Talk:Rule of Rose/Archive 1

message: The story section is presently blank, probably because someone wanted to clean it up some.  God knows the game is hard to parse.  
I am going to add a small blurb as a placeholder so that the story section is not just floating there. -- Vincent Toups 3:47, 16 Jan 2006 (ET)
PS can anyone tell me how to get my signature to appear like everyone elses?  I just got an account and I would appreciate it greatly.
:Hi Vincent, if you want to sign your posts then just add four tildes (~) after you've finished typing. I'd created a story and gameplay heading as they were missing from the article - it then consisted mainly of character sections and controversy/impact. 
:I was however stumped at how to start, I've not had access to my PS2 for weeks and I'm not a writer. However, your contributions managed to get my brain started and I've since written the gameplay section and incorporated your own text within it. The story section is going to be a real pain in the backside, as you've pointed out, I'm not sure how much material I'm going to be able to produce. Anyhow, welcome to Wikipedia, hope you enjoy yourself whilst you contribute. QuagmireDog 18:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blank Story Section 

message: I thought I just read something stating that Sony of America is going to prevent the release in the US, but I can't find the article now... Zarggg 02:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060608-7018.html -- Ianiceboy 06:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SCE will not be publishing the game due to the potential for underage erotic inference, Atlus, however, will be releasing the game in the US on September 12 of this year. --NEMT 04:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Release false? 

message: Isn't revealing that Wendy is the Princess in the Red Crayon Aristocracy section a bit of a spoiler?  After all, unlike the other girls of the RCA, Wendy's title is never mentioned on the official site.  There's reason for that, isn't there?
Have no Fear, I've fixed it. and you should sign your name. 74.117.157.185 22:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler Warnings needed 

message: This was my first time actually contributing to anything in Wiki, so I'm just worried that maybe the edits were unnessesary.  Either way, pleaz tell me what U thought of them.  If I messed smt up, soz.
:*It's kinda hard to give feedback if you don't sign your comments. --Mika1h 15:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do U like or dislike the edits I made? 

message: There used to be a short character section on this page that was seemingly removed because it was "unimportant."  The section wasn't very long, it was informative, and it's not uncommon for a video game article to have a brief character section. I'm just curious about about the reasoning for the removal.
65.160.144.38 14:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wondered about this issue too, but I thought that perhaps the reasoning behind it was to remove English information until the English version had come out, in case there were discrepancies between translation, but as that is not the case any longer I see no reason not to include a character section, along with anything else like gameplay ect.  Amyeis 15:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters Unimportant? 

message: I'm trying to brush the article up into a wikipedia entry, can you help?
The article's headings are now more or less as they should be.
The game itself has three 'realities' in effect, as well as interpretation of these events. Managing these is going to be an ongoing task and potential pitfall during the article's continued evolution.
Tips for contributors:
*Encyclopedia articles are designed for those with little or no knowledge of the subject and surrounding subjects. Everything has to be spelled-out and unambiguous.
*The story section should be a brief outline. Many facets of the game are ambiguous. If it's open to interpretation, don't put it in - without adequate sourcing this is original research and can't be used. If you're unfamiliar with referencing (like me) (I was but now I'm OK, though I know it's tough if you're unfamiliar with referencing), please bring any good links you find here to the talk page.
*The article was mainly composed of lengthy 'character' subheadings which also combined different aspects of the story. Many of these did not match my play-through of RoR. Where did information like 'Gregory was trained like a dog, Martha contacted the police about it several times' etc. etc. come from? If anyone can point out where these 'aftermath' details came from I'd be extremely grateful. 
Things to do:
*Alter character descriptions so they match the kind of layout and data given in the character lists of well established game articles.
*Story needs expanding - bare bones might be good for a start? (It's going to be difficult, I know).
I'll keep adding to the list (and striking through completed items). Discussion about this would be appreciated, I'm a tweaker rather than a writer, but so many survival horror articles need to be fixed I'm having a go. QuagmireDog 04:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I don't think we need too much detail on the characters and how they attack and so on. A rough plot outline would do. The article should bring together a brief description, followed by outside sources' discussion of the game. I mean, those who have not played the game know this stuff already, and for those who haven't, it's just a big list of spoilers they should avoid. Compare to the Featured Article-grade page on MGS3. Sockatume 14:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Food for thought. I've been unable to get online till literally a few minutes ago, but rest assured the comparison was eye-opening. When I've had the chance to absorb more details from VG FAs I'll make some changes. Thanks QuagmireDog 13:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: From confusing character list to encyclopedia article

message: ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors.  We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
You can participate and give your opinion.  Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.  Happy editing!
Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using 
:
<noinclude>
According to some admins here, the Rule of the Rose fansite is not "important" enough to be allowed on the RoR page, even though it follows all the Wiki guidelines.  It has even been incorrecly called a "Personal" site, even though it is not.  It is one of only two RoR fansites out there, and the largest at that.  The site has the most in-depth analysis of the characters, story, and many other things, not to mention the largest discussion conmmunity for the game.  If you would like to demand the link be restored, please post here with your reasons!— 67.163.193.239 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  
:How's it important? The keyword here is a "fansite." That doesn't mean it's an official site of the game, it means it's a site that you created. I don't see how a fansite is remotely relevant to the article, aside from the fact that the site is centered around the game. I highly doubt that it has "the most in-depth analysis" of the game. Shadow1 (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite a simple calculation here. Item 1 of "links normally to be avoided" states: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. Your fansite "does not provide a unique resource".  Here's a suggestion: if you want to help improve this encyclopedia article, add content, not just a link. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: ...and your sole contribution to our encyclopedia is to lobby for this link... --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That comment wasn't directed at you - notice it was threaded underneath that other IP's comment, and points to his/her contributions. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also this IP's one and only edit. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Use of such a banner is standard procedure when there is evidence of single purpose accounts. Please stay cool, ok? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Please calm down. I haven't deleted anything (to my knowledge). What are you talking about? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: First, please learn how to sign your comments with 4 tildes. Second, look at the page history - no one has deleted any comments.  Maybe you're not seeing the one you put in the above section? Honestly, you need to take a break and calm down, perhaps disengage for a bit. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Please calm down. We are not treating you badly or as if you're not important. Everyone on Wikipedia contributes with equal worth and weight. However, the evidence suggests that you may have asked others to come argue against the deletion, not to mention the title of this section. Let's cut out the conspiracy theories and focus on discussing the link in a calm and unbiased manner, instead of turning this article and its talkpage into a battleground. Shadow1 (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, are they? It would not be the first time you ask people to put in a wikipedia article something you want. Like the "Help Our Forum" topic you made yesterday. In any case, I'm not giving my opinion about the fansite itself. I wouldn't like it to be here, but I simply don't care much. If it's decided that it should be here, then I don't have a problem with it.— 190.64.77.137 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  
Um, how about getting back on topic? 65.143.72.28 20:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted previously, you have a conflict of interest here. Note the external link policy states that "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked". (That's why, presumably, Shadow1 directed his/her query at a different IP than you). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: How can a Wikipedia reader be so sure that the information contained in your website is factual and can be trusted? Also, how can you be so sure that it's the largest and most in-depth? Shadow1 (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course, but note the "if you ask me." Imagine, for a moment, that you're a Wikipedia reader. You follow the link to the site, and try to find some guarantee that the information is factual, accurate, and unbiased. Does your site have any authority over the subject? Shadow1 (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fight for the Fansite! 

message: Reported both IPs for 3rr violations here. - Denny 02:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: apparent 3rr vio 

message: *Too much of a game guide. Limit characters section to 3 characters maximum. Delete the others, and include an external link to a proper game guide website for the other characters if possible. 
(GameSpot or another respected one, NOT a fansite.)
*Expand upon the story section, but keep it limited to about 2 paragraphs. Currently a stub.
*The lead section is incoherent. Read WP:LS, and do a complete rewrite.
Remained start, rated low. I also didn't like the fact that the one who requested assessment gave his own opinion in the edit summary of the request. Assessment is a third-opinion procedure, and I was slightly biased now. Luckily, the requester was completely wrong (see above), which makes it less of a problem. Just something to remember.
--User:Krator (t c) 11:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:VG]] Assessment 

message: Allow me then to formally propose that the link be re-created as an external link to a fan site with additional information about the game (and without unverified claims about its size or importance). --Dystopos 00:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Let's please, in the interest of seeking consensus on this question, confine discussions about user behavior to user talk pages. --Dystopos 23:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: proposal

message: I was bold and added the link due to the support votes. Not a dog 00:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good God! This is still going on! This is insane. Just let people use Google. This isn't a damned link repository, get it through your heads. IvoShandor 12:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the link. Contentious material isn't added and then discussed, it is discussed and then, possibly, added. That's the way it works, deal with it. (I also couldn't care less if anyone doesn't like my tone). IvoShandor 12:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also note, Wikipedia is not a democracy, so votes don't make a lick of difference as far as establishing consensus goes. IvoShandor 12:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I now recognize that my adding the link was a bad idea. Mea culpa. Not a dog 04:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Added link