Talk:VersaLife

Spoilers?

Ok, so I removed some of the plot information, added some simple and neutral analysis on the company's role in the game. Personally I don't see anything else to say on the subject. I removed the in-universe tag, as it seems to me that all the in-universe perspective text, has been removed. I'm relatively new, and I'm not sure about one thing: the article should have spoiler warnings for the second paragraph at least, but I previewed it with the warnings and it seems like overkill, the two templates occupy more space than the paragraph itself. Is there a way to have a spoiler tag for the whole article for example? -- Amenzix 19:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

All right AMIB, this is getting out of hand. It is becoming quite obvious that your intention is to go through every Deus Ex related article on this site and delete every one you can get away with. You may have pushed the deletion of the Silhouette (Deus Ex) page through (on very shaky ground IMO), but your complaints against this page are completely unwarranted and show you seemingly total lack of knowledge regarding the entire games premise and plot.

This is not "four paragraphs of plot summary" as any one who has actually played the game would know. Though the page does need improvement, it by and large gives VersaLife's context and position within the plot - as any page of this type should. Here's a suggestion AMIB, why don't you actually play the game before setting yourself up as the de facto expert and policeman of the Deus Ex pages on Wikipedia?

Though I will leave this tag up temporarily, I'm going to delete it after at most three days because of its entirely baseless nature. -- Grandpafootsoldier

Dude, I didn't prod it. That was Nifboy (talk · contribs), in this edit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

But you that didn't stop you from adding a support prod, did it? Fine, I was mistaken, but my view still stands - I've had enough of this deletionism on the these pages. If you really find the setup that bad, why don't you suggest merging the pages into larger ones instead of whacking them off outright (as was done with the Silhouette page)? See the discussion on the Talk: Deus Ex page. -- Grandpafootsoldier (Talk)

Heehee, you said "whacking off." Ahem.

Yeah, that's why I haven't been prodding these. I've been fiddling with drafts of a plot summary. I wasn't aware of the discussion at Talk:Deus Ex. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh - well actually I technically said "whacking them off", but people can get what they want from it, I guess.

As for a plot summary - yes that is needed, but I still don't think all the character and organization pages would be moot after that is added. -- Grandpafootsoldier

Yeah, they pretty much would. There's nothing in any of these articles that isn't hyper-detailed plot summary, failing WP:FICT completely. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry dude, no they wouldn't. By your logic we should not have a page about Darth Vader or Gandalf because anything about them is "plot summary". -- Grandpafootsoldier

There's a wealth of third-party coverage, analysis, and commentary on Darth Vader and Gandalf. Not so for corporations appearing in DX. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning

No one touch the infobox

Shanequinlan01

Sorry, man, corp infoboxes are for real corporations only. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Umbrella Corp has their own info box

I'll rectify that immediately. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't replace the infobox in this article again. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Infoboxes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A company is a company - fictional or real. Ergo corgo sum a fictional company is entitled to the same treatment as a real company

A company is a business. A fictional company is a part of a work of fiction. It's the difference between a person and a character.

Likewise, WP:WAF discourages the use of infoboxes for real-world things for their fictional equivalents. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Infoboxes, then stop putting the corp infobox in this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with AMIB, the corp infobox shouldn't be used here.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 18:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

OK I will stop putting the infobox up.

Again, WP:WAF#Infoboxes and succession boxes why the corp infobox shouldn't be used in this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's kind of harsh to just whack out the info box from this article entirely just because the company is fictional. This is especially true given the fact that there are at least a dozen other fictional company entries currently on Wikipedia using an infobox, including such higher profile pages as Weyland-Yutani and the Union Aerospace Corporation. I personally do not see what the big deal is. Yes they can be gathering places for topic minutia, but that isn't usually too big of a problem. Also they help to organize the article by providing pertinent info in one place and give the page an all-round cleaner look. If this is really such a horrible thing to do, why doesn't some one come up with a special "fiction" info box which is obviously different from the regular one? -- Grandpafootsoldier

None of the info is particularly pertinent; it's trivia from a universe that doesn't exist. I'll go clean up those other articles right now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, what is your idea of "particularly pertinent" and "trivia"? The whole article and hundreds of articles on Wikipedia are about aspects of a "universe that doesn't exist". The info may not be "pertinent" to everyone, but for someone who is actually looking up the article for info about the subject within its universe it seems perfectly acceptable to have info about such aspects as what its main products are and when it was supposedly founded. I really think you are going a bit overboard. -- Grandpafootsoldier

The fact that it's a public corporation is trivia and probably should be deleted. The founding is just a guess. The products are more or less fanon (or synthesis at best). There's nothing encyclopedic in that template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Yes, the public corporation aspect is trivia, but all the other aspects are mentioned at some point during the game. It's not just "fanon" as you say. -- Grandpafootsoldier

We don't need to preserve every single sentence from the game in some form. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we summarize instead of covering every single tiny detail. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a rather simplified view of Wikipedia IMO, and doesn't seem very true in a lot of cases. However, that's not really my problem anyway. Almost everything in the box is mentioned at some point in the article - it isn't just trivia - and as I said, it gives a nice summation and cleaner feel to the article as a whole. I don't think it's really necessary, and rather detrimental to the article, to remove it. -- Grandpafootsoldier

Almost everything in the box is mentioned at some point in the article

So the infobox is needless duplication of unencyclopedic info, which blurs the line between real-world things and fictional things. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I said in my first post that if that aspect was really that much of a problem (which I really don't think it is), than an alternative box should be created which is obviously different. Screw it, I'm tired of arguing. If you want to be axe-happy and go through the dozen+ articles with an infobox and "improve" them than go ahead. All I'm saying is that for all the so-called "benefits" this and all your other deletions provide, it's taking away a lot more. -- Grandpafootsoldier

What would an alternative box include? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Not being a complete expert, I wouldn't know what would be the very best format for such an article. However, if I had to guess, I would think it would probably have some sort of obvious notice of the subjects fictional nature, would be colored/set-up slightly differently from the regular one, and only allow the most pertinent info about the subject, such as when it was supposedly founded, what it supposedly produces, etc. -- Grandpafootsoldier

Well, as the one who made {{General CVG character}}, I'm having trouble figuring out what I'd put in a fictional organization box, other than the basic first game/series stuff. Products made and fictional founding are unencyclopedic, in-universe facts, and there's really no sense having an infobox that's nothing but an image, a caption, and two fields. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't say, as I don't really know how to even go about starting that anyway, but I would just think it would contain the most pertinent info about the company (or whatever fictional aspect it is about) as contained in the article. I also don't quite understand why the info you mention is considered "unencyclopedic". If an article about some fictional character, such as Dr. Moriarty for example, mentions his supposed profession within the Sherlock Holmes universe is that considered "unencyclopedic" as well? I must admit I don't quite understand the difference. -- Grandpafootsoldier

I really have to urge you to read WP:WAF carefully. Anything I'd say would essentially be duplication of that.

As for the infobox, if there's really no consistently useful info other than a couple of fields, there's no need to have an infobox. Infoboxes are for consistently useful info, and products are going to be important in some cases, unimportant in most others, and inapplicable in some cases. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have read the article in the past, and have just read it again to be sure, and there doesn't seem to be anything in it that condemns what I am saying as wrong. Moreover I should point out this passage:

Infoboxes, usually placed in the upper-right portion of an article, give key data about the article's subject in tabular format. For entities within fiction, useful infobox data would include the creators or actors, first appearance, an image, and in-universe information essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction. What qualifies as essential varies based on the nature of the work. With loose continuity, there may be no appropriate in-universe information at all to add. By contrast, a character in a fantasy work with multiple warring factions may warrant data such as allegiance.

Which pretty much says what I have been trying to get at from the beginning. The box should still point out the main fictional aspects of the fictional entity. -- Grandpafootsoldier

The problem is that there's going to be a different type of "main fictional aspect" for each organization, making it difficult to come up with any fields that would be useful in a majority of articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You are obviously correct about that, as fictional organizations do vary widely. However, this gets back to my original point again. The corporate info box set-up right now, though not optimal by any means, still works pretty well, especially for the topic of fictional corporations. If an infobox can be created with essentially the same main grouping aspects as before (but with the addition of some obviously needed ones, such as in what media it appears, author, etc.), but made to obviously point out the business' fictional nature, that, in my view, would be the best solution. -- Grandpafootsoldier

I don't think that that would be a good idea, since there was one single encyclopedic fact in the Versalife infobox. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Again that's debatable in my opinion, but VersaLife might not be the best example anyway. The fact of the matter is that there are many fictional company pages, all of which would use such a box (as they use the corporate box now). Just because one or two examples don't fill out all possible entries (as they often don't even with real-life examples), that doesn't mean a standard format shouldn't be used to organize them, I would think.

[Edit] Anyhow, I'm dead tired so I think I'll continue this argument tomorrow.-- Grandpafootsoldier

What is the single encyclopedic fact in the VersaLife infobox A_Man_In_Black? Tell me. Shanequinlan01

Two facts, in retrospect. That it was founded by Bob Page (although I can't remember how important Page was) and that they make Grey Death and its cure. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That's funny, I can count at least half a dozen. 1: It's headquartered in Hong Kong. 2: It produced the "Gray Death" virus. 3: It also produces it's cure "Ambrosia". 4: It was founded and headed by the main antagonist in the game Bob Page. 5: It works on a number of other projects involving such fields as Genetics and Nanotechnology. And 6: It's a fictional entity. That along with a few other small facts seem to me to be plenty enough for the infobox of a fictional company.

Also, A Man In Black, I am still trying to understand your beef with using an infobox for a fictional subject. Perhaps you should check out the page for the Galactic Empire from Star Wars, or the many other ones that utilize one. Should the info box from that page be deleted as well because it summarizes a fictional subject and is not "encyclopedic" enough in your estimation? -- Grandpafootsoldier

All of those things should be in the first paragraph. And the Star Wars project has lots of terrible, in-universe infoboxes and I've been doing what I can, but I really am only one person and I can only do so many things at a time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you ever stop to think AMIB that the reason you are "only one person" in this instance is because your opinion is opposed by the vast majority of Wikpedians? If things of that nature should not be in an info box, than what the heck is the point of one for any topic? Your position on this, in my opinion, is starting to border on the ridiculous. -- Grandpafootsoldier

Well, the entire Star Wars project has been working on cleaning up the Star Wars articles for a while. Part of the reason that infoboxes don't get cleaned up very quickly is because there's not a lot of people who are willing to work on them, but a whole lot of people willing to complain about them. I'm currently hipdeep in converting video game character infoboxes and arcade game infoboxes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well AMIB, as I have said over and over again, I really do not understand what your problem is with using infoboxes for fictional subjects. There is nothing in the WP:WAF which forbids it, and it in fact give guidlines for how to use them properly - as I have already proved to you earlier in this discussion. It seems to me quite obvious that your position is completely baseless, and is not helping anything. -- Grandpafootsoldier (Talk)

• I have to agree with Grandpafootsoldier. No offence A Man In Bl♟ck Shanequinlan01

I'm not proposing removing infoboxes from all fictional subjects. I'm proposing limiting the info in the infoboxes to that which is specifically important, and not using an infobox at all when there's no class of subjects that benefit from it. This article is no less informative for the lack of the infobox; in fact, there wasn't a single real-world fact in the last infobox at all!

This is moot. This article needs to be cleaned up with a chainsaw and merged into the game article. This isn't a notable fictional idea here in the real world at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Dang, this is getting really old AMIB. Everything you just said, I have already addressed before at least once. 1: No, it should not be merged into the main article, because the Deus Ex article is long enough already and the addition of game aspects such as this would just make it too long. 2: The class of subjects that benefit from this infobox are Fictional Companies. 3: No article "really" needs an infobox, but they still help the article from the aspects of convenience and aesthetics. 4: It doesn't matter if there are not any "real world" facts at this point. Those can be added, and it is about a fictional subject anyway (so it will obviously have a lot of fictional aspects). -- Grandpafootsoldier

This entire article is plot summary. There aren't any real-world facts because this subject has had zero impact on the real world. It fails WP:FICT miserably. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a FICTIONAL subject! Of course it doesn't have any impact on the real world! You have obviously hit rock-bottom when it comes to your argument, AMIB. -- Grandpafootsoldier

AMIB.. Explain to me why you havent tried such an argument as this with the Galactic Empire, Wayans-Yutani or Umbrella? These are all fictional, all use info-boxes. (Empire isnt even a corporation.) -Durandal- 03:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to infoboxes in fictional articles. Hell, I've helped to make at least a half dozen. I'm objecting to infoboxes that blur the line between fact and fiction, like using infoboxes intended for real-world organizations for fictional organizations. As for whatever other articles I haven't objected at (and I recall saying something at W-Y and Umbrella), what can I say, I've been busy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Elaborate to me exactly what the difference between the Y-T or Umbrella info-boxes and this one. Seeing as the Umbrella box lists products and you've left it alone, and yet you've dogged this one like its somehow comitted a sacrilige! I'm a tad confused over this whole issue. Theres 2 articles that fit all the criteria you've used to justify removing this ones info box, and yet.. You dont go deleting THOSE info boxes, do you? -Durandal- 02:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

They all suck, focusing on in-universe info with no out-of-universe info whatsoever. The fact that many articles practice this terrible idea does not make it any less terrible. Please go read WP:WAF, which not only suggests that we do this but lays out the reasoning why not. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but rules assume that the majority plays along. Theres no point in issuing a new rule if theres no one left to follow it, or in this case, try to enforce it after the fact. And, since ALL these articles "suck", why not cut the crap and go for something high profile? Why is it that you only seem to want to do this to articles that may not be as frequently viewed or widely noticed as Umbrella, the Empire, W-Y or anything else? -Durandal- 04:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Three Deus Ex fans aren't "the majority"; WP:WAF was written by at least that many core authors, has had input from a couple dozen, and passed as a guideline with several dozen endorses (with the handful of opposition opinions split between opposition and arguing that it didn't go far enough). Moreover, Interrobamf seems to be dealing with those other articles.

As for the "they" in "they all suck," the infoboxes all suck. The articles could probably stand to be polished (and Umbrella Corporation and Galactic Empire (Star Wars) desperately need a rewrite), but they're not the worst I've come across. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I never did claim we are the majority. However, for a rule that you so love, it seems to be rarely enforced. As for several dozen.. How many people are registered users on Wikipedia? -Durandal- 23:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Employees?

First of all, I don't see how is the name of the receptionist important for anyone else than ultra Deus Ex geeks. Don't get me wrong, I loved the game, but having a section for all the employees just seems article bloating. Plus that the section looks ugly, I won't remove it for now, but I will do so if there isn't any good argument against it -- Amenzix 23:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)