Vigil on 31/8/2006 at 13:52
No, that's just your way of saying it ;) It's still the same thing.
I'm only playing devil's advocate here because it's amusing, and because I agree in general with Wikipedia's editorial policies; even if they usually never survive contact with outside contributors. However it's just as pedantic to keep stubbornly insisting on the inclusion of a piece of inconsequential and unconfirmed trivia as it is to keep stubbornly insisting on its removal.
Kolya on 31/8/2006 at 13:54
It's not my way of saying it - it's the courteous way.
The other way would be to note that Wikipedarians seem to trade in their common sense for a set of principles.
Agreed with your ninja-edit.
ZylonBane on 31/8/2006 at 16:07
Quote Posted by Kolya
C) You strive for accuracy while being laudable in general would be better applied to articles that really need it.
Quoted for Truth. Drat's crusade would far better be served on articles about actual real-world things, not video games.
His current behavior, unfortunately, makes him the enemy. Have you looked at his (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drat) user page? Jesus. It's like some sort of psychotic shrine to himself.
Drat on 1/9/2006 at 09:39
Yeah yeah, very funny. The core rules don't apply to userpages. I've been meaning to overhaul that page anyway.
Anyway, I'm not disputing the VB and Rick stuff anymore, I'm just saying that simply writing stuff on Shock2.com would not be sufficient as a citeable source. Where would you say this info came from? The manual? An interview? You couldn't just make up a source.
Someone (not me) may dispute what is said on that page, especially if the source is nonexistant, or does contain that info. Not to mention that the post I quoted before would be evidence as to the origin of the information.
By the way, don't forget that I'm not the only one (on Wikipedia) who has contested the information and/or the sources.
Jonesy on 5/9/2006 at 02:29
That's because you and nearly everybody else associated with this clusterfuck of a wikipedia article have no lives.
We can go around all day with the circular logic and go around editing everything with CITATION NEEDED like so:
The trilogy (CITATION NEEDED) is a satirical (CITATION NEEDED), postmodern (CITATION NEEDED), science fiction-influenced (CITATION NEEDED) adventure story (CITATION NEEDED); a drug-, sex- and magic-laden trek through a number of conspiracy theories (CITATION NEEDED), both historical (CITATION NEEDED) and imaginary(CITATION NEEDED), which hinge around the authors' version of the Illuminati. (CITATION NEEDED)
It really makes no difference because it should be fucking obvious to anybody who has any knowledge of spaceflight and/or aerospace history that the UNN Rickenbacker is a military ship named after a military fighter ace. And that the first spacecraft to go faster than light would naturally be named after Werner Von Braun, the father of the American rocket program.
This article has become a whole cycle of circlejerking and stealth edits and reedits.
Drat on 5/9/2006 at 02:59
If it's so obvious, does it really even need mentioning? The whole issue can be averted by removing the implications as to the origin of the names in the first place. Let the reader make any assumptions themselves. Don't even guide them with that suggestion crap, which is really just a softer way of stating one's opinion. Everyone wins then. The Wikipsychos (myself included) don't get annoyed about it, and the others can rest assured that "anybody who has any knowledge of spaceflight and/or aerospace history" will very likely see the names as references to those people.
Besides all this, the importance information such as the origins of the names of the ships, is questionable. Would the article (assuming it was brought up to some level of quality) really be lacking due to the absence of these little tidbits of utterly trivial information?
ZylonBane on 5/9/2006 at 04:23
Quote Posted by Drat
If it's so obvious, does it really even need mentioning?
Yes, jackass.
Bomb Bloke on 5/9/2006 at 11:57
Nothing is obvious. If you want sources on that, ask anyone who's ever worked on a helpdesk. :thumb:
One of the things that made System Shock great was trivial information.
Drat on 5/9/2006 at 12:30
Really? I thought it was the gameplay, the immersiveness, the story, etc.
