Talk:God of War (DC Comics)

Plot Synopsis
I'm working on a summery for Issue #5 to go along with the plots for the previous 4 issues I found (they were under CC-BY-SA 3.0) If anyone can update it before I get to it, feel free. Jagmastercd60ce (talk) 3:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As per the reasons in the Edit Summary, at least 95% of that material was unsuitable. We also shouldn't lift material from other sites. 125.7.71.6 (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The Edit Summary says nothing about the in depth plot of each comic. Readers only know this page is about God of War comics, and nothing else. As for material from other sites, Wikipedias guidelines state that articles under public domain may be directly copied. The article I copied from the God of War Wiki was under Creative Commons, granting me the ability to copy, distribute and transmit the work. The new Plot section is less specific and detailed than the previous one. Jagmastercd60ce (talk) 2:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.5.108.193 (talk)

I have re-edited the Plot section to show a summary for all six issues, for a small paragraph that was there is just too short to explain the happenings in six comics (I did keep that paragraph though at the beginning as an overview). I have, however, shortened them, as beforehand, the copies from the God of War Wiki were just too long for Wikipedia standards. The version their now is suiting, though it may need some minor tweaks (e.g. grammar, rewording of a sentence, etc.) JDC808 (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, the paragraph there is way too short for a summary of six comics. Even when the sixth issue comes out and there's a rewrite of it, it will still be too short. The best solution is having a summary for each comic, and there is nothing wrong with that. Thebladesofchaos, you cannot claim what we will and won't do as you did in your edit summary saying "no issue by issue retells". It was also a bit uncivil to go and say my edit was "woeful". Remember, you, nor anyone, do not own these pages. JDC808 (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to direct you to the Resistance comics page as it does a issue-by-issue telling and no one has had any problems with it, although I personally think #6 is a bit long, but that's beside the point. JDC808 (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have reworked the section so it is clearer and still succinct. More to come. Note though, that we don't do the blow by blow recaps as not a fan site. If it has been done somewhere else then that too needs to be rewritten. Sorry. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We're going to do this one of two ways. Either issue by issue like Jagmastercd60ce originally started and I revised as his was too long. Or we will go off of this minimalistic version that you keep wanting, which doesn't give much information at all as said before, it's too short. You also made it as if there are seven champions. I'm also going to take the liberty and lift the characters I had added to the God of War characters page and put them here because you got upset that they're not part of the games, although they do tie in. JDC808 (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Heh. It isn't a case of anyone being "upset", but rather what fits and what doesn't. The summary is increasing in size without any of the unnecessary exposition (e.g. "Kratos turned and drove his blades into the beast") as that is fannish and micro-detail. We could always add who reanimated Nikos and his men (Hades?). The PH also shouldn't read like a list and we don't list characters for comic summaries. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And apparently leaving out a chunk of information is fitting? There wasn't micro detail like you're example above, now before hand with the exact copies from the God of War Wiki there was. The PH works much better as a list whereas right now, it's annoying on the eyes to read (some things work better as lists). And yes, characters can be added on comic pages. Look here for example, Stormwatch: Team Achilles, this is a very well done comic book page and DOES have a character section.


 * I'm also seeing signs of ownership as you're going about this as you're version is the only correct version and what you say goes. JDC808 (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There has been a small correction, with the link for what Alrik is retained. As to PH, that's how they are listed normally. As to the list, it is unnecessary as characters are all mentioned in the Plot (with links if available). In the case of the champions, there's really nothing more that can be added. And yes, there was plenty of micro-detail in the old version (e.g. Kratos and his men were in need of rest, though Kratos wanted to move on. Further down the cave, Artemis's champion, Pothia, the leader of an Amazonian tribe called the Warriors of the Hunt, heard Kratos and his men and Back in the cave...etc. etc.) and more than a few errors (e.g. A he begins to depart, however, the trees around him swarm up in flames as Helios' champion appears to take the ambrosia and In the present time, Kratos regains his strength and rips the corpse of Captain Nikos in half, thus distinguishing the other corpses.)

It is not about ownership, but rather trying to keep the articles at an acceptable standard. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Acceptable standard? Your standards aren't the only acceptable standards on Wikipedia. Read around, there's a lot of Good Rated articles on here that go beyond your "acceptable standard". That micro-detail you claimed is explanation to that particular issue it was on (and if it's too micro-detailed, it can be fixed) and the errors, first off where exactly are the errors (besides the typo "A" which should of been "As")? Also, if there are errors, they can be easily fixed. That's why Wikipedia is a collaborative place; if someone adds something useful but has errors, someone can come in and fix the errors without taking away the useful information.
 * In regards to the PH, where exactly are they listed normally like that?
 * Yes, the characters are mentioned in the Plot, but very little, which is why there are character sections.
 * How about we compromise. We'll keep the PH like how you have it and we'll keep the Plot as is (with the exception of needing expanded when #6 releases), but lets flesh out the article a little bit with a character section, and lets find some reviews and give it a reception section? JDC808 (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, there has been a great deal of compromising. I've added the names of the champions into the text and rearranged a few things to read better. As to the micro-detail, if you take all that out you've really only have want is left and all that is required. A Characters section is unnecessary as it is repetitive for what is a minor article and not really how things are done on the better articles. The main comic articles (not the fringe articles that only get tinkered with) don't feature lists. Yes, more is needed (how did Nikos and company get resurrected?) and a Reception area for sales would be good. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hatnote
Thebladesofchaos, you are misunderstanding the meaning of the hatnote. It is not to simply tell the readers to also check out the God of War series page, it is to direct them to a similarly named page in the case that they have accidentally stumbled upon this page. The hatnote tells the reader what this page is about and if they were looking for another page (such as the game), they can find it at, in this case, God of War (video game). THAT is the purpose of the hatnote.

It should also be noted, even if a link is a dead link, it's unnecessary to unlink because it could become a page in the future.

And please, DO NOT call me on blind reversions. I know exactly what I did for the reasons I have stated in my edit summaries. JDC808 (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, you are misunderstanding the purpose of the hatnote. Yes, a reader can accidentally stumble upon this page. Don't think just because you or I wouldn't, someone else wouldn't either. And no, I did not forget that this is the comics page.


 * You also need to stop putting so much emphases on the nav box. Yes, it is a good Wikipedia tool, and yes, it gives us links to all the God of War related articles. However, it IS NOT the end-all-be-all navigational tool of Wikipedia. For one, it is located at the VERY bottom of the page. A common reader wouldn't know about the nav box without scrolling all the way to the bottom, which is why we have other navigational tools, such as the hatnote. Another thing about the nav box, the "Story chronology" row shouldn't even be there. It repeats the previous row, just in the chronological order and clutters the nav box. I let it slide just because you are so persistent at not including any indication of chronology on any of these pages aside from this nav box. All of these articles should have an indication of story chronology located in either the header or plot.


 * All above information in regards to the purpose of the hatnote is applied to the God of War (video game) article as well. JDC808 (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You are making a personal assumption about the nav box. It is there for a reason, and a small reference to the series at the TOP of the page - a link to where a reader can view ALL the GOW information - is also added for extra help. Unfortunately all your edits of late have been unnecessary bells and whistles - the beauty is already dressed and ready to go to the ball: she doesn't need anything else. The story chronology is only there because you kept inserting clumsy sentences in the lead that tried to spell out game order. I'm happy to remove it, but again, it was only to appease the over-compensation by yourself. Yes, I realize you are a fan, but these articles strive to be encyclopedia standard, and little else (if anything) needs to be added to the articles. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What is so hard for you to understand here? Yes I am a fan (much like yourself), however, this situation is not about being a fan of God of War (although the fact of being a fan does play into the effect of wanting to edit these articles and do what's right for them). This is about what is practiced upon Wikipedia and what tools are used. I have explained the purpose of the hatnote which you are throwing out the window like it's a "fan" thing.


 * "..the beauty is already dressed and ready to go to the ball: she doesn't need anything else." Nice little analogy, however, this is highly incorrect, especially the bit in bold. No article "doesn't need anything else"; there's always room for improvement. A prime example is this very article for it's not complete due to Issue #6's information is not yet added.


 * "..a link to where a reader can view ALL the GOW information..." Another thing practiced here on Wikipedia is the ease of directing the readers to the correct article. Directing the readers to only the one article is not doing this as they'll have to read through that article to try and get where they're going. The hatnote cuts out the middle-man here and makes it easier for the reader to get where they're wanting to go.


 * "The story chronology is only there because you kept inserting clumsy sentences in the lead that tried to spell out game order." If they were so clumsy as you claim, why didn't you fix them? Removing information IS NOT fixing. I only listed one game on the article for chronology that preceded whichever game it was (in the case of God of War, Chains of Olympus was put). I did not put "this game goes here, then the rest go here".


 * "Unfortunately all your edits of late have been unnecessary bells and whistles..." and "I'm happy to remove it, but again, it was only to appease the over-compensation by yourself." Both of these clearly shows to me that you have come to the point of owning these articles (especially the bold bit). I understand trying to make these articles encyclopedic standard, however, when you keep reverting edits that you do not deem worthy, you believe are un-encyclopedic, or unnecessary (that one comes across a lot), that just shows that you won't have these articles be any other way but yours.


 * Also, your last revert on this article was against Wikipedia policy as I stated to discuss this before any further changes are made. You did reply, I'll give you that, but you still reverted back to your version before a resolution has been made. JDC808 (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * JD, peace. There is nothing personal in this. You are a far better editor than most of the types that swing by the GOW articles. My overall point was simply that you may be getting stuck on the small stuff. I'm not saying your edits are obselete, and many are still there with some slight tweaking. As for the nav box, that was what I thought was a nice compromise. You indicated that you didn't like it, so I pulled it. I've thought of another way to insert chronology, and will add it tomorrow (am tired!). Regards Thebladesofchaos (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well thank you for that. Do we have an understanding on the hatnote situation? JDC808 (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Outside opinion
I see you guys are edit warring over the hatnote at the article God of War (video game) (e.g. ).

The point of a hatnote is to direct readers to other articles with similar titles that they may have been looking for when they typed in "God of War"&mdash;it is not to supply a "chronology" of the series, nor to list every article with a similar name regardless of what the reader might be looking for. See WP:HATNOTE, particularly WP:NAMB. Someone typing in "God of War" does not get taken to that page, they get taken to the disambiguation page Gods of War. Someone typing in "God of War (series)" doesn't get taken there, either. So no hatnote at all is needed on this page; you guys need to stop edit warring over this. If anything needs to be edited, it's the disambiguation page and the God of War (series) page, which are the targets of the respective redirects.

If you guys continue edit warring at that or any other related articles, you will be blocked. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This would not have lead to an edit war if it would have been fully discussed, which I told Thebladesofchaos to do, yet he/she went ahead and edited. JDC808 (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I really do not care who started it. See WP:NOTTHEM. You were both edit warring. Edit warring is edit warring. Rather than making excuses, just stop edit warring, it's as simple as that. There should be no need to continue anyway, as I have cleaned up the hatnotes for you guys (see below). r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) I've cleaned up the dabs and hatnotes as follows:
 * "God of War (game)" redirects to God of War (video game). Someone typing that search might be looking for any of the video games, but is not looking for the comics. I feel it is unlikely such a person is looking for the series, but that is arguable. So I removed the links to God of War (comics) and God of War (series) and left the links to the dab page Gods of War, which lists the other games.
 * "God of War (series)" is an article title (God of War (series)). Someone typing that search might be looking for the comics series, but is not looking for an individual game or for any of the information in the dab page other than God of War (series) or God of War (comics), which are already in the hatnote. So I removed the links to God of War (video game) and Gods of War and left the link to the comics article.
 * "God of War" redirects to the dab page Gods of War. Someone typing that search might be looking for any of the video games, for the overall series, or the comics series; all of those things are already listed at the dab page, so no additions are needed, unless someone feels it is necessary to change the order of things (e.g., to put the comics and novels related to the video game closer to that section, rather than separating them out on the basis of what medium they are published in).
 * I hope this will settle your dispute. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that will do. The only thing I'm doing is changing the wording at the top of this page so it's not just "See also: God of War (series)". JDC808 (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

A-Class assessment
Requesting assessment for A-Class. -- JDC808  ♫  05:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible reviews to use
http://binarymessiah.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/god-of-war-comic-mini-series/

http://www.gameinformer.com/blogs/editors/b/gijoe_blog/archive/2010/03/31/god-of-war-fans-do-not-read-this-comic.aspx

-- JDC808  ♫  01:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)