Fuzzd0rk
Hi. I reverted your change to the Thrill Kill article, as the changes are unencyclopedic. On top of that, they constitute listcruft. Besides, they can get all that information from your site. Normally we are against users inserting links to their own sites, but in this instance I will allow it, given the circumstances. If you want to talk about this, please do so on the article's talk page. --Dreaded Walrus t c 21:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
And yet you leave the list of dungeons. No offense, but that is pretty dumb, in my honest opinion. All the bio information for the characters is from the game itself. They provide background information for the characters in the game. How is that unencyclopedic? Regardless, I have added the characters back to the article, however, only as a list of characters. Thrill Kill is a fighting game, and the characters are what make a fighting what it is. They need to at least be listed. --Fuzzdork
- To be honest, I don't have anything against your current version of the article. In fact, I quite like it. We generally frown upon having just plain lists in articles on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Embedded list), but this is certainly better than the version it was at previously. My main concern with it, ironically, is that it was taken straight from the game itself. It was not encyclopedic. It had poor tone. If you opened up Encyclopædia Britannica and looked at an article on a videogame, you would not expect to see their characters described in ways such as "If Cleetus, a backwoods cannibal, ever invites you to come over for a bite, you’d best pass."
- Likewise, if you looked at any of our featured articles on videogames, such as, for example, Metal Gear Solid, or even one of our featured lists of characters, such as List of Metal Gear Solid characters, they are not mere reprints of the company line, rather they elaborate on the characters in an encyclopedic manner.
- Anyway, thanks for the compromise (it's one which I think suits the article a lot), as all too often editors are so stubborn at keeping their version of an article, that they fail to see if any particular edit actually improves an article. And if you have any questions about anything, or just need help with things, feel free to ask me on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as possible.
- And get round to updating your site more often! It's a good one. :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 02:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- If only there was something to update with... --Fuzzdork