User talk:Soroxas

KH3 content
Hey there. I noticed you were creating pages for characters and worlds that will appear in Kingdom Hearts III. Our policy is to wait until the game is released before starting those pages. However, we've set up drafts in our project-space in case people want to get started. 17:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, what is the reasoning behind this policy? No offense, I really don't see the point of it. Is it to prevent spoilers or something? Or because information may be inaccurate? The majority of wikis allow articles for upcoming content, while they tend to have templates at the top which say "this content is upcoming".


 * I also think we should add KH3 era icons, content footers and templates. Sora's article has them for example. I did this while adding Olette's KH2 biography, but my edit seems to have been rejected. Is it because of the KH3 stuff? Soroxas (talk) 00:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * With past games, some of the content shown in trailers didn't actually make it into the final version of the game (the Twilight Thorn in KH3D for example). Therefore, we have the policy that we only place information on the game page itself, to avoid having to change and remove stuff from all kind of pages later. The same applies to the KH3 icons and templates. There are some exceptions for characters that are definitely in the game, like Sora. And yes, that is why your edits were rejected. 17:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I still don't really agree with the principle in concept and think the idea of a "this article is for upcoming content and may be inaccurate" template is superior, but if that's what the people in charge of this wiki plan to do, then I can't really say or do much. It seems really extreme to deny KH3 articles just because information may be inaccurate based on trailers. For example, info about Elsa being in KH3, her being from Arendelle, her sister being Anna, etc, aren't going to change in the final game. I know all the KH3 content will be added later, I just don't see the big issue with getting a headstart on things we absolutely know for sure (for example, there's no way Olette is going to be removed KH3 after she's seen in various trailers wearing new clothes). In the meantime, I guess I'll just work on the drafts then. Maybe you should make it more obvious that KH3 content is just going to be drafts for now. Soroxas (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "It seems really extreme" -- these are the same policies that wikipedia and tfwiki follow.
 * "I just don't see the big issue" -- The issue is that each time the wiki community has given in on this point, false material based on trailers makes it into the wiki that does not get removed until a year or more later, when someone like me notices it. In the meantime, the wiki gets criticized by the fandom for having such material. 20:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Woody Pride
Why did you remove this? 19:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Where? If you mean on the KH3 article, it was already just "Woody" before I edited. If elsewhere, then it's probably an error. Soroxas (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * https://www.khwiki.com/index.php?title=Template:KH3&diff=prev&oldid=741361


 * I was just trying to be consistent with the name of the article there. The name conventions on this wiki are confusing. Sometimes, the article name isn't the same as the infobox. It's why I've avoided creating Mike's and Sulley's pages. Soroxas (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Woody Pride is the name used by the official site. If other sources use just Woody, then they are either unsourced or not up to date. The naming conventions on this wiki are "full name used in published material". 20:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Violating guidelines
I was responding to the IP, not you. That being said, we do have a general policy to edit articles as if they rest of the wiki was set up correctly, red links and all, as done on tfwiki. The goal is to minimize what rewriting needs to be done once a game is fully released. 20:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Captions
Hi, I just want to let you know that the community doesn't use quotes for captions for our images. Captions should be written more professionally, in a way that summarizes what the image depicts.-- 21:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Inserting images
Also, just to let you know, the wiki follows the typical standard that when posting images into articles, it follows a left-right-left-right pattern.-- 22:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to the Seifer page
Just because someone disagrees with you and undoes your edit, doesn't mean they're "forcing their own interpretation". Especially if they left an edit comment explaining why they undid it. By undoing that edit, you're actually forcing YOUR own interpretation. If you disagree with another user over something, instead of edit warring, you should take it to the talk page. Now, someone else edited the page with a possible solution for your disagreement. If you do not agree with that edit, please don't undo it, but bring it up on the talk page. 10:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There are three options.


 * 1) Claiming it's totally mocking
 * 2) Claiming it's totally sincere
 * 3) Claiming it could be mocking or sincere

I already left a comment explaining why I felt it was option 2 for myself, but I decided to go with 3 in order to try to reach a middle ground with them. If someone undos option 3 in favor of 1, they are not open to alternate interpretation. This is exemplified because they said "No, you're wrong, it IS option 1, and we are not doing option 3". What I find amazing is that you're trying to make me look like the bigot here, when I went for option 3, while the other person went for option 1 and also edit warred a bit too in order to keep option 1. If someone tried to keep option 1, then I'd say that pretty much qualifies forcing an interpretation. Yet you go after me, acting like I'm the only one who is totally guilty and in the wrong. And if they undid my edit again, I would indeed take it to the talk page. I am fine with the current version. Soroxas (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I hardly calling editing your edit once "edit warring". If you disagreed with me, simply talk it out to the talk page and let's discuss it thoroughly. Quite frankly, I find it ridiculous to be disagreeing with something that is made quite clear through the characters' tone and dialogue, not to mention the the general interaction between them in the scene and having a good and objective understanding who the characters are and their relationship they have to one another in the game. For the sake of not escalating things further and not violating the standard three-revert rule, as it seems to be a case of "difference in opinions", I'll leave it as it is at the moment.


 * However, I will ask that you keep future conversations with other users more cordial and assume good faith in accordance to the KHWiki's rules. It's fine to disagree with other users and you are entitled to your opinion, but don't go around saying "forcing one's interpretation" or that our no speculation rule "only exists because people like you with this mindset are often in positions of power on wikis". That isn't how the community works. Everything is decided by majority vote, not on a user's editing credentials.


 * If you find our policies disagreeable, I think you might favor our sister site, The Keyhole, more and find it more suitable for your editing style.-- 18:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * We'll have to agree to disagree. In my eyes, re-adding "Seifer mockingly said", when someone already vocalized that they disagree with this interpretation and attempted to be neutral, is forcing your interpretation. At that moment, you could have also went to the talk page, but your reaction was to undo my edit. I also still disagree with KH2's article featuring art of Sora on the beach - I disagree with your view that it's somehow more relevant, especially when the first 2-3 hours of the game heavily focus on Roxas' life in Twilight Town with his friends. Hayner, Pence and Olette meant so much to Roxas, and they also play a prominent role with Sora during the latter parts of the game.


 * Yes, Seifer is a bit of bully, but Japanese games tend to feature character growth and complexity, just like how Seifer wasn't completely evil in FF8. The way Seifer nods to Roxas and then fist bumps his heart seemed very bro-ish. The way Olette calls out to him also came across as sympathetic. I don't like Seifer being portrayed as this one-dimensional bully. Seifer also thought Roxas was a photo thief, explaining his hostility. I'm sad that you view that scene as just "Seifer being an ass again", instead of him changing his attitude of Roxas a bit, and a hint that maybe he's not all that "bad" as he seems. Soroxas (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, for the sake of not escalating things further, we need to take this discussion about the edit on Seifer's talk page. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but the KHWiki advocates for objective facts, not personal interpretation. You might see my edit as "personal interpretation", but I see it as fact due to the evidence given to us, the viewers, via dialogue and tone, something I explained in the edit summary, as per policy. If someone seriously disagrees with something after three reverts, then it's policy to take to the talk page. So, shall we head there?


 * Again, that's your personal and subjective feelings on the matter, which is no place for the KHWiki. Also, I'd like to ask to refrain making assumptions about my subjective feelings regarding a character. Not only it is presumptuous and inaccurate, it's also extremely rude. Like most editors, I don't like letting my subjective feelings regarding a particular work seep into my objective editing. That's unprofessional. The KHWiki relies on facts and objectivity. So please refrain from acting as if you know my subjective thoughts and feelings on a particular matter, because as we are not acquainted, you do not.-- 19:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Then let's take it to the talk page. We disagree on whether or not Seifer was being mocking is a fact. I was simply explaining my reasoning there. Soroxas (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Warning
What a fancy template. There's so much here I could pick apart, but I think I'll address the elephant in the room.

"False accusation of bad faith" - They framed a situation to make me look like the one who can't accept other's opinions and trying to force their opinion, when I was actually the one trying to reach a neutral viewpoint. That alone should be plenty of evidence, reason and grounds for assuming bad faith. Claiming what I said is "false" is extremely dismissive of my opinion and devalues what I have to say, and retroactively tries to paint me in the wrong. Soroxas (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)