Talk:WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008

message: :::::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? Wikipedia isn't an anarchy, with no guidelines. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. We're playing in their playground, so we play by their rules. (Guyinblack25 talk 13:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break

message: wheres the soundtrack?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.24.105 (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, it was removed due to Wikipedia 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)
thread_title:  soundtrack 

message: Just for those who have the misconception that lists are unencyclopedic. 
WP:LIST
Lists are commonly used to organize information in Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia article. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As RobJ stated, lists are a part of Wikipedia, but they too have their own guidelines and limitations. I would also like to point out that Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia, which is what we've been saying from the start. (Guyinblack25 talk 13:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.TrUCo9311 21:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists

message: 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)
replies: text: A list is easier to read, So it should be kept that way. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has but it was ignore, i think we may need WP:RFC.--3L VaK3r0 21:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been listed under RFC now. McJeff (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List

message: 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)
thread_title: [[WP:GAMECRUFT]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: My bad, I mean't WP:RFM.TrUCo-X 21:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: 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 talk 00:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The McJeff/RobJ1981 edit war 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 talk 14:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A major off topic flaw. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 talk 17:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What is this? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Version differences section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fighting style section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified