Otherarrow (talk | contribs) m (→Comments) |
|||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
:Disorganized, maybe, but I wouldn't say it, but polluted? I don't quite get what you mean. (Have I been letting spam run unchecked or something?) Also, it does not look like "Oh they were created by the same guy" but more like "Oh, they were both created by the same guy, and one seems to be a continuation or successor to the other, but isn't due to copyright reasons, but is close enough so that the company that owns the first one tried to sue" Last I checked, Zelda is not known for being any bit Mario-esque, or being considered a continuation in the eyes of Mr. Miyamoto. |
:Disorganized, maybe, but I wouldn't say it, but polluted? I don't quite get what you mean. (Have I been letting spam run unchecked or something?) Also, it does not look like "Oh they were created by the same guy" but more like "Oh, they were both created by the same guy, and one seems to be a continuation or successor to the other, but isn't due to copyright reasons, but is close enough so that the company that owns the first one tried to sue" Last I checked, Zelda is not known for being any bit Mario-esque, or being considered a continuation in the eyes of Mr. Miyamoto. |
||
:EDIT: Also, I'd say at least one of the reasons they "clutter up" the wiki any more so than say the Gaiden articles (about as unpopular, about as incomplete) is because of Semaj's insistence that the TRS info be ''completely'' segregated from the rest of the wiki, right down to arguably redundant categories and templates. I know he means well, and in fact I supported him at first, but now I think that it is making it more of a problem than it is already.--[[User:Otherarrow|Otherarrow]] 22:28, December 4, 2009 (UTC) |
:EDIT: Also, I'd say at least one of the reasons they "clutter up" the wiki any more so than say the Gaiden articles (about as unpopular, about as incomplete) is because of Semaj's insistence that the TRS info be ''completely'' segregated from the rest of the wiki, right down to arguably redundant categories and templates. I know he means well, and in fact I supported him at first, but now I think that it is making it more of a problem than it is already.--[[User:Otherarrow|Otherarrow]] 22:28, December 4, 2009 (UTC) |
||
| + | ::Okay, I don't think that really changes my opinion on the matter, sorry. I think that this place has too many articles with too little content, and adding more pages, some for games, and more for weapons, chapters, characters, ect... will just add to the pile. I have a feeling these articles will be of little interest to the average Fire Emblem player and will add very little to the community. Gaiden is Fire Emblem. TRS is not Fire Emblem. --[[User:Cmolisa0|Cmolisa0]] 05:28, December 5, 2009 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 05:28, 5 December 2009
Me and Otherarrow have already discussed this at great length. I believe that most (everything except the pages on the actual games and one on the series) TearRing saga pages and there templates should be moved off this wiki onto an actual TearRing Saga wiki. This is because they keep up cropping into the wanted pages or the lonely pages or if I click random page i find myself staring a random TearRing Saga character aswell as other annoyances.
Otherarrow disagrees, saying that the TearRing Saga pages arn't affecting us that much and that the TearRing Saga Wiki woudn't get any edits, so those pages will be worse off.
Long story short, rather than start an edit war we've decided to put it up to a community decision, to vote please sign with --~~~~ and please if you have any relevant points, want to leave a reason or have other suggestions please feel free to add them to the comments section.
--Semajdraehs- any replies to my Talk page 10:51, November 22, 2009 (UTC)
Votes for keeping TearRing Saga pages
Yeah. Keep. The pages do need some work, but I don't think moving them to another wiki will do anything about that. As for all the people who insist it should go because it "isn't Fire Emblem", well, Nintendo did not think that it seems. And, no offense to TRS fans, but I kinda see what they were getting at. As noted here and below, it is a continuation in eyes of the creator of both series, similar enough for Nintendo to attempt multiple lawsuits, and obscure enough (at least as far as I can tell, again no offense) that only FE fans really know about it anyway.--Otherarrow 13:38, November 22, 2009 (UTC); edited on 22:18, December 2, 2009 (UTC).
Keep. Tear Ring Saga is so Fire Emblem it fits. They even have a character named Barts. Emperor Hardin 20:19, November 22, 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Nobody will work on a TearRing Saga Wiki. It's also the continuation of the Fire Emblem saga in the eyes of Shouzou Kaga, who created the series. They even have Pegasus Knights and were going to include Mamkutes (they're still there, but renamed)! As for TRS articles appearing on the Wanted lists and whatnot, I'd just consider them like the unpopular FE: Gaiden articles. Aveyn Knight 20:57, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
Votes for moving TearRing Saga pages to a new wiki
I've already stated my reasons above--Semajdraehs- any replies to my Talk page 12:13, November 22, 2009 (UTC)
--Cmolisa0 02:56, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
--This is the Fire Emblem wikia, not the Tear ring saga wikia. Even if no one would work on a tear ring saga wikia, they should at least be relocated elsewhere (to the nintendo Wikia perhaps?).
C13g3 -
--Talk Page-14:02, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
Comments
FYI the TRS info would not go on the Nintendo Wiki. Also, I would take this comment to speak against people on either side just voting without commenting. I personally think that doesn't help us here.--Otherarrow 21:47, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
Okay then. I've never heard of TearRing Saga, nor do I really care that much about it. Sure, it may be created by the same man who created Fire Emblem, but I wouldn't dedicate pages about Zelda on a Mario wiki just because they were both created by Mr. Miyamoto. Personally, I think these TRS pages will simply clutter up an already disorganized and polluted wiki. Whether or not an independent TRS wiki would be worked on is irrelevant. Those pages don't belong here. --Cmolisa0 18:04, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
- Disorganized, maybe, but I wouldn't say it, but polluted? I don't quite get what you mean. (Have I been letting spam run unchecked or something?) Also, it does not look like "Oh they were created by the same guy" but more like "Oh, they were both created by the same guy, and one seems to be a continuation or successor to the other, but isn't due to copyright reasons, but is close enough so that the company that owns the first one tried to sue" Last I checked, Zelda is not known for being any bit Mario-esque, or being considered a continuation in the eyes of Mr. Miyamoto.
- EDIT: Also, I'd say at least one of the reasons they "clutter up" the wiki any more so than say the Gaiden articles (about as unpopular, about as incomplete) is because of Semaj's insistence that the TRS info be completely segregated from the rest of the wiki, right down to arguably redundant categories and templates. I know he means well, and in fact I supported him at first, but now I think that it is making it more of a problem than it is already.--Otherarrow 22:28, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I don't think that really changes my opinion on the matter, sorry. I think that this place has too many articles with too little content, and adding more pages, some for games, and more for weapons, chapters, characters, ect... will just add to the pile. I have a feeling these articles will be of little interest to the average Fire Emblem player and will add very little to the community. Gaiden is Fire Emblem. TRS is not Fire Emblem. --Cmolisa0 05:28, December 5, 2009 (UTC)