Misplaced Pages

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? Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. We're playing in their playground, so we play by their rules. (Guyinblack25 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages article. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As RobJ stated, lists are a part of Misplaced Pages, but they too have their own guidelines and limitations. I would also like to point out that Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages, which is what we've been saying from the start. (Guyinblack25 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.TrUCo31 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 Misplaced Pages 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...--TrUCo31 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?..TrUCo31 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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, Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages.
• 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 Misplaced Pages's purpose to emulate GameFAQs. (Guyinblack25 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages 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, "Misplaced Pages 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, "Misplaced Pages 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, "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook." It also states articles should not read like an instruction manuals: "a Misplaced Pages 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, "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 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 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 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: 5 June 2024).

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