Talk:Fayt Leingod

Name...
"His name is an obvious pun on the word Fate. His surname means "bowing to God" keeping inline with the relioug overtones and names."

Do we really need this? His name is Fate in the Japanese version...


 * Yeah, that needs to be changed. His name originally was Fate in the JP version of the game, and the developers said in an interview that his name ha no specific hidden meanings or relations to the plot.--Claude 20:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Biasing
This article contains information on a small topic. Since this is a small topic and such event happens, then a trend should be considered under trivia, no matter what name you call it. You're spinning the article by removing the truths you don't like. --70.153.178.187 17:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It'd be nice if you could prove that there's actually a trend. One forum does not a trend make. 209.174.156.193 17:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

One forum? What about a game, a forum, and various artwork? I'd say that's a trend, if not a small one. --74.226.175.123 19:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This article contains facts on a character, not opinions or trends. You do not seem to understand this. A small "trend" on an unknown bash site is not a fact nor is it important enough to be contributed to a character's page. Two people spreading pictures and links is not really a trend to begin with. Not only that, but an anti-Star Ocean website is not only inappropriate, it goes against wikipedia's policy of neutrality. If you do not cease spamming the page, you will be reported. You have been warned.--Claude 05:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality
Truths are truths. When you insert this fact in there, it is a truth. This page is not being spammed saying, HE SUCKS or anything like that, or cardstacking against him, but just merely contains a truth. This isn't against neutrality, because this is a small thing with a trend, and that trend should be noted because the topic at hand is small.

BTW, ClaudeLV250 is one of the people who opposed against the small trend and posted the site of it to be made fun of on GameFAQs. It's not against neutrality, he just doesn't like the trend. --74.226.175.175 01:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Erm, no, I made a thread about it because it was moronic and still is. I never have liked bash sites and never will. And no, saying that one character owns another is not fact. Not even close. I'm not sure if you realize this or if you're just acting ignorant because you can't accept the fact that it doesn't belong here, because it's quite obvious that facts taken from the game such as the character's biography, and a "trend" spread by 5 people on an unknown board bashign the game and the character don't go together.--Claude 05:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Having taken a far deeper look at the source of this "trend", I must come in on the side of Claude. It's limited to such a small scope that it doesn't deserve to be mentioned even in passing. Due to its insignificant size and bashing nature, the ones that keep editing the "trivia" in are probably among the tiny group that reside on that forum. A "bashing trend" is truly only worth mentioning if it has some form of significant impact, which quite frankly this one does not. It's not even small, as I'd first believed: it's miniscule. Duayne L. 02:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Is this not a miniscule topic though? Therefor, should it not be mentioned? If such is your belief of the edit, then why don't you go see if they are?


 * This topic is no more miniscule than any other on a fictional character. Having already seen this so-called "trend" is far, far more insignificant than I had originally -- and mistakenly -- thought, I can only assume you are insinuating I'm a liar by telling me I should go see. Duayne L. 23:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The thing is under trivia. When you google search the character's name and that site comes up as either the first or one of the first results, then it is something worth mentioning. And this isn't based off if the trend is based off the fad or not, it's based off if it is existent or not. This doesn't compromise neutrality, and throwing insults won't help you.


 * This isn't based off of existence, or else it would open a floodgate of nonsense pertaining to Fayt or the game that isn't necessarily relvant nor contributing to his status in the game, but there simply because it exists. It is not large enough to be considered a trend and it is not relevant enough to be included on this page. To top it off, it also goes against the neautrality policy, and even then it was already inappropriate to begin with. The page as it is will be expanded to include a skill table and possibly even strategies. Two people hating a fictional character is not improtant or relevant enough to insert under trivia, which pertains to facts taken from canon material which are not horribly biased.--Claude 22:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that the size of your little movement isn't large enough to bother mentioning in Wikipedia, but trying to continually get it placed on a page isn't exactly going to help you. There is no "trend", as a trend would imply it is spread out across quite a few relatively popular sites, not an extremely small number of nigh unknown sites. What you're doing is tantamount to advertising your "movement" and does compromise the neutrality of this site, despite how fervently you believe it doesn't. Duayne L. 23:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You guys are ridiculous. If one wanted to advertise it they would with links and such, but here is just a little mention of it. If you're so obsessed with this however, then you should go through and clean up all the wikipedia articles with a forum link to forums less than a quarter of the size of this one. You don't seem to mind those though.


 * If you could point out some examples, I'd be very happy to go and change them. ^_^ Duayne L. 12:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not changing the neutrality, it's mentioning that there is a movement. Now, what's so bad about one little trivia at the very bottom of the page, that doesn't even contain a link?--Kafeithekeaton 05:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Two people don't make a "movement," it's not relevant trivia, it's against neutrality, etc. Basically, it don't belong here. Dismissed.--Claude 06:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The "trivia" is not relevant due to the so-called "movement's" insignificant size. It's not big enough to be either a movement or trend or fad or anything. It adds nothing except an advertisement of a small group. Duayne L. 12:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's more than two people. Stop spinning the issue. If you want to dismiss it, then stop fooling with the page section. It does not advertise a group, it does not give out information about how to reach them or the such. It merely says they exist. Is saying that Game Maker exists advertising? Is saying that Fire Emblem exists advertising it? I think not. Although this trend is not big, this issue at hand is not big. Not at all. --Kafeithekeaton 22:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Something simply existing does not warrant an entry for it on this page, or else there would be even more tripe to go along with it under the trivia section. A bashing community is not important nor directly relevant to Fayt's character in the game. And you're right, this issue isn't that big. Even more reason why it doesn't belong here.--Claude 02:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * According to your words then, this article should be deleted, because it isn't that big. This is a trivia, and it remains a trivia. It is true, and it is not being added simply because it exists. Also, is not that community the largest Fayt Leingod community out there?--67.33.105.23 02:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, no, try to not get it twisted in a poor attempt. A page covering them ain character of a video game is certainly a lot "bigger" than 2 people that are starting somethign that isn't even big enough to be labeled a "trend" against that character. The actual trivia is canonical and pertains to the character directly from related source. A bash site is not, nor is it trivia: it's spam. Deal with it, and stop trying to advertise.--Claude 03:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, if you want your claims to be sufficient for removing it, PROVE that it's just two people. It's not, you're spinning the issue and therefor biasing the subject. Your bias leaks there. The trivia is trivia. The character has a trend about them, and that is trivia about the character. It is fact, removing it is bias of the facts, because, unlike what you said, it's more than two people. --Kafeithekeaton 03:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well first, I don't have to "prove" anything because it's already against the rules and doesn't belong here. Even if it wasn't formed by two people, it still doesn't belong here. The subject itself reeks of bias which is exactly why it's against the Neutrality policy (which has been so kindly ignored by the other spammers). Not only that, it's not even important enough to be here in the first place. It contributes nothing to the overall character. Get over it.--Claude 07:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not against the rules. It doesn't deneutralize the subject, because this is not a controversial subject. Removing it does deneutralize the subject though, because you are removing fact do to your personal set of beliefs. There is nothing against the rules with adding such thing, and it does contribute fact to the article. Get over it.--Kafeithekeaton 16:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, no, it's advertising an anti-SO3 site which is born through personal beliefs to begin with. It doesn't have to be controversial to be against neutrality. It just has to be against neutrality. We have facts and statistics regarding the character on the page. Then we get "trivia" about a "trend" against the character because people don't like him. What that has to do with anything is still up in the air, let alone Lloyd Irving having absolutely no connection to the character whatsoever. The board and its "trend" bashes the character and the game from which he exists in. That is biased. Fayt donning a Claude Kenni costume, is not biased. Advertising a website that bashes the character is not allowed. Advertising a "trend" by two that bashes the character is not allowed. Everything in the world that exists, does not go under Trivia. Wikipedia is for providing non-biased information. Learn this, and get over it.--Claude 02:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If it's advertising, where's the link to it? I see no link to the group, I just see a mention of it. Mentioning something exists is not biased. There is no advertising of a website that I see, there is merely a mention that a group exists.

You're painting this a different color than what it is. This does not skew the article, it is trivia. Get over it. --Kafeithekeaton 20:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You're just mad because you can't advertise it here. Get over it.--Claude 23:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, it's not advertising. You've made no valid points against not keeping it. Therefor, you have no right to remove it. --Kafeithekeaton 23:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I did. It's against Neutrality. That says enough right there.--Claude 05:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You failed to prove your point, and your arguements have been shattered on that earlier. Leave it there.--70.153.162.123 03:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You're the one who stopped debating on your side. Don't make me laugh. --Kafeithekeaton 21:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Erm, if you think "lol its not against neutrality" is "shattering" an argument then no wonder you don't have the common sense to realize it doesn't belong here. For the most part, the issue of Neutrality has been avoided and I've never been given an answer for why it's not against it (let alone a decent response for why it belongs here in the first place, and "because it exists" is an extremely fallicious one, which was, as you say, "shattered" multiple times already). My points been proven multiple times. You've yet to do yours any justice. You'll have to do more than claim false victory to actually "win."--Claude 07:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, they haven't. You haven't held up your side, you stop defending it, because there is nothing to guard. You haven't proven anything. Also, to add, how is it against neutrality then? I'm saying its not, prove its against it by saying it exists. I'm not saying it should be there because it exists, I say it should be added because this small topic has group attached to it. --Kafeithekeaton 21:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I stopped "defending" it because there was nothing left to say. When all you get is "no it's not, lol we win" as a response then you know the other party has failed. I've already set the table. You can pretend that it's not there, but it is. It stopped being an argument and turned into a case of not being able to accept reality when clowns come in and start claiming false victory because they can't actually argue their points.


 * It's been said before, and I'm going to say it again: This "trend" is not canon nor is it relevant to the character. This entire article is based on factual evidence taken from canon material regarding the character (i.e., the game) and not just stating random things from message boards. This article might be what you call "small" but that doesn't make something like a "trend" on a message board that no one's heard of, that doesn't even have a corresponding fansite, eligible as an important fact about a fictional character. The board itself isn't even eligible for an article; how on Earth is a "trend" held up by two people on it any more eligible? And Neutrality? It's a "trend" slamming the character, from a message board dedicated to slamming the character, on a neutral page. So to recap, there are already 3 points against it, and more can be made:


 * It is not canon material.
 * Trends do not belong here, especially when the board itself isn't even eligible for a wiki article.
 * The "trend" and it's origins are not neutral.
 * Need I say more?--Claude 03:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

--Kafeithekeaton 21:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Never said it the way you put it. Stop using the smear tactics. This is not just some random thing from a message board, it has more to it. ALso, I believe you said it wasn't a "trend", so therefor, it might as well go here. The board is not linked to either, and this is a small article that no one has heard of. Mentioning the trend does not deneutralize the subject at hand, it just mentions it was there. Otherwise, saying Nixon had Watergate is smearing because it's negative.


 * Wrong. It's not a trend. Two people spreading it doesn't make it one. It not being a trend doesn't make it belongs here either. That's just flat out idiocy. Please, don't complain about the "smear" BS if you're going to sit here and go "well lol j00 didnt say it was this so it goes hear!1" It doesn't belong here. Period. And if you're going to slap non-canonical information on here, you could at leatys back up where it came from: an anti-Star Ocean message board, which neither the "trend" or it's origins qualify to be here.--Claude 23:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleting Sections of the Article
If you want to make major changes and remove parts of the article, do it here. Don't delete 80% because you "don't think this is the right site for it." Respect the people that work on this page and at least consult them. I spent 2 days of writing and research on the battle performance section, after announcing weeks before that I would be adding it to the article, only for someone to stroll in and decide that it needs to be gone in the matter of 5 seconds. There are other character pages with similar indepth information on the character, some even moreso than this one, so there's really no reason that Fayt should be singled out and have the section removed when the article is here to provide as much relevant inormation on the character as possible.--Claude 04:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The section on obtaining the two best skills should definatley be removed as it reads like a gamefaqs guide or something.


 * It should probably just be redone more completely and accurately, because right now it sounds like a child wrote it and is more concerned with what you find on the way than how you actually obtain the two battle skills.--Claude 23:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the battle skill section needs to be seriously trimmed, while the analysis section can probably be expanded. I appreciate the work you did on this article and the battle skill section in particular, but I have to say that pages with such expounded detail are virtually impossible to find because they get edited. I've seen many character biography pages and I think that we need to speak in more general terms about strengths, weaknesses, and skills here while expounding on the typical biographical details that this page really lacks. We have two shorts paragraphs, about ten sentences, on the character's background, with two pages on skills and stats. The two previous games in the Star Ocean series don't even have split character articles, let alone skill lists, and as it currently exists this article barely justifies its stand-alone status; appropriate content could be merged back into the main article using a single paragraph. -- Tsunade 02:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Analysis was that way since the page was created. I have no idea if whoever wrote it intended on expanding it, but someone did eventually. That doesn't mean that the battle section should be ripped apart, it just means that the analysis needs to be elaborated upon. The same goes for other Star Ocean character's not having pages; it doesn't mean the ones that do need to have their pages taken away, it means the ones that don't have been long overdo for one.--Claude 20:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm hugely sorry for being oblivious of this discussion here when I removed a part of the article that is in my eyes way to crufty. Although I still do not think the information belongs here, I'll use another way of expressing this concern. Please understand, I'm trying to improve this article's legibility. As per WP:CVG 'Computer and video games article guidelines': 'if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable. Keep in mind that video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers; remember the bigger picture.'. Thanks. -- Bakabaka 14:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)