Talk:Cybran Nation

Redirecting

This is hopelessly in-universe, and the two cited references are from a preview that pretty much repeats promotional material verbatim and a guide to playing the game. Supreme Commander#Cybran Nation is much closer to how this should be covered, and other than recapping the plot and setting in extreme detail, this article does nothing useful that isn't done there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• The article is currently in-universe, but not hopelessly so. If it wasn't so late, I'd edit it myself now. Allow the article some time before making it a redirect.
• The article is not a guide to playing the game. It currently contains no information for playing the game, rather more detailed information on the background of this race than the Supreme Commander article should (and does).
• Some future improvements that could be made are, for example, comparisons to real-world technologies, adding a list of available units (notably, the 'experimental' units which are a major feature of the game) and information about the Cybran campaign.

--User:Krator (t c) 23:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The cited reference is a guide to playing the game.

Comparisons to real-world tech would be original research. A list of available units would be a game guide. Information about the Cybran campaign would either be plot summary or a game guide.

When is this article going to be composed of commentary on the fictional group based on independent, reliable sources? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert War

In the past 30 hours, there was a small revert war on this article. At the time of writing (23:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)), User:A Man In Black made an edit (redirecting the page to Supreme Commander), which was reverted by User:Scumbag. Some content was added to the page, notably two tags and two references by myself, when 24 hours later A Man In Black made the page into a redirect again, which was reverted by Scumbag, reverted back by A Man In Black, then reverted by me. Some observations:

• A Man In Black's first two edits did state reasons for making his edits.
• Scumbag never stated an appropiate reason for his actions.
• The article was improved in the meantime.
• The article currently still is in a bad state.
• The same happened to the article Aeon Illuminate.

My reasons for not making the article a redirect are:

• The article is activily being worked on by User:Scumbag. It would be wise to see if his efforts can lead to a noteworthy article, before making it into a redirect.
• The subject is noteworthy, and there is information to be stated which is not in the space this article would redirect to.
• This article is part of a series of articles on the game Supreme Commander, together with Aeon Illuminate and the currently empty page United Earth Federation. The series as whole needs expansion, which is something I'm activily working on. (see history of Supreme Commander) Most games as noteworthy and highly rated as Supreme Commander have several articles, usually a 'List of weapons in <game>', a 'List of units in <game>' or a 'List of characters in <game>' article. For Supreme Commander, it's an article about each faction, because all characters, units, and plot information can easily be split between the factions. I plan to move information currently in the Supreme Commander article to these pages to cut down the size of the former.

--User:Krator (t c) 23:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Noteworthy? According to whom? The references were a preview of Supreme Commander and a game guide for Supreme Commander. I don't see that the encyclopedic content of either article (which was near zero) was so much that it couldn't fit into Supreme Commander, per WP:FICT.

Just because other bad articles on fictional things/groups/factions exist doesn't justify more of the same. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, neither article made even a passing effort to satisfy WP:WAF or WP:ATT, and there's no reason to believe Scumbag was planning to attempt to satisfy either. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith please. I'm working on it, and I think Scumbag is too. I tried to assert some notability of the particular subject by adding some reviews in a hurry, but I could copy all Supreme Commander's previews and reviews at IGN, GameSpot and GameSpy if that satisfies those policies. Again, if an article doesn't satisfy a policy tag it, don't just delete and redirect. Out for the day. --User:Krator (t c) 23:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You may want to read User:Scumbag/Scumpolicies. I don't see any reason to assume good faith in the face of stated bad faith.

Supreme Commander's reviews and previews don't satisfy those policies; if a faction is being mentioned, it's being mentioned as a part of the game. Why are we then separating it from being part of the game's article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, one last note then. Why? Because otherwise the Supreme Commander article would be too long. Like it was before. There's information on Supreme Commander that should be on Wikipedia, that can't fit into the main article. (See the scraps in my Sandbox. This is the case for a lot of games, and instead of making some lists, I think ordering that information by faction is a good thing. --User:Krator (t c) 23:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems like that problem could also be fixed by omitting excessive plot detail. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

it seems to me that this is a battle of perpectives, on one hand we have black who is doing his job and following the rules, though in a rather hard handed and unyeilding way. on the other hand we have scumbag and krator who are trying to improve the article, but are runing on limited resources. but in a sence both sides are working towards the same end, making wiki a better place, so i don't see why both parties can't reach some kind of agreement. black, i've done some poking around and i know that you are a bit of an authity in these areas, even if you are a somewhat controverial one, so i would ask you what we can do to make this article more suitable, other than blanking it? i haven't seen anything from scumbag but i am sure that between krators and myself we can make this a notable article--Manwithbrisk 17:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not so much that it needs to be blanked but that the hard work is already done. Due to the lack of real-world impact, this needs to be briefly summarized in the article on the work in which they appear. That's already done in Supreme Commander. Normally, I'd condense the heck out of this and merge it there, but I can't see anything that that article needs that this article has. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you say that the Zerg, Protoss, Terran, Global Defense Initiative, Brotherhood of Nod, Orc, Human, Undead articles have the same lack of 'real-world impact'? Factions from RTSes invite articles. Oh, and don't worry, I will get to the Aeon Illuminate page soon, but I want to deal with one at a time. Scumbag 22:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

YES. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, it's a fact of life. Those need to be cleaned up badly, as well, and for the same reasons. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice wikipolicy link. WP:ITANNOYSME right back at you. --User:Krator (t c) 13:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope it is understood that the above is satire, illustrating the pointlessness of citing wikipolicies in this discussion.

I'm not annoyed by it. It fails WP:ATT, WP:FICT, WP:N, and WP:WAF. Weak arguments like "Other articles are just as bad" don't overcome those points. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at one of 'em, and it says "in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character (and places, concepts, etc.) causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article. Adding the relevent information into Supreme Commander would do just that. It's the reason why we have articles pertaining to Zerg, Protoss, Terran, Global Defense Initiative, Brotherhood of Nod, Orc, Human, Undead , and why we have one for his one, the Aeon, and the UEF one which you blanked. Scumbag 21:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Describing a fictional worrld, in explicit detail, with zero reference to this one, is not encyclopedic treatment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that Wikipedia:Fancruft is not a guideline, and definately not a revert-worthy guideline, correct? Scumbag 22:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I haven't linked it, or pointed to it, or even mentioned it. (It's not even a very good essay.) However, I have repeatedly linked you to, and commented upon, and pointed to, and emphasized the importance of WP:WAF. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you actually believe that those articles need to be cleaned up, feel free to try to do so. :) Scumbag 07:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Final Note on the Edit War

I am not here to spend my time reverting, and as you apparently are, I will just focus on the Supreme Commander article. Expect these three articles to exist within a few months, when I or any other editor gets around to making them. If they are not a redirect, someone will probably pick up writing them sooner, which was my main reason for not redirecting. See you then. Page unwatched, too, so please respond on my talk page if you feel the need to do so. --User:Krator (t c) 23:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)