Talk:Ashnard

Sorry

Sorry, I'm going to modify it now, please bear with me. I'm new here, please advise, don't criticise (that nearly rhymes)Ashnard _talk 14:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm relatively new, so I'm not sure about uploading photos, I tried once, but numerous copyright issuse arose, which stops me gathering images from search engines, so I'm really uncertain, again, some advice/help? Ashnard _talk 14:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Feedback from assessment

Well? Ashnard _talk 19:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't assessing the article's quality, I was actually just assessing its importance on the cvgproj. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry, it must be a major coincedence because I've just entered this page for actual assessment at CVG, sorry for the misunderstanding, no harm done -- I agree with the importance assessment anyway. Ashnard _talk 19:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Get better sources. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing vague about my statement - it needs better sources. I have a hard time believing that not a single sourceable line on this article can have a reliable internet source. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

CVG assessment of quality

Well? Ashnard _talk 10:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would suggest merging this with the character list. I really don't see the possibility of more than one or two creation/development sources seeing as even the plot sources are mostly limited to the game. Telling about Ashnard's role in the game is fine, but if you can't say anything else, this would never have a chance of reaching GA/FA status. Nemu 12:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to imply that my assessment was not important. Based on how you've been acting on your user talk page, you need to a a bit (lot) more respectful. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Is that to me or him? Nemu 18:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You, you rotten scoundrel! No, I kid, it was to him. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Sorry, but I must protect my namesake. I did have a paragraph about him as a unit, but it was condemned as too "game-guideish" and deleted. Do you know how poor most of the Fire Emblem articles are? I don't want it merging in to that list, and actually, I'd be happy with "B" status as most Fire Emblem articles are either starters or stubs. A "Relationship with other characters" section is possible, but, again it would be limited to in-game quotes as a result of lack of external information. As stated by you, the possibility of a development section is minimal as there is no information about it out there. Sorry, it is the only article I've created and I kind of feel protective over it. I didn't realise that the quantity of information accounted for so much in assessments. Thanks. Ashnard _talk 12:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN issues aren't very good to have. I really just don't see the necessity of the article. Besides the sources, he doesn't assert much notability (being the antagonist of one game in a popular series doesn't make him instantly notable). Maybe if he had somehow returned in the Wii game or something, he would be fine. Then there's the basic "Personality and history" content, but it seems sort of fluffy. It could probably be cut down to a good three paragraphs. It would be much better to have as few articles as possible, and go for an article like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. Nemu 12:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Please can you explain the word "fluffy". But then there is the dilemma, because it seems too small (unimportant) to exist on its own but it is too elaborate to fit in a list that conatins about 40 characters. If I merged this, I'd have to majorly cut it down, then I'd have to source every character in that list to turn in it into a decent article, because, as I speak, only one of them is sourced. This is the only Fire Emblem article that is well sourced, and I feel ownership of it because I'm about the only contributor to this page now, Armando, Peregrine and random IP don't bother anymore. Note: More information about Ashnard may be revealed in the next installment eventhough he's dead. Ashnard _talk 13:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Fluffy just means that some of the elaboration of events and stuff seems unnecessary. We don't really need to know every single minor detail of his plot. It can probably be cut down. After that, it could be an appropriate size for the list. I doubt any new information in the Wii game would require more that a few additional sentences.

Do you really think you own the article or have any authority over it? If you do, that is a really bad ideal to have. All that you have contributed now is under the whole GFDL license, meaning it doesn't belong to you. Nemu 15:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, when is this going to get assessed? Surely it can't take that long just to mark an article? Ashnard _talk 15:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't patronise me, I am aware that I don't have ownership, in the initial posts I expressed why I felt protective over it, so, do you know when it will be assessed? About the Wii game -- neither of us could predict what will be revealed or its possible relevance. Ashnard _talk 16:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure you don't actually think that. If you did, there would be no point in speaking with you. If you want it to be assessed, ask for a peer review. So do you acknowledge that their might be a point in merging, or are you set in your position? Nemu 16:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

With the Wii game, I recall someone saying there is only a brief mention of his rise to power. Nemu 17:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused, didn't you already know that this is up for assessment? I put in an assessment request a few days back. As for the merger, I'm waiting for the assessment feedback but I can see sense in what you're saying. It's just that merging this article with that article will basically mean erasing most of the work, plus it should result deletion of all stray FE topics of this nature, but maybe I'm filled with too much bias. Ashnard _talk 18:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I thought you came across this page because you saw it on the request list, how did you come by to adding the comment in he first place? Or was it a random thing? Ashnard _talk 18:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant a true assessment. I believe when requesting from the project, it's usually optional to leave a detailed rational of the assessment. It even says "If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use the peer review department instead." I first saw this after removing the pointless chart and the OR comparison to the BK, and from your comments on ALTTP's page, so I thought I'd comment. Once again, I would suggest going for a featured character article instead due to the limited nature of a single character. Nemu 18:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

After this, I will try and turn the character list into at least a good article, as for the assessment, I may ask the assessor for their reasons. I'm weighing up my options for whether to merge or not. Ashnard _talk 18:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want something detailed, you put it in the wrong place. That's just for someone to take a glance and see if the article needs to go up a rank or not. Peer review or just asking an established editor would be what you are looking for. Nemu 18:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I shall do that in the future, it's just that it's at no. 1 and I've alraedy put it up now, man, I wish I was told this before I put it up for assessment. Thanks for the advice. Ashnard _talk 18:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've responed to LttP's comments on his talk page. Ashnard _talk 18:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

My assessment was an assessment. I assessed the lack of sources. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's just that I qualify assessments as giving grades, anything else I consider advice. Ashnard _talk 19:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I also asked whether you were giving an assessment on your talk page but there was no response. Ashnard _talk 19:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:VG Assessment

Summary: No.

Note: to keep this assessment as clear as possible, I assume familiarity with some wiki terms like, "don't write a game guide" and "in-universe style" - if you are a new editor (I cannot judge this well), search for them.

The subject of the article is non-notable.

• The article shows no references to the character outside the game.
• The game itself is Low importance. As a subject derived from the game, this article has No importance for inclusion in a CD version of Wikipedia.

The article is of little quality.

• The information is unclear. An elitist equalitarian?
• It is written in in-universe style.
• It contains information better suited to a game guide or Game wiki. (See GamerWiki etc. - I placed a template on the article with some links to game wikis.)
• The article contains one little piece of encyclopaedic content: the information that the name of his sword is from Arthurian mythology. This is unreferenced, too.

Some suggestions for the series of articles.

• Dramatically reduce the number of articles keep it limited to the following:

• Setting of Fire Emblem, in which Enemy Groups and Locations are summarized.
• List of characters in Fire Emblem - Game, which contains the main characters and the main antagonists - not all have to be listed.
• Fire Emblem (series), as currently is.
• Articles on the games themselves.

• Summarize all plot and in-universe information, and move the original text to a dedicated wiki (Wikia) or a game wiki.
• Find references in previews and reviews.
• Expect all of the articles besides the main articles of the games themselves to be prodded or listed at AfD if no outside references can be found.

Kept Start class (not enough outside references for B), downgraded to No-importance.

If any editor feels the need to ask for further clarification, please write a response here, and notify me on my talk page that you have responded, or wait for another editor to read and answer.

--User:Krator (t c) 20:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, another has declared the lack of the need for this (though to another extreme), so now can this be merged? Nemu 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but I have a few reservations:

• There are two references that are not from the game -- IGN and FEW. Considering the nature of the article, outside references are hard to come by.

Then the nature of the article is wrong. -K

• It does not state that he is "an equalitarian elitist", it says that he is racially equalitarian yet still an elitist

This was a summarised example of unclear information. How can one be equalitarian and yet an elitist? -K

• I can reference the Arthurian sword thing

I suggest moving that to the list entry, as it is not notable enough to warrant a whole article around it.-K

• You noted the one thing that was unreferenced out of the other 17 or so.

The others are referenced by the game itself, which is not an independent source, so is unreferenced too. I did not note it, because I think the information should be removed. -K

• I don't think the article is of little quality

I stated that mostly as a kind of section heading to structure my assessment. -K

• I've seen worse get a "B", look List of Fire Emblem characters. It's not even referenced.

Note that everyone can assess (and change ratings of) articles, even vandals. Contest the assessment there if you think it is wrongly conducted. -K

Thanks for the review, looks like I've got a lot to learn, this is probaly going for the merge now because ir's a total lost cause, looks like my namesake will perish.

Any other thoughts? Ashnard _talk 21:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't give up so soon. Move this to a game wiki, it's good information for fans of the game. Things signed by -K are my notes. --User:Krator (t c) 21:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

TTN, Just merge it and do the best job you can, I've lost all hope, I can't even make a decent job of my namesake. Ashnard _talk 21:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I accept your opinion, eventhough you added salt to the wounds by demoting it from low importance to no importance. Ashnard _talk 06:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)