Talk:Roxas: Difference between revisions

From the Kingdom Hearts Wiki, the Kingdom Hearts encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 198: Line 198:
::::::Agreed. The trivia should be removed and the image goes to Roxas's Gallery, if it isn't there already.--{{User:NinjaSheik/Sig}} 19:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::Agreed. The trivia should be removed and the image goes to Roxas's Gallery, if it isn't there already.--{{User:NinjaSheik/Sig}} 19:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:::It's not trivia because it's covering his appearance in officially published material. The design section is the correct location for that. The design section is not required to focus solely on the games, or the "canon depiction". It's meant for the topic overall, which ''does'' include information about the out-universe design process, marketing decisions, and depictions in non-game material.
:::It's not trivia because it's covering his appearance in officially published material. The design section is the correct location for that. The design section is not required to focus solely on the games, or the "canon depiction". It's meant for the topic overall, which ''does'' include information about the out-universe design process, marketing decisions, and depictions in non-game material.
:::"We need to revisit the topic if the artwork itself is noteworthy to be mentioned at all?" -- no, we don't. We are not wikipedia, we are the kingdom hearts wiki. Our scope is to cover ''everything'' official.
:::"We need to revisit the topic if the artwork itself is noteworthy to be mentioned at all?" -- no, we don't. We are not wikipedia, we are the kingdom hearts wiki. Our scope is to cover ''everything'' official. If "notability" were a factor in how we cover information, we wouldn't have articles like [[Mimic]] or [[Axe Flapper]].
:::"because some people really like the information for reasons I don't understand." --- quit it with trying to turn things personal. This isn't about "liking" or "not liking" the information, this is about the fact that it's information from an official source, and that wiki policy states to avoid putting information in the trivia section at all times.
:::"because some people really like the information for reasons I don't understand." --- quit it with trying to turn things personal. This isn't about "liking" or "not liking" the information, this is about the fact that it's information from an official source, and that wiki policy states to avoid putting information in the trivia section at all times. A staff member should have already corrected you on this behavior.
:::Furthermore, it's a complete lie that you "don't understand", because I explained the relevant policies for it to you in simple English. That you keep trying to reframe this as some debate about "canon" or whether it was an "accident" doesn't change the relevant policies.
:::Furthermore, it's a complete lie that you "don't understand", because I explained the relevant policies for it to you in simple English. That you keep trying to reframe this as some debate about "canon" or whether it was an "accident" doesn't change the relevant policies.
:::"so I didn't mean to start an edit war" -- then you shouldn't have kept pushing your edit after another editor reverted it and explained the relevant policies. It is inconceivable that you didn't realize that you were making a third revert. Don't blame this on past discussions.
:::"so I didn't mean to start an edit war" -- then you shouldn't have kept pushing your edit after another editor reverted it and explained the relevant policies. It is inconceivable that you didn't realize that you were making a third revert. Don't blame this on past discussions.