User talk:Wycked
Explain.
Secondary?[edit]
Copyedit from my talk page: "If the lack of "P-38" means it doesn't count, then you better do something about the 19XX entry that states the plane in question is the "Lightning," and links directly to the Wiki entry on the P-38. It doesn't say "P-38" in the entry or the game, so it must not be a P-38 then. Right? I think considering the planes look exactly the same in all the games (except for the detail levels capable on each type of hardware), and are identified in at least one as actually being a P-38, then I can accurately put 2 and 2 together and make a factual edit. Or you could have just removed the titles of the games in question. Wycked (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)"
- Hi Wyced, thanks for your comment and let me explain the reasoning behind the edit note. At present another editor has added the following invisible note:"Don't add Capcom's "1942" or "19xx" scrolling shooter video game. That appearance isn't called a P-38 Lightning; it's called a Super Ace. Don't add Psikyo's "Strikers 1945" copycat version as the game is not notable enough. Your effort will be deleted."
- Beyond that, the Aviation Project Group in which the article falls under has nearly eliminated all popular culture references. This is the standard proviso that is provided: " {NoMoreCruft} Please READ {[Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content]] and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#Popular culture before adding any "Popular culture" items. Please do not add the many minor appearances of the aircraft. This section is only for major cultural appearances where the aircraft plays a MAJOR part in the story line, or has an "especially notable" role in what is listed. A verifiable source proving the appearance's notability may be required. Random cruft, including ALL Ace Combat, Video Game appearances, Transformers toyline appearances, Battlefield, and Metal Gear Solid appearances, and ALL anime/fiction lookalike speculation, WILL BE removed. If your item has been removed, please discuss it on the talk page FIRST. A verifiable source proving the appearance's notability may be required. If a consensus is reached to include your item, a regular editor of this page will add it back. Thank you for your cooperation. {NoMoreCruft}"
- As you can tell, there is a fairly rigid standard to the aircraft articles and fancruft submissions are routinely deleted as not meeting the basic criteria of being noteworthy. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC).
- Well that's too bad. 0 for 2. Wycked (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Video games are not considered noteworthy in terms of establishing a cultural reference to a topic. It's hard to make a case that any game is significant in reaching the general public. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC).
- There definitely are examples of how a video game can be noteworthy but in the case of a particular aircraft being featured in a video game, convincing editors that that use of an aircraft reflects a cultural connection is a difficult argument to make. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC).
- Video games are not considered noteworthy in terms of establishing a cultural reference to a topic. It's hard to make a case that any game is significant in reaching the general public. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC).
- Well that's too bad. 0 for 2. Wycked (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks[edit]
Thanks for agreeing with me,--DarkFierceDeityLink 03:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)