Talk:Characters of God of War/Archive 2

Workshop
Placing the material being edited in new section so we don't have to keep scrolling through the discussion. Bluerim (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Trial lead first:


 * The characters of the God of War video game franchise belong to a fictional universe loosely based on Greek mythology. All are organized in groups according to their status, which includes classical monsters, heroes, Olympian Gods, Titans and supporting characters. The overall story arc focuses on the protagonist Kratos, a Spartan warrior haunted by the accidental murder of his wife and child. Kratos eventually avenges his family by killing his former master and manipulator Ares the God of War. Kratos takes Ares' place as the new God of War, but he is still troubled and is betrayed by Zeus, King of the Olympian Gods, who is revealed to be Kratos' father. The gods and Titans play a major role in shaping Kratos' attitude and his eventual decision to destroy Mount Olympus.

I think that captures the essence of both nicely. I still think a comment from a designer about the GOW characters in general (not just Kratos) would be appropriate if someone could find one. Bluerim (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I see issues in the way it flows. I personally don't think the first sentence flows as well as The characters of the God of War video game franchise are organized below by their respective role in the fictional universe, which is loosely based on Greek mythology. I also think the placement of "Spartan" doesn't flow well in your example. To me, protagonist Kratos, a Spartan warrior flows much better and gets rid of the "and." The rest is fine. My biggest issue with the lead, beyond the two points I just made, are the second and third paragraphs. -- JDC808  ♫  05:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Moving the term "Spartan" is no biggie. Note, however, it is a question of "status" (what they are) as opposed to role (what they do). And revised above again. Bluerim (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's better. I do suggest changing "The characters from" to "The characters of". I think it flows better, more formal, and you don't see character pages titled "Characters from [video game (series)]", you see them titled "Characters of [video game (series)]." Which by the way, I've been pondering about moving this page from "List of God of War characters" to "Characters of God of War." Now, how about paragraphs 2 and 3 of the lead? -- JDC808  ♫  18:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The definite article "the" should be placed before protagonist. Lead looks good so far.--SGCM (talk)  19:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Both suggestions added. Bluerim (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, first paragraph done, now second and third paragraphs. -- JDC808  ♫  00:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Almost forgot, I made one small correction: "video game series" -> "video game franchise" -- JDC808  ♫  00:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And one tweak of my own as it avoid repetition and is technically true as we narrow the focus.
 * It's not really repetition, and "games" excludes any other media that have introduced characters. We can even just remove "with the franchise" and have it say "their status, featuring a host". -- JDC808  ♫  20:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't add anymore until tomorrow night as working. Bluerim (talk) 06:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion for the second paragraph (I've removed all references in these examples):


 * The first game in the series was God of War (2005), created by Santa Monica Studios', and the series continued with the sequels God of War II (2007), God of War: Betrayal (2007), God of War: Chains of Olympus (2008), God of War III (2010), God of War: Ghost of Sparta (2010), and the upcoming God of War: Ascension (2013). A 2010 six-issue God of War comic series also introduced new characters and plot developments.

Without going on about plot developments etc., this gives us all of the source material from which the characters come from. We don't need to worry about what defines the series in this paragraph, we just need to worry about where these characters come from.

Third paragraph (same with references):


 * God of War has become a highly lucrative franchise on account of the commercial and critical success of the series. Products include action figures (published by NECA and DC Unlimited), artwork, cell phone skins, clothing, food product, sweepstakes, and PSP and PS3 video game consoles. A novelization of the original God of War was released in 2010 with God of War II's novelization to be released in 2013 and a film adaptation has been in development since 2005. The character of Kratos received positive comments from reviewers, and was described as a "sympathetic antihero" by GameSpy. Game Guru said, "Practically anyone, even if they hadn't played any of the God of War games, would know about Kratos."

This paragraph gives us all of the merchandise that has spawned from the series, but is not source material for the story or the characters. If there was a merchandise section on this page, I would agree with you on removing the two action figures publishers and even just saying "video game consoles," but since we do not, it's okay to note the two publishers because the action figures weren't just Kratos. I suggest until we have a merchandise section, we can note the two publishers. -- JDC808  ♫  20:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Correction for first paragraph. Bluerim (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say instead of the group including, just put including. -- JDC808  ♫  02:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Second paragraph: reworded and still presents just the actual source material, not the franchise material that doesn't add any new characters. It is important to make that distinction.
 * But what you're not seeing is that although the novel is a "retelling" of the first game, it has characters that were not in the game (it may even have new ones, but I can't confirm as I haven't read it yet, I'll check online again). The second novel will surely follow suit, and the film is practically guaranteed as almost all film adaptations introduce some random new character(s). My biggest point is that these tell the story of God of War with all of its characters. These are all source material for the characters (of course every character is not in every game or adaptation, except Kratos and Athena). These aren't products per se, like the action figures. Products like the action figures do not tell the story or introduce new characters. -- JDC808   ♫  02:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The third has a revised opening as the current version is weak. The only real change is that film belongs here as it is a result of the success of the series, as are the other products listed. Bluerim (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I found that opening to be awkward. I've tweaked so it's less awkward. I'm not too crazy about the second paragraph opening either. I much prefer the copy-edited version currently on the page. -- JDC808  ♫  02:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Tweaked first again. If you can prove new characters are introduced in the novel and have a significant role, no problem. Bluerim (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, until proven (I'm gonna have to read it, online isn't being helpful), how about this: break away story telling material from non-story telling material in 3rd paragraph? -- JDC808  ♫  15:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, best cool your jets. Anyone can edit at any time, irrespective of when they edited last. True, but you made rather large changes. You also need to take note of what was changed as it was hardly ideal. Hardly ideal by who? Simple technical changes such as removing a highly repetitive phrase such as "The character was..." should be a non-issue. You just changed it to another repetitive phrase - "Voiced by..." The remainder is a necessary tidying up of some questionable language that shouldn't have been introduced. An example is the sloppy and colloquial phrasing in the King of Sparta entry. Sloppy and colloquial phrasing? Please enlighten me how it was so. All the information is still there. No it's not As to other entries, it was a simple removal of in-universe trivia and does not effect the outcome. Yes it does. What you claim as "in-universe trivia" is what the characters actually did as opposed to something that says absolutely nothing about their role and interaction with Kratos (e.g. King Midas and Peirithous) Remember, the entries need to read more like formal articles and less like fan sites. See end comment Again, not major changes. Yes they were I think you can live with these as they improve the article. I disagree, I think they lesson the article below where it should be Bluerim (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A couple editors have made point about your "fannish" claims and disagree with what you claim as fannish. A few have agreed for the addition of the information that you claim as "fannish." -- JDC808  ♫  04:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually have no idea what that last statement means. Really? It's pretty clear. As to your edits, this should be self-evident. I've told you time and again about the infobox What? When? There's not an infobox on this page. I mentioned the King of Sparta ("by way of a thank you"? In a Wikipedia article? That's not the quote, and you've clearly misread it) and of course there are the trivial mentions of character actions such as Midas (by that logic you have to mention how all the characters meet their end so the player as Kratos can advance, which is excessive detail and yep, rather fannish Again, no it's not and the others are mentioned and actually mention their role, and some don't have an "end" per se, so your logic is flawed). "No it's not" isn't an argument. Well when you're wrong about "all the information" still being there, "No, it's not" is fact Barring any further gems that other editors can add, I think the article is as good as it can be. Again, no it's not. It can be better and you're not letting it be because of your unjustified claims of "fannish trivial" info that no one else has agreed with you on (that's including the however many editors that commented in response to the RFC) Bluerim (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I will once again restore the page to before your return from your extended break as that's the rule of thumb. -- JDC808  ♫  03:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As you are missing the point on a few particulars and appear to be "reticent" (e.g. "no, it's not"'), the best thing to do is retain the version before the questionable editing. Others can then comment on the merit of your additions and we can resolve this.

Bluerim (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If anyone is missing points, it is you. There were Third Opinions and RFC's sought and practically all outside editors agreed with my implementations, but you strongly resisted community input and even questioned their writing abilities. I am not being reticent as I've explained myself. Others have commented on my additions and agreed that they should be added (which should have resolved this) and from that last sentence, it sounds like you're trying to own the page because apparently, only my contributions are to be questioned. The page has been restored again to before the most recent disagreements. -- JDC808  ♫  18:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is time for others to comment as you can't see the issues I've raised. The need to have the last word is a concern, given you couldn't leave the pre-edited version in place or just take the moderator's warning for what it was. Also, please do not adjust my signature again or make silly comments in Edit Summaries re: this.

Bluerim (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The issues you raised are the same issues from past RFCs and Third Opinions (which no one agreed with, or at least fully agreed with you). There's a difference between having the last word and explaining myself, which is what I did to that warning. As per signature, I wouldn't have to adjust your signature's placement if you knew where to sign (I've explained this two or three times to you). Otherwise, your sig is, for one, not with your post, and two, it throws off the flow of text from one post to the next. I mean, look at how your sig is all the way on the left, it makes no sense for it to be like that. Also, what "silly comment" were you referring? If it's the ES about your sig, that's fact. -- JDC808  ♫  06:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Outside comments/opinions
Seeking outside comments/opinions as me and Bluerim are still in disagreement over sections of the article. Similar to the layout under "RFC on some issues," the points are listed with a description of the disagreement.

Lead


 * The lead currently on the page (1) I am, for the most part, okay with. The only thing I would really like to change, and I've addressed this many times to Bluerim, is to move the novels and film to the second paragraph as they're story telling material, but if the outside opinion thinks the current placement is fine, I'll be okay with that.


 * Bluerim thinks that because they're a "retelling" of the games, they should go in the third paragraph, despite the fact that they add more story not present in the games and despite the fact they actually tell the story of God of War as opposed to something like an action figure.


 * I would also like to make note that other outside opinions have been given and they agreed with me on this point.


 * What's your opinion?
 * Well, I don't see anything wrong with including the novels in the second paragraph, novelisations do often include additions to the story, ala Star Wars. I can't see its inclusion in the second paragraph being detrimental to the article.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 19:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong either. Everything that adds story should be put together, and if the second paragraph is designed to achieve this, then they may go there. — ΛΧΣ  21™  08:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Revised minus a few unnecessary phrases. Bluerim (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Concept and creation section


 * This is about the image's caption. I don't know why this is an issue, but Bluerim wants to make it "Developmental differences: Hades in God of War (left) and God of War II and God of War III (right)." Note the colon. I changed it to "Developmental differences of Hades in God of War (left) and God of War II and God of War III (right)." as I think it reads better to have "of" instead of a colon.


 * So the question is, use the "colon" or use "of"?


 * Quick comment on this one: I think it should be "Developmental differences of Hades in (from left) God of War, God of War II, God of War III" You shouldn't have a period because it's not a complete sentence, and you shouldn't need to specify positions twice.  I don't know if of is the best word, perhaps something like between, among, or in instead, but I'd favor a word over a colon. —Torchiest talkedits 18:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Between would be fine. The positions are to clarify which game that each half of the image belongs to, as there's three games listed, but only two halves to the image (here) . -- JDC808  ♫  18:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ach, you're right. In that case, it could be written "Developmental differences between Hades in God of War (left) and God of War II and God of War III". —Torchiest talkedits 13:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. -- JDC808  ♫  14:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with above. Using colons breaks the sentence and it is designed to be read with a flow. — ΛΧΣ  21™  08:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Olympian gods section


 * For the goddess Aphrodite, Bluerim only wants to make her description "The Goddess of Love and wife of Hephaestus. Aphrodite helps Kratos by empowering the head of the slain Medusa, and later offers advice regarding the architect Daedalus and directs Kratos to her estranged husband, Hephaestus." (Note I didn't include voice actresses and won't with all other characters here.)


 * I think it should be "The Goddess of Love and Sexuality, and wife of Hephaestus. Aphrodite helps Kratos by empowering the head of the slain Medusa, and later offers advice regarding the architect Daedalus and directs Kratos to her estranged husband, Hephaestus. Indifferent to Kratos' war on Olympus, she seduces Kratos and is the only Olympian spared by the Spartan in God of War III." I believe that this description better illustrates that she's the goddess of sexuality and since Kratos kills every god in God of War III except her, it makes since to mention that.


 * Bluerims thinks this little bit of extra info is too trivial and fannish.


 * Other outside opinions have agreed with me.


 * What are your opinions?
 * I think the important thing is to provide all the essential information without giving excess detail. I don't think that one additional sentence is excessive.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 18:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The gist is fine with me. Bluerim (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're leaving out a key point. -- JDC808  ♫  20:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Titans section


 * First off, I think that it should be mentioned that the characters Epimetheus and Oceanus were defeated by Poseidon and Hades respectively. It had once said "Repelled by Poseidon" for Epimetheus and "Repelled by Hades" for Oceanus and I am completely okay with that. For whatever reason, probably because they were deemed "too trivial" despite that this is what happens to them, these mentions were removed.


 * This wasn't an issue before, so there aren't previous outside opinions on this issue.


 * What are you opinions?
 * I'd be satisfied with that.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 18:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Too much is implied. "Participates" is enough. This is no biggie. Bluerim (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No it's not. How is too much implied? It stating they were repelled as in they were pushed back or whatever. It doesn't state so and so god killed them. It is obviously seen in the game that they were repelled by the two gods. You're right that this "is no biggie" so I don't know why you have an issue with it. -- JDC808  ♫  20:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Used of the term "failed" solves this nicely. Bluerim (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it doesn't. There was a past discussion on this very issue as seen here. Consensus was "repelled by Poseidon" and "Hades". -- JDC808  ♫  22:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Next part is for the character Polyphemus. Bluerim only wants to make his description this, "a cyclops and son of Poseidon, Polyphemus appears in the upcoming God of War: Ascension in a multiplayer feature in a battle between Sparta and Troy."


 * I think it should be this "The Titan cyclops and son of Poseidon—although not a Titan in Greek mythology. Polyphemus will appear in the upcoming game, God of War: Ascension, as the boss of the multiplayer desert map in a battle between Sparta and Troy. The teams battle to kill the Titan with the Spear of Olympus." I think this is an overall better description and more informative.


 * Bluerims thinks the additional info is too trivial and fannish.


 * Previous outside opinions have agreed with me.


 * Your opinions?
 * I think it could be trimmed a bit, but not entirely removed, since it seems to be rather important to gameplay in GoW: Ascension.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 18:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Trimmed a tad? Done. Bluerim (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You trimmed a little much. -- JDC808  ♫  20:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Mythological characters section


 * With the character Gyges (and all comic book characters), Bluerim wants to only make note that they're from the comics by putting "comics" in parenthesis at the start of their description. (e.g. "Gyges - (comics) One of the three....")


 * I think that for the comic book characters, it should state "featured in the God of War comics [issue #]" (e.g. "Gyges - Featured in the God of War comics #4, #5, and #6, he is one of the three...") Some of the non-speaking video game characters state that they're featured in whichever game and don't resort to parenthesis to indicate which game they're from.


 * Previous outside opinion has agreed with me.
 * Who? Bluerim (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The people who responded to the multiple RFCs and Third Opinions (which you took part in) that I requested, including this one. -- JDC808  ♫  20:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Your opinions?
 * That seems perfectly fine to me, doesn't seem to be excessive. -- Tærkast (Discuss) 18:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, too in-universe. Hence the mention of the comics series in brackets. Bluerim (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not too in-universe. The parenthesis makes no sense. If it's too in-universe to say which comics these characters appeared in, then it's too in-universe to say which games the characters appeared in. How is it too in-universe, by the way? -- JDC808  ♫  20:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * With the character King Midas, Bluerim only wants to make his description this "A king whose touch will turn anything to gold. Midas is grief-stricken as he accidentally turns his daughter to gold." This says absolutely nothing about his role in the game or how he interacted with Kratos.


 * I think it should be something more like this "A king whose touch will turn anything to gold. Grief-stricken as he accidentally turns his daughter to gold, Kratos encounters Midas in the mountains where he witnesses the hallucinating king burn off his hand in lava. The Spartan kills Midas by throwing him into a lava river—turning it to gold—creating a passage for Kratos." This summarizes his role and interaction with Kratos nicely.


 * Bluerims thinks the additional info is too trivial and fannish.


 * Again, previous outside opinions have agreed with me.


 * Opinions?


 * There's a similar situation with the character Peirithous. Again, Bluerim wants to remove information regarding the character's role and interaction with Kratos. He thinks the description should be, "A prisoner of the Underworld who possesses the "Bow of Apollo" and is in love with Persephone." This doesn't say anything about his role or interaction with Kratos.


 * I think it should be something more like this, "A prisoner of the Underworld who possesses the "Bow of Apollo" and is in love with Persephone. He offers his bow to Kratos in exchange for freedom, however, the Spartan ignores the offer, kills Peirithous, and takes the bow."


 * Bluerims thinks the additional info is too trivial and fannish.


 * Again, previous outside opinions have agreed with me.
 * Who? Bluerim (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Same as above. -- JDC808  ♫  20:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Opinions?
 * Micro-detail and unnecessary. Just as we don't cite everything Kratos has done to "clear the way" to the next stage of the game, we don't do it here. Bluerim (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What you don't understand is one, it's not citing everything (thus not being micro-detail or unnecessary), and two, and I've stated this I don't know how many times now, what you're putting says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about their role in the games. Please tell me how a reader will understand King Midas' role by reading "A king whose touch will turn anything to gold. Grief-stricken as he accidentally turned his daughter to gold." Same for Peirithous. -- JDC808  ♫  20:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, what is there is sufficient and conveys the gist. Why is this even an issue? You wish to place extraneous story material that could be applied to almost every character in every game and it is simply unnecessary. Bluerim (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You failed to answer my question, so I'll ask again. How can a reader determine Midas' role by reading "A king whose touch will turn anything to gold. Grief stricken as he accidentally turned his daughter to gold."? How does this describe his role? This is only an issue because you have an issue with the added information that actually says his (and Peirithous') role. This was never an issue until you came along and decided it was unnecessary. This extra info that you keep insisting on removing is not "extraneous story material," it's his role. How many times do I have to explain it? -- JDC808  ♫  22:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You put in your edit summary on the article that I'm the only one who seems to have issues. Well, apparently you do too because you keep reverting without consensus building, and you keep reverting despite what others have had to say. You also claimed "minus weak terms" but the funny thing is, there are more issues with what you're putting than there are with mine. For example, the descriptions should have a nice flow to them. To have the character description and then have the next to last sentence state "killed by Kratos," there's no flow to that. Even more so with the issue of "The character was voiced by" vs "Voiced by." Using "Voiced by," there's again, no flow to the prose. It's jagged and doesn't read well. Another example is this sentence for Calliope: "As an infant stricken with the plague and to be killed due to Sparta's law." Do you not see the issue with this sentence? It's incomplete. Another example is this sentence for Lysandra: "With Calliope in Kratos' psyche, and forgives himself for his crime." -- JDC808  ♫  22:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In your edit summary on the Talk page, you put "Please take note." To be honest, you need to take note. The fact of the matter is, this request for outside opinions wouldn't even be happening if you would have just listened to the previous outside opinions. Just about all, if not all, of the previous outside opinions, and even ones in this request, have agreed with my points but you couldn't accept that and challenged their opinions which is why we're here still arguing over these issues which have been going on for the past few months, it's ridiculous. -- JDC808  ♫  22:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, please answer all of my responses. It's really annoying and does not help at all when you pick and choose where you'll respond. That's including the previous ones you've yet to respond to. -- JDC808  ♫  22:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Minor characters section


 * With the character Cereyon, Bluerim only wants to state this, "the champion of Helios. Cereyon is killed by Kratos during the quest for the Ambrosia."


 * I think it should state this, "Featured in the God of War comics #4, he is the fiery champion of Helios. Although never revealing his intent for finding the Ambrosia, he fights Kratos, but is drowned by the Spartan." Here, we get more information on this character.


 * Bluerims thinks the additional info is too trivial and fannish.


 * Previous outside opinions has agreed with me.


 * Opinions on what to do?


 * For the Narrator, Bluerim only wants to state who her voice actress is and nothing else.


 * I believe that it should state that she does not narrate God of War: Betrayal and only provides an introduction narration for God of War III, because without this info, readers may think she narrates every game, which is not true.


 * Bluerims thinks the additional info is too trivial and fannish.


 * Previous outside opinions have agreed with me.


 * Opinions?
 * Some is in, some is out. Bluerim (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a reson this discussion began in the first place. It wasn't made so you can decide what's in and what's out. -- JDC808  ♫  20:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

.Other
 * The format of the characters names (bold or italics, or something else?). This was not discussed and Bluerim decided to implement the italics for the names because one editor said he thinks it's unnecessary. The original was bold, unitalicized names, which I think is much easier to read. Like I said, Bluerim changed them to italics, and I asked for discussion on it, which he did not do.


 * What are your opinions? Italics, bold, other?


 * Another note, throughout the article, for each character that has a voice actor/actress, it states "The character was voiced by..." Bluerim wants to change this to simply "Voiced by..." I don't think this fits very well for prose descriptions.


 * Opinions?
 * We avoid repetition as much as possible. Bluerim (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Either way ("The character was" or "Voiced by"), it's gonna be repetitive. The thing about "Voiced by" is that it stops the flow of the prose for the descriptions. -- JDC808  ♫  20:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Remarks

One thing that annoys me is that I've had two RFC's requested and two Third Opinions sought and (with the exception of the first RFC as no one responded to it) practically all outside editors agreed with me on just about every point, if not every point. One of them brought a compromise for the lead and I liked it, but Bluerim did not. Despite all of these outside editors (I believe there were 4 total, maybe 5) agreeing with me, Bluerim strongly resisted their opinion and even questioned their writing abilities. Bluerim claimed things were "fannish". A previous outside opinion said he didn't see it being "fannish" and non of the others have even mentioned it looking or reading "fannish." -- JDC808  ♫  18:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The title is "Outside Comments", so I'd refrain from offering a personal opinion about how you feel. That's not relevant here.

Bluerim (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it is relevant, because it explains that I've had to do this multiple times, but to no avail. -- JDC808  ♫  14:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. POV.

Bluerim (talk) 06:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Only POV is "annoys me" and "I liked it," the rest is fact for which links can be provided if necessary. Instead of arguing on about relevance and POV, let's just stop it here and let other editors provide their opinions to the above points. -- JDC808  ♫  07:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Comment We must remember that we need to avoid excessive detail, any crucial and relevant detail should be included, but as concise as possible.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 18:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Per this comment, particularly with reference to fannish excess (e.g. Midas). What's there conveys the gist. Bluerim (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You ignore my responses to make this one post? I had a question about Midas. This post does not answer it. -- JDC808  ♫  10:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

More comment
It occurs to me that the mention of comic issues can be solved by adding a footnote. That is acceptable and the preferred method. Bluerim (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * First off, this should have been added to the other discussion as this separates the discussion. I've moved it accordingly. As per comics, what I've argued for is an easy solution. Why make it a footnote? The video game characters state which game they're from, how is what I've been arguing for any different? Who or what policy says it's the preferred method? -- JDC808  ♫  05:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a tidy method used in all comic articles. You're actually almost there with the footonotes anyway. All that needs to be added is the issue and date. It is less clunky.

Bluerim (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, for one, this isn't a comic article, and two, what are you referring by the footnotes? The sources being used? Again, how is this any different from the video game characters? -- JDC808  ♫  00:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

As to the Titans, what more can be said? It was a failed assault. We saw some gods attacking Titans but don't know who did what to whom other than Poseidon and Helios. Bluerim (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As per Titans, I've already linked the previous discussion and its consensus. "Failed assault" was ruled out. "Repelled by" was chosen as it is clearly seen that Poseidon dive bombs Epimetheus and knocks him off the mountain (from which a whirlpool forms where he fell and he's not seen again). Although Hades isn't as elaborate or exciting, when Kratos is on a cliff, in the background, it shows Hades pull Oceanus off the mountain and jump down after him (he is also not seen again, but Hades is as Kratos fights him later on). -- JDC808  ♫  05:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know about "ruled out". Something like "X battles Y in the failed assault" seems to be a happy compromise.

Bluerim (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There was already consensus on this issue. "Failed assault" was not accepted because there are issues with that statement. Why is this still an issue? I've linked you what the consensus was on this issue. You're basically arguing the same point that Thebladesofchaos (or rather Asgardian) was arguing then. -- JDC808  ♫  00:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

On Midas, still can't agree with that one. What is there is actually factual info about the character. A minor action is not important - after all, are such things mentioned for all characters in all games? No. Bluerim (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You have still yet to answer my question. How can a reader determine Midas' role by reading "A king whose touch will turn anything to gold. Grief stricken as he accidentally turned his daughter to gold."? How does this describe his role? The other characters (besides what you want to put for Midas and Peirithous) mention their roles, at least for the most part. What you're essentially putting is that he can turn things to gold and is very sad, That's the state of the character (and his magical ability), but not his role. The other stuff, as it pertains to the game, is factual info as well, btw. -- JDC808  ♫  05:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The statement provides Midas' status. As with all minor characters, we don't include irrelevant information on the technical advancement they offer in the game as it isn't noteworthy. By that logic the article would be full of trivia about how each foe is killed and a wall is smashed, a tree bough drops etc so Kratos can progress. Have a think about that one.

Bluerim (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that I'm just not going to get an answer from you, because frankly, you can't answer it because as I've mentioned countless times, what you're putting says nothing about his role.
 * As per "my logic," characters deaths would be, and are, mentioned as that's part of the characters role; it's what happens to them. As for everything else you mentioned, it wouldn't happen. By your logic, every minor character would be one small sentence and every major character maybe four sentences tops. Every Featured List character page I've seen have a paragraph about the character and more so about the major characters.
 * Please link to me a policy that states what you've claimed of "As with all minor characters, we don't include irrelevant information." How did you determine his role is irrelevant information? How do you determine all of these claims with no policies to back them up? Why are we still arguing this anyways? The majority, if not all of the outside editors had no problem with the added info. Why do you resist the community input? All of theses issues would have already been solved by now if it wasn't for that. -- JDC808  ♫  00:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

And just so everyone's aware, Bluerim is the subject of an RFC. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Characters of God of War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ign.com/articles/2007/02/12/god-of-war-ii-review?page=3
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/god-of-war-ii/reviews/god-of-war-ii-review-6167249/?page=2
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ign.com/articles/2010/03/08/god-of-war-iii-review?page=3
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ign.com/articles/2010/03/08/god-of-war-iii-review?page=2
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ign.com/articles/2008/02/18/god-of-war-chains-of-olympus-review?page=3
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ign.com/articles/2010/10/25/god-of-war-ghost-of-sparta-review?page=2
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6IknTb7vR?url=http://www.mobygames.com/game/ps3/god-of-war-iii/credits to http://www.mobygames.com/game/ps3/god-of-war-iii/credits

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Removed material
Review from 'Gamezone' and 'GameTrailers' removed from second para 'Reception' - reason = amateur reviews, fail WP:RS:

"GameZone stated that the game's sound is '[p]resented like a big-budget movie. The voice acting is believable to the point where you forget it's a video game you're watching.' GameTrailers called the voice acting sharp."

Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Both of those are considered reliable sources, unless it's random user/blog content that can be written by anyone who registers. Is that the case here? Sergecross73   msg me   15:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Who considers them reliable sources? jkdmedia/Gamezone appears professionally-written but the author is not named - just a pseud is given. The GameTrailers review is unprofessionally formatted as a wall of text and no author is credited, suggesting a lack of editorial control. Would a pro write this way? It seems that anyone can join these sites and upload reviews. I think you should consider this, and what these reviews may add to the article (very little IMO), and act accordingly. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As per GameTrailers, the wall of text is word-for-word what was said in the video review. I don't know why they didn't at least format it better, but that's what it is. -- JDC808  ♫  02:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, I think these reviews add very little, and IMO there are enough reliable reviews already in the 'Reception' section. I've given you my opinion; if you feel those websites are reliable sources, go ahead and use the reviews. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing with you, I was just letting you know. -- JDC808  ♫  03:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries; good luck with the GA nomination. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record, there's consensus at Wikiproject Video Games that both sources are useable if contributed by editors and not random users. Check out WP:VG/RS. That being said, I haven't checked the actual articles or the content at hand, and have no opinion one way or another if they should be used here - I'm just explaining my original comment; the articles are technically useable, in theory, if written by website staff. Sergecross73  msg me   17:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)