Movellon

Final Fantasy XIII

I'm sorry to see that you ended up getting blocked, Movellon. I did some research onto that link and it's indeed a direct translation of an interview with a Square-Enix head. However, some of the folks on the page (apparently distraught that their beloved $600 game system might be losing an exclusive) are desperately fighting tooth-and-nail to eliminate all mention that the title might be coming out on a different platform. I've been reverted a couple times, so I can't do any more to keep the article accurate tonight, but hopefully more progress can be made in the coming days. Don't give up- truth can indeed prevail if those behind it remain steadfast and persistant. :) Ex-Nintendo Employee 02:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Doctor (Doctor Who)

Something I've noticed about some of the anonymous IPs involved in the content dispute on Doctor (Doctor Who): they've been used to perform edits on Final_Fantasy_XIII (or its associated talk page). Ought I be concerned about this? Mark H Wilkinson 21:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC) What are you trying to suggest?

No, I don't think the argument is being lost. It's the edit warring that concerns me. Mark H Wilkinson 22:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have done, several times. But it kind of got lost in identical accusations that I (and others) were arguing from a position I personally don't hold, and then descended into another edit war, with one IP declaring that varying from their take on what should be included on the page constituted vandalism. Not good news, edit wars, you know. Not good news at all. Mark H Wilkinson 22:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The point you're missing, and continue to miss, is that having an eighth Doctor who fought the Master etc as part of the current series backstory doesn't, in itself, mandate either a retcon or a statement about current series continuity regarding the Doctor's heredity. It's a story. And one simply can't fit all stories which "count" together without contradicting the intentions of some of the writers/production teams involved; and anyway, such continuity stitching is a fannish activity, not the business of an encyclopedia. So, in encyclopedic terms, we're left with a "canon" that freely contradicts itself, which is no bad thing. So we can have the Doctor half human in the TVM, we can have the eighth Doctor as a previous incarnation to the ones in the revived series and we can have the heredity of the Doctor in other stories as undefined unless proven otherwise by those stories; hell, we can even have the Morbius Doctors in BoM because taking a position on continuity truth values is not our right or responsibility. This is doubtless what you find difficult to contemplate; hopefully, you'll get the hang of it in the long run.

And the book you keep banging on about is largely irrelevant. Licensed merchandise can't be viewed as intrinsically authorititive sources (which should be something of a relief in the case of Haining ouvre). And in this case, it's a tarted up re-release of a much older book, so it's doubtful it can even be viewed as the voice of the production team in all matters.

Oh, and thanks for your advice. I've considered stepping back from the debate, but I feel I ought to monitor things, what with all the anonymous IPs flying about. Mark H Wilkinson 23:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am merely serving the spirit and rule of WP:NPOV by not trying to force any side of this issue upon the readers of Wikipedia. In case you've misunderstood, I'm for the compromise. Mark H Wilkinson 09:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Show me the official release from the BBC, or from the production office, that explicitly and unambiguously states the Doctor is half human. Licensed merchandise counts as neither of these things. Mark H Wilkinson 12:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pastes from Amazon and the BBC, but they say nothing more than I already knew. Do you have anything new to bring to the table? I mean, I'm already familiar with your peculiarly inflexible approach to continuity, your belief that Doctor Who: The Legend Continues is a series bible and your contention that anyone who disagrees with your position is acting out of personal distaste in order to inflict their POV on the article. You've repeated all this with very little variation several times now; and repetition isn't exactly a strong debate tool.

Oh, and once again, let me thank you for your advice that I should "take a step back". I will give it all the consideration it deserves. Mark H Wilkinson 15:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

PS3 sales figures...

...do not belong on the Xbox 360 article. Take it to Console wars. xenocidic (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice the other reference to the PS3, but it has now been removed as well. I agree, let's leave fanboyism at the door and ensure the article focuses on the subject and not its competitors. Again, Xbox 360 vs. PS3 sales figures belong in Console wars. xenocidic (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)