate. Accept the will of the people, consensus clearly established, and stop trying to wikilawyer. Some people have no interest in history, science, sex, cartoons, comics, video games, or many other categories of articles on the wikipedia, and they simply ignore them. If you don't like it, you won't be searching for it, and thus won't notice it exists at all. If thousands of people read it each year, and enjoy it, then leave it be. What you consider excess detail, we consider interesting and relevant facts. If there is anything you don't think belongs there, discuss it on the relevant talk page, and form a consensus. Dream Focus 16:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Dream, with all due respect, this is not about voting. A larger number of people wanting to keep something without citing any policy or guideline is not a consensus. And just because an article does not do any harm does not mean it should be kept. Potential readership or subjective usefulness does not factor into notability, which is based on "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Look, it's quite clear you don't agree with us and have no plans to (if I misinterpret that, I apologize). So I hate to play this card, but we'd be well within Wikipedia's rules to merge the Avatar article's content to this list and change it to a redirect. But I know that will turn into an edit war and possible blocks for the involved parties. We don't want that and neither do you. Will a request for comments satisfy you so we can move forward with this issue? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

I've requested an RFC (hopefully correctly) below regardless. bridies (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

RFC break

Both sides claiming consensus in above merge discussion; additional opinions sought. bridies (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

After some consideration, my stance is that of merge. The "List" article is plot information and should be subsumed into the plot summaries of the specific game articles. As I mentioned above, the short references on the Lord British article do not warrant the large section on killing the character, but perhaps a sentence or two in Ultima (series). This is not a case where I choose to "ignore all rules", I believe using the style guide, notability guidelines and verifiability policy will make for a better encyclopedia. Marasmusine (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Are mergers determined by the opinions of the people there, or by your interpretation of policy and guidelines? Unlike the AFD page, the merger page doesn't say that it does. I don't see it listed anywhere, that mergers are determined by guideline interpretation, only consensus. And most people said not to merge. There is NO CONSENSUS TO MERGE. Therefore, it shouldn't be done. Dream Focus 11:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Is your opinion more important than that of other editors?(edit: sorry, thought you were a closing administrator. Read below) If most people are against the merge, should it be done? Do you not believe the coverage Lord British has gotten in the press, as both the name legendary game maker Richard Garriott uses, as well as the media coverage for the assassination of the character in Ultima Online, clearly justify that article's existence? It meets all requirements, having third party media coverage. So why is it even being considered for a merge? Dream Focus 11:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I just added a quote from Wired magazine on the historical importance of the Assassination of Lord British in Ultima Online, the protest that followed, and its affect on the industry. Quite a notable event. Also, please read the talk page additions for more proof of his notability. Dream Focus 11:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Is your opinion more important than anyone else's? Despite the inclusionists popping in here to give their "opinions" (that's why we don't go by pure numbers), you are the only one who is actually vocal about keeping these. You still haven't found anything that actually makes an article for Lord British necessary. No mater what you find, the topic of the character dying only needs a paragraph to sum it all up. Also, the newest source is leaning towards being more relevant to Ultima Online than the character's article. TTN (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Everyone's opinion is equal. And most people's opinions are that the references and the content of the articles are sufficient. A smaller number of you deletionists, who all hang out at the same wikiproject, all thinking the same, and determined to wipe out every character article you can get away with, seem determined to do this. Dream Focus 15:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No, if the opinions do not fall in line with guidelines and common practice, then they have less weight than those that do. The people who have just come here to fulfill their desire to keep every single topic on this site have far less weight in their arguments that those of us who actually wish to see quality articles. TTN (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't want to see quality articles, you want to eliminate anything you don't like. How is the information of greater quality with just some of it crammed here on a page that can't hold it all, and most eliminated altogether? Dream Focus 16:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but in his defense, and I've come to verbal blows more than once with him over character articles on wikipedia, but if quality can be demonstrated he more often than not TTN has dropped a merge discussion he's started. In fact if any reasonable attempt was made to prove they could be made good articles this wouldn't be being discussed. But no, you've gone to claiming that WP:VG is a cabal of deletionists determined to remove "articles they don't like" from wikipedia. You're not even trying to assume people have the best intentions here, you've already made up your mind.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Your little group goes around eliminating as many character articles as you can, usually without discussion, just putting a redirect there, and sometimes copying over a small bit of the information. You personally nominated the Avatar article for deletion, it ending as keep. And what exactly is your definition of a good article? One that has someone in the media specifically say they are notable somehow? Or is it you just don't like how its written, or that type of article? And everyone made up their mind before this started, forged in past debates, we all having these same arguments time and again. Unless there is a general vote, with every Wikipedia editor able to participate, to decide exactly what type of articles should exists and which shouldn't, then the same debates will continue to repeat themselves. The mention in books, legitimate documented studies, magazines, and whatnot, which I have already added, meet all requirements for the Avatar and Lord British to have their own articles. Most people agree with me on that, but you refuse to accept their opinions, stubbornly determined to have your way. Dream Focus 16:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Dream- Wikipedia:Merging (I assume this is the page you are citing) is more of a "how-to" page created a few months ago from content on Help:Merging (see its edit history), it is not a guideline or policy. It looks to give scenarios where merging is the best practice, but it gives no guidelines on how to determine those scenarios. That is what consensus is for, which is a Wikipedia-wide practice that covers mergers too.

So in response to your first comment above, merges are determined by consensus and our interpretation of policy and guidelines. Consensus must be made by reasonable arguments based on the policies and guidelines. You've presented some good points, but unfortunately the articles are lacking in encyclopedic quality. Without the sources to establish notability and present a real-world perspective, the content would better serve our readers in a condensed form among similar characters. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

You aren't serving your readers, you are driving them away. I find your arguments all ridiculous. And the merger page says to follow WP:fict which is no longer even a guideline, and has been changed many times since the merger page first linked to it. You don't like how its written, you don't like character articles and think we should wipe them all out, you don't like long articles preferring them to be short pointless and not interesting to anyone at all, and you use your interpretation of the ever changing suggested guidelines as an excuse to destroy something you don't like. Why discuss things at all when the opinions of most people here don't matter at all, you determined to do things your way no matter what? Why pretend its consensus, when clearly there is no consensus here? Dream Focus 15:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there was a consensus in the merge discussion. Therefore the material should stay where it is for now. Offliner (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

And we do think there was consensus to merge. That's why there is an RFC. bridies (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There can not be consensus when you can't even get half of the people participating to agree with you. Therefore, no consensus exists, and you can not merge. Dream Focus 16:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, you're wrong. I suggest you stop repeating yourself ad nauseam. bridies (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

A few of you believe there is a legitimate reason given to merge, while a greater number of people say there was not. You can't just invalidate the opinions of the editors you don't like, and claim there was a consensus with those who actually matter to you, they being the few that agreed with you of course. Dream Focus 16:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have consensus you will not mind further outside opinions (outside the cabal of evil deletionists at WP:VG you see), as they will surely validate your opinion. This section is for uninvolved editors from RFC to post comments, so there is no need to fill it with your ranting. bridies (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

[2] is informal, it the same as asking for a third opinion when its just two editors around to argue. Just whoever wants to wander in and comment, which is basically what we have now anyway. Dream Focus 17:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen a discussion like this being closed as anything else other than "no consensus." This RFC seems pretty ridiculous. Offliner (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. Done? bridies (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope so. Dream Focus 16:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Er, if I may respond to the triple response DreamFocus gave me above. I was asked to give my opinion: I gave it. I wasn't expecting this stuff about only intepreting policies, my opinion being "more important", and the shouting? Now, as for Lord British's coverage, particularly the "Assassination" section: Of the sources that are actually reliable, we have a handful of sentences that largely cover the same ground. Our coverage should reflect this. A rewrite using verifiability policy will bring this right down to a paragraph at most. I have a proposal. I'd be happy to try an edit with the Ultima Online and Ultima (series) articles to demonstrate what a redirect might look like. Marasmusine (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as this discussion has turned into a back and forth shouting match, I think Marasmusine's suggestion is an alternative worth pursuing. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

The version already in this article is basically the final outcome, barring some cleanup by someone actually familiar with the topic. TTN (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well never mind then. :-p I guess the discussion continues.

Dream- In response to your comments to me above, I feel I have to point out that your comments about my motivation is bordering on incivility. I have never commented on the quality of the prose, nor expressed my feelings about the character or its series. They are irrelevant to the points I'm making. Throughout this whole discussion spanning WT:VG, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avatar (Ultima) and here, I'd say most people would call my interactions patient and civil, which is what I tried to be to you and every other editor here. So I don't appreciate such a characterization of my actions. In the interest of assuming good faith, I'll attribute your comments to the general stress that can build up during such discussions.

Regardless, consensus is decided by presenting reasons based on policies and guidelines, which have been presented here frequently. A majority of people's opinion that are not citing Wikipedia's rules (other than WP:IAR) or arguing based on reason is not a consensus. I know you feel strongly about this, but I can't help but feel that both of our time and energy could be better spent focusing on improving other articles, whatever they may be. Save for Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss, the whole Ultima series of articles is in poor shape. Having someone focus on those articles would be welcome help. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

• Marasmusine, sorry, I made the mistake of thinking you were like a closing administrator. Didn't realize just a random user, like the rest of us. And GuyinBlack25, you have made sure your words sound civil, but your message has been most rude and brutal. Saying it didn't matter what the rest of us said, you could merge the articles anyway, and refusing to accept that consensus meant everyone, not just those who agree with your line of thinking, is most uncivil. Dream Focus 22:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, if the numbers were the other way around, you would be complaining that the evil deletionists were ganging up on the discussion or something to that effect. The uncivil and impatient one is you. Instead of accepting help from Kung Fu Man, who has brought a number video game characters to GA status, you assume that he is killing such precious information for the fun of it. Instead of even listening to suggestions from project members, who are generally devoted to producing quality articles, you just pass the project off as some sort of cabal that wishes to ruin such "good articles." If that isn't uncivil, I don't know the true definition of it. TTN (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. When the numbers are clearly in favor of one thing or another, I accept that, and let the discussion end. And you aren't trying to improve the articles, you are trying to eliminate them. You can NOT improve articles by replacing them entirely with a redirect. There is no consensus to merge, so why not just accept that? Dream Focus 00:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, just like you did during the first discussion? Before the AfD, that was all the attention these articles were getting, and it was clearly in favor of merging. Don't make anything up; you will never accept this, period. This list can be improved upon, and it could potentially end up like Characters of Kingdom Hearts. Do you think that article would have ever come into that state had the separate articles not been merged into it? I don't know how many times we have to tell you: consensus is not about numbers. It has everything to do with the arguments and how they weigh against policies, guidelines, and common editing practices. Show me one thing that states "numbers rule everything." TTN (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You really should read over WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, the see also there, WP:CON, and Wikipedia:What is consensus?. TTN (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Dream- I'm sorry you feel the way you do as my message was not meant to hurt feelings, only to bring to light some points that looked to be ignored in the discussion. Perhaps a different approach is in order. I pose these as serious questions, and I hope you will indulge me and provide serious answers.

1. Would you call this version of Avatar (Ultima) a good article?
2. If so, what about it do you think qualifies it as such?
3. If not, what about it would you improve to make it a good article?

I know this discussion is quickly becoming heated and I hope we can move past that. Please let me know what you think about the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC))

What exactly are you asking? What is your definition of a good article? Because it looks fine to me. You have no consensus to merge, and aren't likely to convince anyone. So just let it be over already. No one wants to see a never ending discussion. Everything that could be said by both sides, has already been, several times in some cases. No consensus to merge. Dream Focus 04:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

By that same logic, I could say "No consensus to remain separate". But I don't want a never ending discussion either. I've got other things on Wikipedia I'd like to do as well.

I'm know what my, and many other Wikipedian's, definition of a good article is. What I'm trying to learn is what your definition is. You say the article looks fine. Can you elaborate more on that? What about the article is fine? Do you consider it to be complete, informative, well-written, well-structured? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC))

It doesn't have to be to those standards to exist. Otherwise you'd wipe out 99% of wikipedia. The articles are complete, informative, and written well enough for me to understand, and the structuring just fine. And articles do not need a consensus to exist, there no rule listed anywhere that says that. You need a consensus to merge, and there isn't one here. Dream Focus 04:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Technically, all articles do need consensus to exist. Editors need to agree that each article meets WP:NOTE and WP:V. Some are no brainers, others are in a grey area.

Getting to what I believe is the heart of the matter, I get the feeling we have different definitions of consensus. According to Wikipedia, the number of people in favor of something does not determine consensus. Bringing up concerns using reasoning is what counts. This is based on Wikipedia:Consensus, which states "consensus discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons", and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy, which states that Wikipedia's "primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting."

So regardless of how many people said "Keep", most gave no reason other than the character deserved an article without explaining how the topic met Wikipedia's rules for notability and accuracy via sourcing. In my opinion, that is simply voting, not reasoning. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC))

DreamFocus, okay, woah, whats all this abount me refusing concencus and performing a merge? Let me clarify a bit further, just looking at the Lord British article for now. There seems to be two main objections to the merge: a) it would make the target article too long, b) British is a notable character. My counter argument is that a) If the article was written to standards of Verification policy, I think it would be much shorter, and b) With the sources presented, the subject does not pass the GNG as written. In order to demonstrate this point, I offered to edit the target article (adding my imagined succinct version), to show what this might look like and get another opinion of the other "keep" users above. It can be reverted if no-one likes it. I am not talking about doing a redirect and copy-paste. If you still feel that my proposal is still uncivil, then I'm sorry, I'll go away any not voice my opinion any further. I'll be honest here. To me, coming into the discussion at the point I did, this looks like one person shouting "NO CONCENSUS" at anyone who comes along and gives an opposing view. Marasmusine (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about Guyinblack25. See his recent post above you. He is determined to do it against consensus. He previously posted Look, it's quite clear you don't agree with us and have no plans to (if I misinterpret that, I apologize). So I hate to play this card, but we'd be well within Wikipedia's rules to merge the Avatar article's content to this list and change it to a redirect. There is no consensus to merge. Consensus is the opinion of everyone, not just everyone certain people agree with. The others have already argued about that definition of consensus, trying to discredit those who believe the articles are fine. Anyway, if you think anything needs citations to prove it, then add a citation needed tag on it. Everything is easily verified in it. Just no sense doing that with every single sentence, unless someone honestly doubts any of the content. Dream Focus 16:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem isn't just references, it's the weight given to those references ("Hey, I'm going to prop a whole character on the fact players kill him a lot!"), the fact there is no reception or otherwise notability for the character itself (even characters popular based on sex appeal have something said about the character itself. What's said about Lord British or any of the others in that regard? Nothing), the huge use of peacock words, "cruft" and other content that could easily be cut out of the whole mess (oh and the fact if anyone dares try you run around reverting and screaming OH NO HE'S DELETING MOST OF THE ARTICLE, when if an editor can justify it it should be their perogative to do so to a clearly sub-par article so it agrees with all policies), and not to mention this whole event reeks of you feeling ownership of these items...

I'm sorry Dream, but enough is enough. There's solid reasoning to merge these as they can't be improved and a disruptive editor (yourself), so I'm going ahead and being bold with a merge. The information has already been worked into here anyway as stated well earlier. If you want to work on the articles, please take it to a subpage. If you start another rant about the destruction of articles, I'm going to ignore it. And if you revert, I'm taking a complaint on you to WP:ANI to cease your disruptive behavior. I already went through this earlier over a Pokemon article, really not in the mood for any more when the only holdup is you.

Good day to you.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wanted to avoid the paperwork, but no luck. Discussion at WP:ANI opened up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ultima-series_character_articles_and_User:Dream_Focus

On the basis of the discussions here, the mergers look very sensible and further work should be done on this article in regards to sourcing and removing in-universe speak. It's not clear from the article at present, what's important or notable about those characters - what's the cultural impact? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Dream- I'm sorry our interactions are becoming hostile, but I feel I must say that I don't appreciate your comment about me above. You are quoting me out of context in what appears to be an effort to portray my views as something it originally was not. Which as stated at Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility, is an act of incivilty: "Quoting another editor out-of-context to give the impression that he or she holds views they do not hold, or to malign them". Reading my full comment in the subsection above does not give the impression you stated. I'm sorry if you misinterpreted it, but I ask you to please assume good faith. Such comments are not constructive to the discussion and circumvent the real issue. I have made my point several times over the course of this very lengthy discussion, and I'm sorry we couldn't come to an agreement. At this point, I see no reason for either of us to continue discussing. We should allow others to freely make their own points and wait for an arbitrator of some kind to close the discussion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

That is in context. I responded to it, someone thought I was talking to them, so I then explained I wasn't, and quoted the entire paragraph of your post to which I was previously responding to. That is exactly what you said, and what you meant. There is no other way I see to interpret it. And in fact, someone did go ahead, against consensus, and merge it anyway. We're waiting for a ruling now to close this. Dream Focus 16:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Dream- Assuming good faith, I can only assume your browser had a glitch at the time and the "entire paragraph" did not display properly. As such, this would be a simple misunderstanding. The full paragraph from my edit is:

"Look, it's quite clear you don't agree with us and have no plans to (if I misinterpret that, I apologize). So I hate to play this card, but we'd be well within Wikipedia's rules to merge the Avatar article's content to this list and change it to a redirect. But I know that will turn into an edit war and possible blocks for the involved parties. We don't want that and neither do you. Will a request for comments satisfy you so we can move forward with this issue?"

So again, if you misinterpreted my comments, I apologize, but it is best practice to assume good faith towards other editors. If you have a question about a comment or find it offensive, you can always ask for clarification. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

An outside opinion

Rather than focusing on these secondary character articles, perhaps a better tactic is to improve the parent articles. Look at Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss. It's a featured article. Now look at Ultima Online. It's C-class according to WP:WikiProject Video games assessment, and I'd say that's a very generous rating. None of the other games are even close to achieving a good article ranking, and most only have one or two references. It's pretty tough to sell an argument for individual character articles when the articles on the games they appear in are in such terrible shape. AniMate^draw 21:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

missing character

No Tseramed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.39.121 (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess someone decided to remove him since he was only in one game. Dream Focus 22:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Lord British

Should there be seperate sections for Lord British (Richard Garriot) and his character Lord British in Ultima, who came Sosaria with the serpent pendant, walking through, the gate, etc. And anything else I'm not sure of. There is a section on him in the NES Ultima Exodus hintbook, saying before he was King of Britannia he did numerous good deeds, with Iolo, Dupre and Shamino, etc. The snare (talk) 06:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

We had an article for Lord British but it was "merged" against consensus, by a small number of determined people who argued everyone else to death. The information did work better there, since there is much about this character covered in many reliable sources. Richard Garriott of course has his own article about him. Dream Focus 12:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Ultima characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070710004638/http://www.gamespot.com/features/tenspot_heroes/hero2.html to http://www.gamespot.com/features/tenspot_heroes/hero2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Time Lord in UU2

Might I ask why my edit has been deleted? The Time Lord is referenced in UU2 by Mokpo the Mighty in the Ethereal Void and by the talking Imp that flies around the Shrine of Spirituality. I advocate changing the "No" to a "M/R" as I did in my edit. Chaptagai (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Ultima characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306204357/http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/eb/Electronic_Arts_historical_logo.svg/300px-Electronic_Arts_historical_logo.svg.png to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/eb/Electronic_Arts_historical_logo.svg/300px-Electronic_Arts_historical_logo.svg.png

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)