Talk:WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008

Roster - list or prose?

The following is a closed discussion of the Listing or prosing. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No Result, Although there is a majority of approval of listing, there is still many comments of opposition. There is no real consensus reached here.--TrUCo⁹31¹ 21:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, time to throw this down again since Rob keeps insisting on keeping it prose, and is now on the verge of an edit war. By my count, it was 6-1 for a roster list back in December. Let's decide this ONCE AND FOR ALL!

This is the list we are proposing

• List - to have consistency with the other titles, it should be this way. ArcAngel (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• List - Wikipedia is to present articles neatly, and when a roster is listed in prose, that is messy and the way it reads is very confusing. In every paragraph there is mention that one or more superstars are not included in the DS version, now with the list yoou can note what brand each wrestler is in the game, you can tell whether they are on all the systems or if they are exceptions.TrUCo⁹31¹ 21:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Prose. Neater and there is no requirement wrestling games have to be a list. Just because they have been that way for a long time, doesn't mean things can't change. In my view, people are just refusing to accept change here. If you want to see your perfect list, go to a video game site. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• List - I don't care either way since I got the game, but judging by the, ah, overall intelligence and patience level of most Wikipedia users, I should think a list would be better, compared to trying to decipher who's in the roster from a block of text. There are a few good points about this actually being an encyclopedia and as such, with there being no lists in an actual encyclopedia, but I think information should be more easily accessible. Some users have shown extremely stupid behaviour concerning this whole ordeal however. I'm not gonna drop any names, but sometimes you need to look above your own opinions, if you know what I mean. So list it is, my good men. --Kaizer13 (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that WP:CON states "Wikipedia decision making is not based on formal vote counting ('Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy'). This means that polling alone is not considered a means of decision-making, and it is certainly not a binding vote, and you do not need to abide by polls per se."

I would also like to poise the question, "why is a full roster of characters necessary?" An abridge listing of some of the more notable wrestler and newly added wrestlers would probably convey the same idea. Yes, some people may want to know every wrestler in the game, but that is not really the purpose of an encyclopedic article. Per WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:DIRECTORY, detailed and excessive information regarding plot and gameplay info is not meant to be on Wikipedia. There are plenty of other games that do not include such lists and are Featured status; see WP:VG/FA for examples. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC))

People assume that a full roster is needed, because that's how it's always been done. Guyinblack has a point, a full roster does lean towards guide content. A new prose should be written, highlighting just some of the roster. Perhaps a link in the external links for a full roster, so people can see the whole roster if they want to. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• List - Don't forget all of the people in the archive who have asked for it to be a list as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WWE_SmackDown_vs._Raw_2008/Archive_6. This behavior is childish. Angrymansr (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Though there may be plenty of people here that feel a full roster is what's best the article, the consensus on Wikipedia and the parent WikiProject of this article trump that. The VG Project generally frowns upon long/large lists of playable characters and normally favors prose.

Regardless, vote counting does not equal a consensus. Most people that wanted a list format in the archive did not cite real reasons as to why the article should contain it. Lists within articles, though can be informative to players of the game, do not provide much, encyclopedic-wise, to the layman. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

If Wikipedia and VG Project frowns on this and it is NOT the community consensus, then why is every video game with multiple playable characters in this genre except for the ones these 2 are messing with, using lists? Please point me to some articles where multiple playable characters are listed in prose instead of a list (that bullet and Rob haven't altered). I searched for many games with multiple playable characters and every single one of them are in list format, not to mention 99% of the WWE_video_games that were lists until these two users have gone back and re-written them into prose: Tekken_1, Tekken_2, Tekken_3, Street_Fighter_II, Street_Fighter_III, Twisted_Metal, Twisted_Metal_2, Super_Smash_Bros._(series), Tony_Hawk's_Pro_Skater, Mortal_Kombat, Mortal_Kombat_II, Mortal_Kombat_III, Rumble_Roses, WCW_video_games

As far as Wikipedia:VG/FA, most of those games do not have multiple selectable characters, so I don't see how that applies here. The only reason I can see a need for prose is in games where characters contribute to the storyline or have an in-game backstory that can contribute to the article such as in RPG's. Fighting games or games with rosters do not generally fit into that category. Unless we want to create a short blurb for every character in this game like here: Characters_of_Final_Fantasy_VIII. I don't see a point in writing a roster in prose just for the sake of writing it in prose. There is nothing of value to say about the roster in a game, which is why we use lists for these situations. If it added any value to the article at all, I wouldn't care. What do readers have to gain from reading a roster in prose except a headache from trying to figure out who is in it? Angrymansr (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my mind, Victorious Boxers: Ippo's Road to Glory. During the initial assessments of it, Krator commented to me a couple times about removing the roster table and switching it out to prose. I'll have to do a bit more thinking for other examples.

I'd like to point out that the majority of the games you cited as examples are either Start or Stub class. The only one higher than start is the Smash Bros. series article, which honestly, I would not pass GA with the roster it currently has. Does that make them bad examples? Not really, but if you're comparing them to FA's and discounting the Featured VG articles I'd like to point out that maybe there is not a sports type game of Featured quality because it has not tried to emulate previous FA's.

The purpose of Wikipedia is to produce encyclopedic articles of high quality. Including a complete roster of playable characters does not add much more than stating some notable characters/wrestlers and the addition/subtractions of other notable characters/wrestlers to the game in a concise paragraph of prose.

Regardless of all that;

• Per WP:GAMEGUIDE - "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes."
• Per WP:NOT#DIR - "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed."

A full roster of playable characters falls under these definitions of what Wikipedia is not intended for. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

There is not one bullet in WP:NOT#DIR or WP:GAMEGUIDE that strictly forbids roster lists.

The sentence you cited for WP:NOT#DIR does not apply here. It would apply to all radio stations currently on the FM Dial in the US, not whose likeness is included in a specific game. If that sentence alone deems this list against policy, then this wouldn't have been a featured article. To be very clear, this is a directory, and this is not.

To say this list resembles a game guide simply for listing who is in the game is stretching it. That is information you would expect to find in an in encyclopedia article about a video game, though I wouldn't expect to find an article about this video game in any encyclopedia except this one. Angrymansr (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Would you mind changing this article in which you are a major contributor to prose? Thanks! This clearly meets WP:NOT#DIR - "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." Seems a bit hypocritical, if you ask me. Angrymansr (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent) While you are correct in that WP:NOT does not explicitly state roster lists should be excluded, the policy is meant to give a general outline of what not to include. It listed "radio stations" as an example. Listing every single excluded example is not the point of the policy, nor is it the duty of Wikipedia to anticipate every possible breach of guideline.

I don't see how adding such a list would be really improve the overall quality of the article. A full roster or list of characters is something I would expect to find in a print strategy guide/walkthrough or an online FAQ. Because of that, I believe this to fall under WP:NOT#DIR or WP:GAMEGUIDE.

That said, I would like to ask again, "why is a full roster of characters necessary?" Including a small amount of information on the roster would convey the idea that the game included real life and prominent wrestler stars. We had a similar problem with Kingdom Hearts (series)#Voice cast and the related game articles. We had to trim down the long list of voice actors into prose while still conveying the idea that the games had an all-star voice cast.

In regard to your last statement. This seems like an attempt to discredit my earlier comments by discrediting my previous work. The page fits Wikipedia's definition of a stand alone list per WP:LIST. If you have a problem with List of Castlevania titles, I suggest you take it up on the appropriate channels like its talk page or FLC, and not on this talk page. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

I already answered your question. "That is information you would expect to find in an in encyclopedia article about a video game." Besides, who would the authority be in deciding who should be included and who should not? It's more thorough, and avoids conflict just including everyone. There are not so many people on the game roster that it detracts from the quality of the article. And if you want to talk about consistency of video game articles, I haven't come across one yet that selectively includes characters. Why are we trying to re-invent the wheel here? Angrymansr (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

So by your logic of "more thorough and avoids conflict", weapons lists, arena lists and so on... should be in the article as well? All of which fall under game guide content. Just because full rosters was what used to be in all articles, doesn't mean it should remain that way forever. This isn't "reinventing the wheel" as you state, this is making the article not violate policies and guidelines. We simply can't avoid conflict by violating policies, just because a select few are against change. An external link for a site that lists the full roster should be the solution here. Wikipedia isn't the place for everything, and that's a big reason why this site has policies and guidelines. If nothing was in place, every article would be flooded with clutter, trivial and just plain useless information. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy that anyone has shown me that the list violates. Plain and simple. Angrymansr (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been presented with policy, however the only argument you've presented back is that it does not explicitly states "no rosters in video game articles." The policies are meant to be interpreted and applied across a variety of situations. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC))
additional grammatical edit: (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

You claimed it to be a directory (which this isn't even close to), and a game guide. If by listing the characters who appear in a game is game guide material then pretty much all of the Featured Articles you cited are in violation. I'm fairly certain the spirit of that policy pertains to walkthroughs, faq's and cheats. Why do I feel like I am repeating myself? Angrymansr (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I cited WP:NOT#DIR to simply point out that not every detail of the game needs to be included.

With regard to the FAs, the various FAs I cited explained information about the characters in a concise manner using prose and citations/references. The were reviewed at WP:FAC as being of high quality and complying with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. So I unfortunately fail to understand what you mean by "If by listing the characters who appear in a game is game guide material then pretty much all of the Featured Articles you cited are in violation." (Guyinblack25 ^talk 01:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

With regard to "That is information you would expect to find in an in encyclopedia article about a video game." I've also already stated that I, and I believe others as well, have a different opinion about that. We do not believe a full roster for this type of game is necessary or encyclopedic.

Who is we? 3 people? Give me a break. Angrymansr (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as deciding who should be included, use your best judgement. That's what's been done in other articles.

Regarding consistency; Victorious Boxers: Ippo's Road to Glory is an article that does not list every playable character in the game. Kingdom Hearts II selectively includes Final Fantasy and Disney characters because including every single one cluttered the article. The same thing with the voice actors. Enough was mentioned to convey the idea without going into unnecessary details.

I agree with RobJ about the external link. That is what they are for, to "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

While I agree that the roster is sort of redundant to include in the article, because like many users said, Wiki is not a Game Guide, in this case the roster should be listed because their are many platform differences. Mayby for the previous SvR's they should be removed but for this one it should remain like this because of the platform differences, and the best way to present this information is in a formal/neat way, and a prose is not the answer. A list and/or table are made to present multiple information in a formal/neat organized way.TrUCo⁹31¹ 22:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Roster differences can be mentioned, but they don't need to be listed in complete detail to show the games are different. A sentence such as "each console has exclusive characters" or something similar should be all that's needed. Why do we need to show that "this console has these people, but this console doesn't", when a sentence (or sentences) can make it simplier and neater overall? If people want to see which people are in each version, they can go to the external link. There is a platform differences section, add some sentences there. There is no need for a table (or list) just to show every roster difference. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do agree on that. Then we should just get rid of the roster section entierly, and just mentioned that what you said in a section and that's it. But as I see by this poll, we might have to list it. Unless we all agree to just get rid of it entirely and just add that one or two sentences.TrUCo⁹31¹ 22:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:CON, "Wikipedia decision making is not based on formal vote counting ('Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy'). This means that polling alone is not considered a means of decision-making, and it is certainly not a binding vote, and you do not need to abide by polls per se." (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

This guy and his policies. Do I need to debunk this one too? Angrymansr (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate the claim of ownership, I must be honest and say that they are Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

Yeah, let's keep trying to shoehorn them in whether they apply or not. I can cite all kinds of policy and gloss over the facts too, but that would be a waste of everyone's time. The real problem here is the disruptive editing. Two people who decided to hijack an article, at the ire of every other editor who has over and over again cried foul. Since we like guidelines and policies so much! Disruptive editing and Tendetious editing. If this wasn't going on, this article could actually move forward. Angrymansr (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, if you feel we fall under that category, the I suggest you go to WP:RFC or WP:RFM. You can also go to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games since this being a video game article, falls under their umbrella. Their talk page can be found here.

Now, in regard to the problem you state. It seems to me that addressing the issue with the roster list will solve the edit warring. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 01:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

Ok this is getting out of hand, if you continue to edit war like this, an admin may be notified and you may be warned and/or blocked. So as I see this issue we should just get rid of the roster section to avoid sounding like a game guide, and we should just mention that with each system comes a different set of superstars/or many superstars are not available on (blah blah) etc.--TrUCo⁹31¹ 01:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

By removing the entire deal, you sort of defeat the entire purpose of this article, or at least parts of it. Nothing else is stated in the article that cannot be found out by checking out the thing in question for yourself, which in my estimation is the biggest problem on Wikipedia - you remove all the parts (trivia, unsourced stuff and yes, rosters) that actually benefit a reader that has the object in question. I'd prefer we reach a consensus rather than removal. --Kaizer13 (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there may be a misunderstanding. We don't want to completely remove the roster, information about the characters of the game is necessary for the article to be comprehensive. What we hope to accomplish is to integrate it into prose to comply with the guidelines Wikipedia and the VG Project. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 02:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

• List - it's the best way to present this information. --Maestro25 (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• List - it's easier to understand and it has always been this way because it is BETTER. The guy who said something like "We just don't want to change it because we don't like change" or whatever. What is the point of changing it anyway? Lists are easier then stupid ass prose. And it looks like more people want a list so why are people still changing it to prose, just leave it you tools. Welshy —Preceding comment was added at 07:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Arbitrary section break

So, Kaizer is basically telling everyone to ignore policies, just so a consensus can happen? That's what it sounds like to me. Consensus to violate a policy isn't going to work, so why are you insisting that this poll determines how the article looks? Wikipedia isn't an anarchy, with no guidelines. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, what I'm basically trying to say is that your guidelines are very corkheaded. Why haven't you been blocked yet anyway? --Kaizer13 (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines aren't going to be ignored just because you hate or don't agree with them. So either get over it, or just learn to follow them. I havent done anything to be blocked, and that's not even relevant with this current discussion. Stop being uncivil. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, it's obvious that you guys want what you think is best for the article. We all do. But we can't ignore the Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. We're playing in their playground, so we play by their rules. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

soundtrack

wheres the soundtrack? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.24.105 (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, it was removed due to Wikipedia wanting to be a site of limited knowledge rather than the whole shebang. Or due to the fact that it is not a gameguide. You'd get better results by looking up another site or checking the history for the page, as it used to be included. Beats me which edit it was removed in though. --Kaizer13 (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Lists

Just for those who have the misconception that lists are unencyclopedic.
WP:LIST
Lists are commonly used to organize information in Wikipedia articles. Lists may be found within the body of a prosaic article, or as a stand-alone article.
Listed Items
Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others.
Types of lists
A list can stand alone as a self contained page, or it can be embedded in an article Angrymansr (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No one ever said all lists were bad, so don't assume things. Just because lists are allowed, doesn't instantly make all forms of lists perfectly fine for every Wikipedia article. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As RobJ stated, lists are a part of Wikipedia, but they too have their own guidelines and limitations. I would also like to point out that Wikipedia:LIST#Listed items tells editors to also see WP:NOT#DIR. This is because not all lists of information are encyclopedic and therefore not suitable for Wikipedia, which is what we've been saying from the start. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

Well this argument has been constantly argued before, I think its time to put it too rest. And my answer is to well cross discuss this issue with WP:PW and WP:VG.TrUCo⁹31¹ 21:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

RE-Roster

ok it may be encyclopedic but now you dont even know who is in the game it only says that these wrestlers are not in it so i think a list is better at least you can understand it or if you cant change this to a list than change all other wrestling game like this.--Fhassan (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ask this question to RobJ1981 and Guyinblack since it appears this controversy won't go away as an edit war appears to be brewing over this yet again - why are the 2005/6 versions of the roster in list form, and not prose?

Yes, we all want what is best for the article. It seems to me there was clear consensus not once, but TWICE for the roster to be in list form, which should have been enough to end the "war". But alas, it is not to be, so do we need a request for mediation here on this issue? ArcAngel (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A consensus to break policies isn't the way Wikipedia works. See WP:NOT#DIR and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Also the other game articles havent been turned into prose yet, so that's why they are lists still. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A roster list is in no way a "game guide". Just because you think you are right doesn't mean you are. --Maestro25 (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh god, here we go with this shit again...Rob I respect you for trying to make this article encyclopedic, but if you want the roster to be prose then all wrestling games will have to have their roster in prose. But as I see now, you only want this article in a prose, are you showing some favoritism to this article? Fuck the voting, debating. Consensus must be reached here and I agree with maestro, a list of the roster is no way in hell a game guide like thing. Not event the damn SvR game guides tell you the damn rosters. Per WP:GAMEGUIDE, its says that it shouldnt show you "a style of how to", a roster is not in that format. You are implying use of WP policies in a wrong way. And per the many discussions in the past, you are the only one who opposes a list. Think about all this...--TrUCo⁹31¹ 23:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: consensus to break a policy isn't going to happen. Numerous people can be for a policy violation, but that doesn't make the policy banned from the article. Swearing at me isn't helpful at all, and is just being uncivil. I'm not the only one against the list. Bulletproof, as well as Guyinblack are against it as well. Next time read the talk page more, instead of assuming. I've went through some wrestling game articles and turned them into proses already. I havent gotten to all the Smackdown/Smackdown vs Raw games yet. I don't have the time to just go through all articles and make them all proses in an instant. I do more with my life than edit here. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Rob, those two policies you keep referring to don't have anything to do with this situation and everyone knows it. Secondly you keep telling people to read the talk page, yet you ignore it. You continue to claim it is a policy violation, but the onus is on you to prove it and you have yet to do so. Your justifications that it is game guide content and/or a directory couldn't be more off the mark, and simply referring to the policy isn't going to get it done. If you can't prove it without some generic blanket statements, then it's not actually violating policy. This is all agenda, zero substance. Angrymansr (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

1) Rob, I did not directly swear at you, I sweared in general, like where i said F the voting, I mean forget about the voting. That violates WP:VOTE.2) Well if you and the others (minus Bulletproof due to certain issues surrounding him) want to have a prose, work in your sandboxes to construct a prose for all the SvR games. You cannot go around making one article with the same format of others into prose. We should leave it as a list for now, and when you have all the proses for all wrestling articles then we you can present your idea here. Or if you don't like that idea, let me go back to my previous comment. Lets CROSS DISCUSS THIS ISSUE with WP:VG and WP:PW so both projects can have a say in this. Currently I am not favoring a side as this issue has gotten way to out of hand, and now I just want peace and this issue to never be brought up again. So Rob (and others) you decide?..TrUCo⁹31¹ 20:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Are people waiting for protection to end, to edit war again or what? This issue needs to be solved, so edit/revert wars stop. Later today or tomorrow, I will be posting a section on the wrestling and video game project talk pages (if I see no one else has done it by then). RobJ1981 (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess it could be that everyone is tired of this war and doesn't have anything more to say on it. I honestly don't see your POV Rob in where you call a roster list a game guide, when I saw nothing in GameGuide to support your reasoning. ArcAngel (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly. The game guide argument is crap. The best attempt to justify this was WP:NOT#DIR says Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed but blatantly ignored the fact that none of the 5 bullets listed under that caveat remotely fall into this argument.Angrymansr (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Choosing to assume bad faith because of article problems, isn't helpful. Page protection is used to help solve issues, not just ignore issues so you can edit war some more (once protection ends). Refusing to discuss things isn't going to help the article at all. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't be serious. You're the reason for this edit war, and everyone IS discussing it except you. What a joke.Angrymansr (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think in cases like these the Smash Bros. solution works best. Is there something equivalent we can use here or no? Nifboy (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My response to Angrymansr: it takes 2 or more people to edit war. And don't make up garbage. More than just me are for a prose. See the below section as one example. Your view of "it's only you that is causing the problems" and "it's only you that wants a prose" is completely wrong. People discussed nothing when the page was protected. You and arcangel just said you were sick of the edit war and had nothing else to say. That's not discussing things, that's just complaining. To respond to nifboy: the Smackdown/Smackdown vs Raw series has featured hundreds of wrestlers, a huge table listing them all, would be even worse. We don't need to list all for completeness sake. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't "just" say I was sick of the war. I actually didn't say specifically I was tired of it, simply everyone was, and that I disagreed with your POV regarding GameGuide content. And it wasn't complaining, as you put it, but simply stating what I saw as the current state of affairs with regards to editing of the article. ArcAngel (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Really Rob? Why don't you go back and re-read what we have been talking about. The clear discussion that we have been having while you have been hiding is that your theory that listing a roster is a violation of policy is flawed. I have asked you once before page protection on your talk page (Feb 14), as well as here on February 20th (after page protection), to show us how. You have failed to do so. You are willing to point to the policy, and when challenged, you ignore it. Since you have not proven that it is a violation of policy, what is there to discuss? The reason we are involved in this is because you (mainly) have been patrolling this page and reverting the roster list to a stub of a paragrah that you wrote while accussing people of violating policy.Angrymansr (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Angrymansr, could please provide a rationale why the list is within policy? Perhaps that will get all the relevant information to this discussion out in the open better. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

My stance has been stated many times above. Basically, what it boils down to is if I can't find something in those policies (and I have read them very carefully) that I can without a doubt apply to this and say it is a violation, then it isn't. You are always within the law, if it cannot be shown that you have broken it. The onus is on those who feel it is a violation, to clearly display how. Right now, many of us feel the interpretation of this being a violation as it relates to this issue is clear as mud. If anyone can take anything from those policies and clearly show how this list violates, then I would have no problem changing my mind. Throwing generalities out there (such as referencing the first sentence of WP:NOT#DIR and then ignoring that the spirit of what the policy is stating does not apply here) just doesn't cut it for me. Until then, I think the mantra of policy violation is wrong. Angrymansr (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that is understandable. If I assume correctly, then you believe that the list is acceptable because WP:NOT does not explicitly state "No character list". However, I must say that the policies we've been citing do not go into specific details because they are meant to be broad and interpreted by editors. Per WP:NOT#STUPID, Wikipedia does not try to anticipate every possible breach of policy and guideline. As you've stated, ignoring the spirit of the policy is a bad idea, which we whole-heartedly agree with. The problem is that both parties here feel they are following the spirit of the policy.

However, we feel that a full character list falls under Item 1 of WP:GAMEGUIDE because a full roster is something that we'd expect to find in a tutorial, walk-through, instruction manual, and/or game guide about the game. Much like a weapons list, item list, and/or stage list. Per WP:NOT#INFO, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. "I'm sorry, but the burden of proof of why the content should be included lies on the editor that added the content and those that wish to keep the content in the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

List versus prose

I've said this before in November 2007. The roster should be prose, because of the following logic:

• Lists do not allow for any discussion of the wrestlers.
• Presenting the roster without any discussion of the wrestlers themselves fails WP:GAMECRUFT and a whole lot of other policies where that guideline is based on. Key issue: this article is not for wrestling fans who know each and every name there is, but for a general audience who don't know anything about wrestlers. Articles specifically written for wrestling fans do not belong on Wikipedia.
• Prose does allow this. Also, it is not necessary to include each and every wrestler and discuss him: discuss a few important and notable examples of the roster.

User:Krator (t c) 09:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me see if I get this right. If we put it like this, to discuss the wrestlers themselves:

WWE SmackDown! vs. Raw 2008 roster

• Triple H - Asshole backstage yet one of the best wrestlers/mic men of all time
• Bobby Lashley - Uncharismatic musclehead who lost his original head in an accident as a child and had to transplant one from a baby
• Chris Masters - The only one with enough free time on his hands to do any voiceover work. Was released before release of game

_______________________

That would work for everyone right? --Kaizer13 (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith and assume the above comment was not meant to be sarcastic. Such formatting is a step in the right direction, though I feel it does not need to be bulleted. As Krator points out, a full roster is not necessary for a video game article to be comprehensive. Even if the characters are real-life people, full character lists, weapon lists, stage lists, and the like offer very little to an encyclopedic video game article. And while I can't deny that there are people that would like to know such information, it is not Wikipedia's purpose to emulate GameFAQs. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

Kaizer13, that indeed is a step in the right direction. When the description would amount to "just another popular and good wrestler", consider not including such a character in the list. Be minimal in inclusion standards. User:Krator (t c) 18:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Krator, you said lists do not allow for any discussion of the wrestlers. My question is, why is there a need to discuss the biography of any WWE roster member in this article? This article is not about the WWE wrestlers themselves, it is about a video game. While most games with playable characters have their own storyline in the game, this one does not. If people need to know who each wrestler is, they would not come to this article for that information. It is inherently given that anyone in this game is a professional wrestler.

The way I see this roster is in the same light that I see the roster of the New York Giants or any other sports roster and should be trated as such.

I think one suggestion that might be a decent comprimise is to make a list of the roster on a separate page and put a link to it under the subheader for roster. In that paragraph, state something to the effect of SVR 2008 boasts (insert # of playable superstars) of the WWE's top superstars. Then go into how each wrestler was programmed with many of their unique move sets, trademark entrances etc. This way the article looks less cluttered but the information is still available within wikipedia. I don't think removing the information is the right thing to do, but moving it might be okay.Angrymansr (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Having prose is too general and sloppy. Nobody wants to know who the wrestlers are. A list would look so much better. And besides, it's wikipedia. If they want to know about the wrestler, type in the wrestler's name.

Please sign your comments (~~~~), and what do you mean to general and sloppy? NimiTize 02:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's obviously too general because currently it does not even mention more than five wrestlers. It would be so easy to just list every wrestler. I'll admit it's not too sloppy anymore, but last time I checked it there was about four paragraphs of what seemed like randomly selected material pasted together. By the way, I am a member of Wikipedia I'm just not logged in right now. (24.128.201.3 (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC))

So the roster is in prose, now what?

Some of you fought so hard for the roster to be in prose and now that it is, everyone has abandonded ship. The paragraph is uninformative and still has terrible grammar. Since my constructive edits are being reverted immediately, *cough cough*, I'm not going to fix it again. How long has this been in the article "Although, All versions..."? And what exactly is a "special kind of legend"? If the point of this whole argument was that prose would improve the article, why are the "Pro Prose" people not working on improving the prose? And if the final result of the argument is a half-assed paragraph then it may be time to make it a list or table again. It is apparent that those who want to improve the article, don't want to actually do any of the work to improve it. They seem content to argue about it, and do reverts. Angrymansr (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot this little gem of a sentence: "Although, the roster may vary depending on what type of platform, and many wrestlers are not available on the DS platform version.". That's an F in English any day of the week. Angrymansr (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that you've been placed in between a rock and a hard place where you feel you can't improve the article because of external reasons. However, the point of the discussion was to help enforce guidelines and steer the article in a direction that would improve its encyclopedic content. Writing good, encyclopedic, video game articles here is not the easiest thing in the world to do. If it were, we'd have a lot more VG articles that were Featured status.

In regard to your edit, it is more concise and should probably be in place of what is currently there. In addition, I would include some information about how the characters differ from one another. I know eight styles are mentioned above, but examples of which wrestler is what style could be helpful. Also, do the wrestlers retain any signature moves they are known for in real life? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC))

Guy, a lot of what you mentioned is what I suggested above in the post dated 25 Feb.Angrymansr (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

They sound like good ideas Mansr. As long as it is brief and to the point, I see no reason why such information shouldn't be mentioned along with your copy edit of the paragraph. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

Don't bother fighting, mansr. They'd delete the whole article, hell, anything not related to high culture if they could. --Kaizer13 (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you arent going to help out Kaizer, don't even post. Rude remarks aren't helpful to the discussion. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not rude is it's the truth. What the hell is going on with these pages? And Kaizer, wrestling isn't fine wine, and high culture and all that, so of course shit is being deleted. Get used to it.Killswitch Engage (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the horrible grammar in the "roster" section and added a citation that it features various superstars. Now if someone wants to see a list, just check the source from IGN. Tvp119 (talk) 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about the roster. It should at least list everyone in the game. Amamamp (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that it should be simply turned back into the list. Consensus was in favor of the list, but because of preternatural determination on the part of the two editors who wanted prose, the list people just gave up on the debate.

Simply put, policy is on the side of a list. If you go to WP:LIST and then to Purposes of lists, it says that lists is a valid form of information on wikipedia. And on WP:EMBED, you get a series of examples demonstrating when a list is more appropriate than a prose section, which the roster clearly falls under. McJeff (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the handful that disagree with that reasoning routinely quote WP:GAMEGUIDE or WP:NOT#DIR as reasoning for keeping it prose, so trying to get them to change their opinion is like trying to pull teeth. ArcAngel (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well actually I see what many people meant about having it in prose, because listing the wrestlers in the game is like listing all the cars available in a racing game or in a Grand Theft Auto game, which falls under Game Guide and WP:NOT/Dir, and kinda trivial. Although I agree, the prose needs serious work, more on the lines on how GTA:SA (how their vehicles are listed)3L VaK3r0 20:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's really not, because the wrestling IS the gameplay, whereas GTA is a sandbox game and the cars are just a part of it, along with boats, guns, motorcycles, flying vehicles, girlfriends, rampages, races... etc. Listing the wrestlers for the game is more akin to a character list for GTA - and the GTA character lists are very comprehensive. As far as WP:GAMEGUIDE, it just plain isn't a violation of that in any way. It does not contain any information about how to play the game, it does not have any extensive information about the game's plot, therefore, it is not a violation of WP:GAMEGUIDE. Besides, I've just cited more than one source about why it's appropriate. If two sources in favor vs one against, then

I'm also going to note that Wikipedia is supposed to reflect consensus, and as consensus is in favor of the list and against the prose section, it should be changed back immediately. McJeff (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, before you bother us with WP:NOT#DIR, be prepared to cite the exact part of WP:NOT#DIR which a roster list would violate.McJeff (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does NOT always reflect consensus. If the consensus is a policy violation, it's not going to just be put back in the article like that. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It does not reflect consensus when there is a policy violation (although there is something called WP:IAR that is used for when adherence to wikipedia policies damages the article in question). But in this instance, there's two people saying there is one versus a good dozen who say there isn't. If there is a policy violation, I am sure you'll be able to produce an exact quote from WP:NOT#DIR or WP:GAMEGUIDE defending your POV that there is one. The POV that it is not a violation has been clearly and adequately explained - has the POV that it is been? I don't think it has as of yet.McJeff (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

List

As both policy and consensus are on the side of a list for the roster, I have taken it upon myself to restore the list.

If you still do not believe that a list is appropriate, your best bet would be to take this to either WikiProject:Videogames or WikiProject:Professional Wrestling, explain the situation on the talk page, and see if you can get support that way. McJeff (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A list is easier to read, So it should be kept that way. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It has but it was ignore, i think we may need WP:RFC.--3L VaK3r0 21:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been listed under RFC now. McJeff (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Debunking the anti-list arguments

The people opposed to the list cite WP:NOT#DIR, WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT. I'm going to quote the actual text of these pages and explain why the roster list violates neither of them.

WP:NOT#DIR

• A roster list is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics
• A roster list is not an internet guide
• A roster list is not a sales catalog
• A roster list is not a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization
• A roster list is not a directory

In other words, there is absolutely nothing against lists in WP:NOT#DIR. However, there is this.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic

A list of the wrestlers in the game is in fact associated with and significantly contributes to the list topic, the game itself.

WP:GAMEGUIDE

• A roster list is not a travel guide
• A roster list is not an internet guide
• A roster list is not a textbook or annotated text

A roster list is not in fact an instruction manual because it contains no instructions. It is not a walk-through, obviously. Nor is it a tutorial. It is not a how-to of any sort, and therefore, it does not violate this policy.

WP:GAMECRUFT

From the article...

A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable.

So is a roster list only useful to people playing the game? Absolutely not! A roster list is one of the key pieces of information that anybody inquiring about the game is going to want to know.

Another excerpt from GAMECRUFT.

Strategy guides. Basic strategy concepts are often essential to the understanding of a game, but avoid in-depth explanations. This includes lists of cheats.

This policy reads in favor of a roster list, but against demanding information on each wrestler in it as per one of the discussion topics earlier.

The excerpt from GAMECRUFT that may appear to disagree with a roster list is as follows.

Unsuitable content #3: Lists of gameplay items or concepts.

But a list of characters does not violate any of the specific items listed under that. It isn't about hit points or stat points, time limits, character strengths/weaknesses or anything like that. It is simply a list designed to increase the casual viewer's understanding of the game. McJEFF 19:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal

This is copy pasted from Guyinblack25's response on a different page.

• WP:NOT#DIR states, "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed." There is no need to list a full roster simply because they are in the game. It also states, "Wikipedia articles are not non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations". In this case it would be a list of real-life wrestlers employed by the World Wrestling Entertainment that appear in this game.

• WP:GAMEGUIDE states, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook." It also states articles should not read like an instruction manuals: "a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain 'how-to's. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes." In this case, a full roster or character list is something you'd expect to find in a strategy/game guide and/or the instruction manual of the game itself.

• WP:GAMECRUFT states "a general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable." And while you believe that anybody inquiring about the game is going to want to know every character in it, I disagree. I can see someone who is interested in purchasing the game, or someone who plays the game regularly wanting to know who is in the roster. Mentioning a couple notable wrestlers is all that is need to give a general idea of the type of characters.

A common statement has been used in the argument to include the list, "I don't see anything that says 'no character lists' in the policies." The reason for that is WP:NOT#STUPID, which states, "Wikipedia does not try to anticipate every possible breach of policy and guideline." The policies and guidelines are meant to be interpreted to maintain a level of encyclopedic quality. Several editors have stated this before, but this seems to get drowned out. It does not explicitly state "no character lists" because it can't list every possible exclusion. If it did, the list would be too long to read. Plus, it is impossible to predict every type of policy violation.

Though you may feel a "playable roster is a, perhaps the most, core tenant of the game", I think you'll find that most editors here believe general gameplay and story are the core of video games. In this case, since there is very little story designed into the game, general gameplay is core of the game and should also be for the article. Playable characters are a subset of that, but do not override it.

Discussion

I want to point out that racing games don't have car lists (and there's been numerous sections on the video game project talk page about it), in a similar example: wrestling games don't need massive lists of everyone in the game. As an editor stated before: a link to a roster list is just fine. Do you realize, policies can't include every note on every subject? If that was the case, each policy page would be huge and would be so cluttered, no one would know what was acceptable anymore. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There's two problems with "We don't need it".

1, that is not, and never has been, a valid argument.

2, as I demonstrated in the above post, we do need it because it enhances the fundamental understanding of a person unfamiliar with the subject as the playable roster is a, perhaps the most, core tenant of the game. McJEFF 20:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I am going to add that I have repeatedly asked you to justify exactly what part of these policies you keep citing says that lists are inappropriate. Are you going to do that? McJEFF 07:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that he feels that it isn't covered directly in any of the policies and can be interpreted only. To me that is a matter of opinion and not at all enforceable.Angrymansr (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

All of Wikipedia's policies are open to interpretation. Rob's problem is that he refuses to consider the fact that his interpretation might not be the one and only correct one. McJEFF 17:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you expect from someone who thinks he knows it all? Dan the Man1983 (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The McJeff/RobJ1981 edit war

Ok guys - you really need to work this out. Based on the recent editing history of this article, McJeff has violated 3RR, and Rob is close to doing so. McJeff has also possibly violated WP:CIVIL by calling one of Rob's reverts vandalism.

Rob has stated that a character list violates policy but I do not agree with that as I see nothing in the policy McJeff posted above. Rob has not validated his opinion as to WHY a character list violates policy, just that it does and end of story.

As it stands, there seems to be a lot of acrimony between these two, and I hereby request that the war end as it is serving no purpose whatsoever, except by maybe creating a rift in the WP:PW community. on this issue - at the very least between McJeff and Rob. ArcAngel (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to post this. If mediation needs to be done, please refer to WP:DISPUTE#Formal mediationTrUCo-X 21:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

ArcAngel, I didn't violate 3RR. Check the history. I took the RfC notice down late at night on the 12th - that wasn't a revert. Rob reverted to the prose section about 15 hours later, and our edit battle went from there. And Truco, ArcAngel also addressed the issue in the second paragraph of his response. McJeff (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I mean't WP:RFM.TrUCo-X 21:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

ArcAngel, I feel it should be brought to your attention that the whole of the policies as they apply here is not fully cited there. In some of the discussions above, I have already addressed a similar interpretation of the policies and guidelines and explained why a full roster does not fall within guidlines. I have also addressed them on the VG Project talk page here. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC))

I moved them here for the sake of convenience. See the Rebuttal section of the thread. Of course, my offer to focus on building a comprehensive list of characters in the smackdown series that can be linked from all the articles rather than argue this stands, but I wouldn't mind addressing your comments if that's what's wanted. McJeff (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A major off topic flaw.

It's very sad the way it turns out. The most obvious is there is no reception so there is no reviews of what the game experts think of this game. So, is this the end of reviews like this game? I feel sorry but I just wish that you shouldn't delete all the hard work unless it's irrelevant. If I were you editors, I do my homework. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect John, please calm down. This is the same message on the VG talk page. You are correct that video game articles need reception sections, but there are better ways to inform editors. Also, I do not believe any reception content was deleted, only an empty reception section was removed. I'll put it back as the article does need to be expanded in that area. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

Well take your time. I'll look forward to see if the article improves next week. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

What is this?

Is the Mexico AAA wreslters vandalism or are they really in the game??? please let me know FranK (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty, I have no idea since I haven't played the game. But the one link in there was for a soccer player so I reverted it. Some one more experienced may want to weigh in on this though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

It's some joker trying to promote AAA or something. You did a good job in reverting this, so now go get the sucka banned. --Kaizer13 (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Version differences section

Shouldn't there be mention of the 360 version allowing the use of custom soundtracks on the hard drive for themes? And whatever that exclusive feature for the PS3 was, something about an extra view for entrances or something. Furthermore, the section on handhelds is completely wrong. The PSP version is very similar to the PS2/360/PS3 versions, just with the limitations of the PSP meaning graphics and some other things being toned down, whereas the DS version is a completely different touch screen controlled game. I don't have cites off hand, so I won't make the changes, but anyone who's played these versions would know what's written here at the moment is wrong and needs to be changed. 76.226.235.150 (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Fighting style section

Is this longish section REALLY needed here? I feel it is too gameguidy for inclusion, but wanted to discuss any proposed changes first.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 14:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

After a couple of days with zero comments on this, I went ahead and made the changes.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071013125236/http://media.ps2.ign.com:80/media/882/882477/img_4874778.html to http://media.ps2.ign.com/media/882/882477/img_4874778.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)