Misplaced Pages

Talk:WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:08, 5 February 2008 editKaizer13 (talk | contribs)1,054 edits →Roster - list or prose?← Previous edit Revision as of 06:16, 5 February 2008 edit undoRobJ1981 (talk | contribs)32,546 edits →Roster - list or prose?: commentNext edit →
Line 207: Line 207:
:::::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. ] (]) 05:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC) :::::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. ] (]) 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? --] (]) 06:08, 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? --] (]) 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. ] (]) 06:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


== soundtrack == == soundtrack ==

Revision as of 06:16, 5 February 2008

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconVideo games Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
A request for a screenshot has been made to help better illustrate the article. (VG images department)
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...
Please note that this Talk page is for discussion of changes to the WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008 article. Off-topic discussions, including (but not limited to) your thoughts of what any aspect of the game should contain (e.g., roster, arenas, weapons, etc.) are not appropriate for Misplaced Pages and will be REMOVED.
If you wish to make a change to the article, cite it with a source. ONLY the following sources are acceptable: interviews with game developers, interviews with wrestlers, distinguishable screenshot(s)/video(s) and/or articles from established companies/websites/official wrestlers' websites (eg. IGN, GameDaily, GameSpot, Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, G4, MTV and websites associated with published print magazines). Thank you for your help.

Template:TrollWarning

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Archiving icon
Archives

Armando

I have this game for PS2 and Ive beat it all the way through and I have not seen Armando anywhere in the game. I thought he would be the GM for ECW but that is Tommy Dreamer, then I thought he would be a manager but I couldnt find him when I tried to make him a manager for Umaga. So I was wondering is he exclusive to the XBOX 360 or the Wii or something like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.127.189 (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

on the PS2 If you play in 24/7 mode and go as John cena, pick Umaga as your contender for the title, Armando Estrada will manage him in one of his matches on Raw.172.159.26.152 (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I went through the 24/7 mode with Booker T so thats probably why I didnt see Armando. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.49.133 (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There is another way to see armando. Go to 24/7 mode pick any superstar then switch to RAW complete one year as campion. Then when you start again still on RAW He will give you messege if you want to fight Umaga. Accept then you will see him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.214.237 (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Roster

Can someone add a roster sheet to this page since the game has been released and now the whole roster is confirmed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.53.19 (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Soundtrack in prose?

Why us the soundtrack written in prose??? The soundtrack should be a list. Hiphopchamp 17:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit, and as such, is meant to be totally inaccesible and incomprehensible to the lowly street rat. Or you could say that because it is in fact an encyclopedic article and not IGN, there's some sort of strange rationale that doesn't benefit anyone that has been decided. Oh well, tough luck eh? --Kaizer13 (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, Misplaced Pages:Embedded lists states: "In an article, significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely listed." Please direct all smarmy remarks about the guideline to Misplaced Pages talk:Embedded list. God forbid we should actually have standards on Misplaced Pages. The fascists! We surely shouldn't have to read prose - goodness knows I do enough of that every day as it is. :P --Jtalledo (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Matches

The type of matches are entered only need linking & Ordering —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chileno.s21 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Changing focus

i just played the game and i couldn't manually change the focus of my character, but it was done automatically whenever i got close to an opponent. maybe this should be noted? J.C. (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

All the Smackdown games have been like that, you have to cange the settings in the options menu. Don.-.J 16:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a tech help forum, and you should try to actually play it before you answer Don. For some reason, Yuke's have taken that feature away, probably because Yuke's is controlled by Soviet spies bankrolled by TNA. --Kaizer13 08:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It may not be a help forum but that is a good question. I'm lost about it too. If changing your target isn't featured in the game, to me, a long time fan of the SD! Series, it is notable. Put a quick sentence in the Gameplay section if it's true. I hope not. Ladder4321 11:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


Unlockable?

Are Stephanie, Jillian etc... actually available on any of the consoles? CandiceWalsh (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


Roster List/table

The roster section on this article is extremely messed up. I propose we make a list, so it can be more organized. It's not important who returns from WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2006 or WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2007, or the series mainstays like past lists have done. Tech43 (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is extremely hard to read. 207.69.137.40 (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A cluttered list isn't helpful in my view. Just because it was done one way for a while, doesn't mean every article must look the same. As for the attribute rating: that's game guide content and not encyclopedic. RobJ1981 (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Rob, Make me the 3rd person to vote (not including the person who made it a list originally) to change the roster list to an actual list. Where in any encyclopedia, is a roster list, soundtrack or any type of list written in paragraphical format? We don't need background info on who has been in the game before. it's irrelevant to the current game and its encyclopedia article. And by the way, none of the information is sourced AND you're the only one against it. So unless you can drum up more than one person against the change, then we HAVE consensus. Angrymansr (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Consensus can change, and it's only been a few days. Have a better attitude and let others comment before you determine that a list is preferred way to discuss the roster. Are you going to change the roster each time the consensus changes? All things for an article aren't just determined the moment you feel like they should be. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's my vote to change it back to the list. I disagree with Rob, the way it is now is NOT as readable as the 2007 version of the game.
@Rob - just because YOU like it in a paragraph doesn't mean it has to STAY that way. ArcAngel (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is magically going to change with this article, when there has been concensus on this formatting for years? Almost every single WWE Wrestling game that has a Wiki article has the roster as a list. Go look for yourself. List of WWE Wrestling games. One rogue editor isn't going to change that. There is no single logical reason that it needs to be a paragraph, other than you like it. You have yet to give a single reason to keep it as is, yet you keep reverting the change.

  • The current format is difficult to decipher and sloppy, it is not clear and concise. Lists are made so that it can be glanced at quickly and understood. This section does not accomplish that.
  • It's the standard for WWE video game articles, as well as any sports-type roster
  • None of the information is sourced
  • Most of this section is just fluff. Historical information about who's been in what other games does not contribute to the current article. The article spends more time on other games, then it does getting to the point of who is actually in the game. Does any one care that you can unlock Vince McMahon's bald attire when looking for a game roster? Like you said, that's strategy guide stuff.
  • Where was consensus when you and Jtalledo decided to change it from a list to prose while MANY other users voiced their desire to have it otherwise?

Angrymansr (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

While we're at it, let's make the In-game arenas and soundtrack sections paragraphs too! We can talk about how the Smackdown Arena is making it's 13th consecutive appearance in a WWE game. That would be compelling reading. Angrymansr (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
if this is such a big deal, make a sortable wikitable with the superstars and the platforms they are available on?? If not make a list and make a note on the side with the platforms they are on, if none of that works leave it as it is. If this turns into an edit war, you guys will be blocked...TrUcO9311 / SiGn 20:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And yet people STILL continue to revert back to that stupid block of text. WE DON"T WANT IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonJuan.EXE (talk • contribs) 00:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Soundtrack

Why is the Soundtrack gone from the page?? Derrty2033 (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I was searching for the soundtrack earlier today, and to my surprise, the article didn't have it. I had to write down the songs by hand over a three hour period; very annoying. I think it should be put back, if someone took it out.74.236.41.140 (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Chris Benoit in roster

From Chris Benoit double murder and suicide:

He was also removed from the WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008 video game after originally being included as a playable wrestler.

This fact isn't referenced in the article and isn't mentioned here, either. Can someone verify this? --M4gnum0n (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I havent seen any actual proof he was part of the game ever. Rumors say he was, but we can't go by rumors. I'm sure many others were in the game originally, and taken out. It's a bit hard to believe they stick with one roster for the game throughout all of the development of it. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
There was pictures of Benoit in the game before his death, he was putting Triple H in the crossface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.147.89 (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

PS2 Online?

According to THQ the PS2 version of the game is playable online, but I can't find out how...

Would anyone happen to know?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.135.1.208 (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus Time

Template:RFCmedia Alright, one day I wondered who was included in the new WWE game SmackDown vs. Raw 2008, so where better to look for this information than Misplaced Pages? "Elsewhere," according to another editor.


I actually had a challenging time finding the complete roster of this game, which resulted in me visiting IGN via Google and looking at the Wii version's roster, piecing together info from that page with the text on wiki - the mass amount of text on wiki. I decided to incorporate the 'Roster' section into a more concise piece, beneficial to everyone and skipping an amount biased trivial parts that were present before, such as the last time characters were featured in a game, what clothes they wear and how many teeth Bobby Lashley has, as well as vague paragraphs in particular the last one about the NPCs (ironically, it looks more like a massive game guide now than what it did before I was reverted). Not only that, but the revision was to keep the article in synch with the others of its kind, like WWE SmackDown! vs. Raw 2006 which was a featured article. So...'Arenas', directly beneath the Roster section, is written in a similar style aswell, and what I am proposing is that the 'Roster' section presents...well...useful and not the jigsaw it is now.

│here 19:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a fight that can't be won because of a minority of folks will disagree with your thesis on this matter. ArcAngel (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, let me put out WP:IGNORE here and those who seem to concur a few sections up ('Roster list/table'), as well as the fact that the section in the article itself, effectively, still remains a list. │here 20:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Try gamefaqs or do another google search, I'm sure you will find a roster list that you like. I find it very hard to believe, you think there is no good roster lists out there. In my view, a prose is the way to go. There is no rule saying "all wrestling articles must have a list form of playable wrestlers". Also, I want to point out: a NPC list isn't useful and doesn't belong in the article. Look at just about any good video game article, and you will see there is no such list. A complete list of everyone in the game for "completeness" sake isn't useful or encyclopedic. If you want a guide of every little detail: visit a gaming site, this is an encyclopedia. Also, the arena list is basically a level guide, look at just about any good video game article and you wont see that listed either. In the gameplay section, the arenas should be discussed but all shouldn't be listed. I'm currently in the process of fixing up all wrestling articles to look decent and encyclopedic, instead of a fan's guide to every little detail in list clutter form. I'm hoping some people can help me out, instead of refusing to accept change. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
On a side note, a list just clutters up articles and stylistically doesn't look good. -- bulletproof 04:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is absurd at this point. Consensus to make this roster a list has been reached over and over again. Yet the consensus continues to be ignored and any attempt to have the article comply with consensus has been reverted. It is the opinion of only two users to keep it prose. The act of many editors attempt to convert this to a list constantly being reverted by one editor is disruptive, teetering on vandalism, and plain old annoying. Angrymansr (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the reverting user(s) would just leave it alone, this wouldn't even be an issue. Sadly, all they see is their "agenda" for the article. Sad. ArcAngel (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Another perfect example of good editing being ignored due to the ego of a minority of users. No surprise, but still a disappointment. --Kaizer13 (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

False information in article

"A glitch which has frustrated many fans is the fact that if playing as a created wrestler, in the Road to Wrestlemania portion and is in possession of the title, they are asked if they want to relinquish the title, yet the story continues as if they chose to relinquish the title, preventing the player from completing WWE 24/7 Mode."

This excerpt from the article is false. I tested it first-hand and experienced no glitch. Additionally, I searched the internet and found no testimony of other players experiencing it, and found no sources testifying to the accuracy of this claim.

Stop deleting this discussion post or I will report you as a vandal.

"Please note that this Talk page is for discussion of changes to the WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008 article. This is not a forum"

I am trying to discuss a problem the article. I am not attempting to discuss the game itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.41.140 (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know now, anyway. I guess it can be removed from the article if you tested it and can't find any sources to prove it.--TrUCo31 02:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Truco, I should've made it clearer that the paragraph was in the article then this misunderstanding wouldn't have happened. I'll have to make an account before I edit the page, and I think it'll take four days before I'm allowed to, so if anyone else wants to remove the false paragraph before me go ahead.74.236.41.140 (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I auctually had this glitch but it wasnt just that, just about everything I chose didnt happen. But it had no affect of me completing the game. It just took a little longer to complete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.147.89 (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
IT has been removed.TrUCo31 04:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No offence but if he has a genuine reason to discuss, then why shouldnt he do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.241.21 (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone post all the wrestlers Featured in SvR 08?

Can someone post all the wrestlers Featured in SvR 08? ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.154.110 (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, It has been done before and was reverted.  Stormin' Foreman  06:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes but now it will remain. --TrUCo31 23:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No 24/7 ECW

should it be noted that on 24/7 with a superstar u can't join ecw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.175.188 (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


Roster - list or prose?

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 - Misplaced Pages 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.TrUCo31 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 Misplaced Pages 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 "Misplaced Pages decision making is not based on formal vote counting ('Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. There are plenty of other games that do not include such lists and are Featured status; see WP:VG/FA for examples. (Guyinblack25 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)
Though there may be plenty of people here that feel a full roster is what's best the article, the consensus on Misplaced Pages 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 15:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC))
If Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages has descriptions of people, places, and things, 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."
  • Per WP:NOT#DIR - "Misplaced Pages is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed."
A full roster of playable characters falls under these definitions of what Misplaced Pages is not intended for. (Guyinblack25 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 - "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 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. Misplaced Pages 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 00:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC))
additional grammatical edit: (Guyinblack25 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 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.TrUCo31 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.TrUCo31 22:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:CON, "Misplaced Pages decision making is not based on formal vote counting ('Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. (Guyinblack25 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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.--TrUCo31 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 Misplaced Pages - 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 Misplaced Pages and the VG Project. (Guyinblack25 02:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC))
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)

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)
Categories: