User talk:DSMeatte

Super Smash Bros. Brawl
Do you have any souce for Masahiro Sakurai saying that the twenty-six Melee characters will definitely return in Brawl? The Dojo has not updated - the development team is working on a game - so unless it was an official Nintendo release, this seems dubious. In fact, the current edition of the Brawl article indicates that Sakurai has stated that some characters might not return.

If you do have a source, I ask that you please cite it. Please note that the current concensus on the Brawl article is to not accept any sources besides the Dojo website or Nintendo itself, so if it is not from either of these sources, I will revert your recent edits to Falco's article. No malicious intent - we just don't want to spread false information. :)

Thanks for your time. --Sparky Lurkdragon 22:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * (In response to the message on my Talk page) Hey, communication is what Talk pages are for. No hard feelings at all; thank you for understanding. :)
 * If you do find that confirmation again, eveyone working the Super Smash Bros. Brawl article would appreciate being told about it, too. Anyhow, thanks again, and I hope your computer can be repaired soon. --Sparky Lurkdragon 19:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Xandir
Check out Gay. Also, According to the Safe Schools Coalition of Washington's Glossary for School Employees: 'Homosexual: Avoid this term; it is clinical, distancing and archaic. Sometimes apropriate in referring to behaviour (although same-sex is the preferred adj.). When referring to people, as opposed to behaviour, homosexual is considered derogatory and the terms gay and lesbian are preferred, at least in the Northwest [of the United States].'--Silvestris 02:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This applies when describing a person, NOT a sexuality. Hence why it is correct to use "Homosexual" in this particular section. Furthermore, this is Wikipedia. NOT a school. DSMeatte 12:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Assistance request
I think what you might want, in terms of the use of "homosexual" vs. "gay", is to request a third opinion. Usually, that can help to break up a logjam like that pretty quick, when it's just two editors who disagree.

As to the article itself, it looks like it contains a lot of original research, and is written from a primarily "in-universe" style. If, for example, the article says that the character represents a "token gay" (or "token homosexual", depending on the resolution you come to there), that needs to be attributed to someone who said so, for example a critic or magazine reviewing the show. The same would apply, for example, to speculation that the character is meant to spoof Link. Such things would need to be attributed, not just be your perception or that of another editor. It should also be written from a more out-of-universe perspective. The guide to writing about fiction can give you a lot of advice on writing about fictional characters and events in an encyclopedic style.

Hopefully, the third opinion request will resolve the issue! If not, I'll be happy to give you some additional advice on how to proceed. There's nothing in the manual of style regarding that issue at all, so it is a bit up in the air. I think, though, that "gay", right now, is becoming a less and less pejorative term, so it may indeed be appropriate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What you may want to do, then, is ask WP:LGBT for their take on "homosexual" vs. "gay", I would bet good money that issue's come up there. (Also, I can't find where you talked to the other editors, it's better to keep discussion on the article's talk page, so I can't really comment on that.) Like I said, I have seen "gay" used in a lot of non-pejorative contexts, and even those who came up with "LGBT" (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered) apparently don't find it too offensive, but the LGBT WikiProject might be able to offer you a lot more specific stylistic advice. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So far, everyone else has disagreed with your edits. If you want, you can put the issue up for discussion at the article's talk page, but until a consensus is reached please leave the article itself alone. I don't want this to turn into an edit war. --DrBat 17:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)