|
|
| Line 197: |
Line 197: |
| :::::I agree. The way Roxas looks in the image isn't that different from how he usually looks to warrant a mention on the page. I think we should just move the image to the gallery. {{User:TheSilentHero/Sig}} 19:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC) | | :::::I agree. The way Roxas looks in the image isn't that different from how he usually looks to warrant a mention on the page. I think we should just move the image to the gallery. {{User:TheSilentHero/Sig}} 19:13, 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) | | ::::::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 are not wikipedia. "Notability" is not a requirement, citability and accuracy are. |
| :::"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]].
| | :::This issue isn't about "liking" or "not liking" information, this is about following wiki policy, which is an inappropriate framing of wiki discussions in the first place. If you are framing a discussion based on what somebody "wants" rather than what policies and consensus ''dictate'', you are behaving inappropriately. In addition, if you don't want to start an edit war, don't push your edits after they've been reverted without achieving consensus. |
| :::"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. | | :::Neither the discussion nor the article ever claimed there was some deeper significance to the distinction, and it's not required for there to be a significance in order to be in the article. All that's necessary is that it be accurate, demonstrable, and a published part of the franchise -- and it is: Roxas is drawn differently from Ventus in a major piece of artwork used to publicize three different games. It does not matter how he was depicted in other games. |
| :::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.
| | :::Xehanort on 2.5 cover, or Goofy-Riku and Donald-Kairi in KHUX, are absolutely fair game to be covered on the wiki, specifically in design sections, as Key Arts ''are official parts of the franchise'' (and for what it's worth, have frequently appeared within the games themselves). The design and origin sections are both ones in which we cover the topics from an ''out of universe'' viewpoint, which means including information that would not be part of the "inner truth" within the setting. |
| :::"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.
| | :::As a reminder to all the recurring editors involved: long-standing wiki-policy is that information should not be placed in trivia unless absolutely necessary. If a relevant section on the article ''can'' be found, the info ''must'' be placed there. Information about the design of a character in a piece of official material falls under the Design header, ergo it is a violation of policy to move the material to the Trivia section -- as I've explained several times, including directly to the IP. Policy is also that in the event of an edit war, the article should be reverted to its ''pre''-edit war state, and that consensus should be derived based on wiki ''policies'', not on personal preferences. It's pretty troubling that this issue has even gotten to this point, as there are a multitude of wiki policies that should have been followed preventing this, and that the previous consensus discussed earlier in the article, with clear references to wiki policy by trusted users, appears to have been wholly ignored.{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 12:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC) |
| :::"It doesn't work because there's nowhere in any related media suggesting it was ever a thing" -- what are you even trying to say here? The section is saying that there is a piece of published material where he has a unique appearance. That's it. It's not trying to paint this as evidence for some conspiracy theory. | |
| :::"Sometimes a person is drawn off model or different then usual, it doesn't mean it's necessarily something meaningful." -- nothing and no one is claiming it's "meaningful". They're claiming it's a fact. Roxas is drawn significantly off-model in a piece of artwork that was itself used in a major way for advertisement. That's worth mentioning -- and the writeup as is even took pains to make it clear that that doesn't "mean" anything. It's just a fact. The wiki reports facts, and leaves it up to the readers to derive any unstated meaning from that.
| |
| :::"so it doesn't make sense to pretend it was some sort of "early concept art" or anything." --- nowhere did this happen.
| |
| :::"In my opinion this really is a non-issue and has no place on this wiki" -- okay, well with all due respect, your opinion is wrong. It's official material, therefore, we cover it. That's the defined scope of the wiki. We cover all official material.
| |
| :::"Roxas on the cover of KH2 looks drastically different from how Roxas appears on the cover of 358/2 Days." -- this is a facile argument. Roxas on the artwork can be directly compared to Ventus, who has been established time and time again as having an identical face to Roxas.
| |
| :::"but whether Roxas looks older or not, whether it was unintentional or intentional on Nomura-sensei's part, is unknown, and as an encyclopedia, we need to remain objective as possible." --- this statement makes no sense. The section wasn't claiming that it was intentional or not. It was claiming that it was there. As far as "whether he looks older or not", you can directly compare him to Ventus in the same image.
| |
| :::"We aren’t mentioning Xehanort’s face looking warped on the cover of 2.5 because it’s a stylistic choice." -- there's no real reason not to (not that I'm really sure what you're talking about -- he has an eyebrow raised). I think the lot of you are quite misunderstanding how the wiki's scope works, or what the design section is for. Alternate styles and depictions, such as Goofy-Riku or Donald-Kairi in KHUX, are fair game. The design and origin sections are both ones in which we cover the topics from an ''out of universe'' viewpoint, which means including information that would not be part of the "inner truth" within the setting. | |
| :::Frankly, as a former admin of this site I'm pretty disappointed in the longtime editors involved in these edits both leaving the protected state of the page on the ''new'', non-consensus-demonstrated version (very irregular), and so blithely ignoring the long-standing, ''very'' consensus policy of doing ''everything possible'' to keep information from being moved to trivia sections. It has always been wiki policy that it's the obligation of the editor trying to move information to trivia that they show, ''referencing wiki policies and not their own preferences'', that the information more properly belongs there than elsewhere in the article, and achieve consensus in doing so. That absolutely has not happened. It is quite simply shocking that this issue has even gotten to this point, as there are a multitude of wiki policies that should have been followed preventing this.{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 12:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC) | |