User talk:Reycount

Welcome!
Hi fellow Wikipedian, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

""

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

""

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: (~&#126;). This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =) Mailer Diablo 08:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Breath of Fire
The recurring nature of Nina is too minor of a mention to warrant showing both the recurring elements. Considering the article never recognizes anything gameplay-related in terms of visual imagery, I see no reason to cover both recurring natures in the series. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I question this. It doesn't really sound accurate to summarize this as too minor.  If it were pertaining to supporting characters who appeared less consistently due to being less significant to the franchise's identity, I could understand, but she seems to be the only example other than Ryu who could be argued as exempt.  In respect to this article, the recurrence of both characters within each story seems to be a more important consideration than discussion of gameplay, yet even then, both are player characters within the main party with each installment as well.  As the invariable leads of the series, the recurring nature of both characters appears to be a significant detail. (Reycount (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC))
 * If there were three recurring characters, would that be reason to have three images depicting the evolution of the characters? Using fair use images is not a right, it's a privilege - I've seen cases where an article with two fair use images had to fight for the second image, let alone three images where two images are used for the exact same reason. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But there aren't three emphasized here, so that's not exactly relevant. As it stands, there appeared to be no issues raised with the article in its previous state, be it due to image clutter or any other reason.  It's difficult to see the removal as anything other than arbitrary. (Reycount (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC))
 * I removed it because the image doesn't demonstrate that the article requires this image in order to properly convey the information in the article. May I ask what about its inclusion is not arbitrary? Just because the article mentions something does not, at any given point, warrant a visual depiction of it. Can you please explain to me the necessary visual demonstration of this image that does not apply to the other character difference image? And allow me to make note that the argument of showing Nina's differences specifically is not an applicable argument, as it serves to appeal to fans of the series who are in no need of information rather than the people who know nothing about the series. In fact, I would almost argue that neither image warrants inclusion solely because they use incredibly weak rationales - simply depicting something mentioned in the article has never been and will never be a good reason to use a fair use image. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I was going to comment earlier that by the logic used in removing one, the other may as well have been taken down as well. However, I wasn't expecting such a conclusion to actually be reached.  You say that mentioning something in an article doesn't justify the inclusion of an image, but then that sounds like there would be no point in using visual representation at all to complement text, and would at most leave only the logo.  This wouldn't present a problem to fans of the series already familiar with the franchise, but would indeed make for a less informative article for anyone unacquainted with it, as relevant imagery can be helpful for conveying information as well.  Viewing their inclusion as merely decorative sounds more like an opinion than an objective argument for removal. (Reycount (talk) 07:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC))
 * The logic for removal was due to the fact that the difference between the rationale used is "nill". Not simply due to the fact that neither image would hold up at FA - Hell, even GA. To show one character's growth through the series is helpful to those who do not understand the series. May I please ask you to answer my question? Why is this article worse off without the image? Both images demonstrate the art style of the five main games; both articles demonstrate a recurring nature between the games. The only difference between them is who it is depicting. How, exactly, are both of these images necessary for the proper understanding of the article? Are you implying that with only one image depicting the series' art style, the article is worse off? I think that you should read up on fair use image rights before you attempt to argue for this image's inclusion any further. And why does it read like an opinion? I'm a little lost - it's my opinion that the fair use rationales are exactly the same? I'm pretty sure it's undeniable, indisputable fact. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I could make the argument that one displays the differences between games more clearly, thereby making the article better than if it were to just include the one, but that would be entirely subjective. Was there something in the fair use image rights that specified a limit of a single use of such things per article?  I'm asking honestly, as I'm not clear on why this is such a serious issue in the first place, and saw nothing that seemed to suggest any violations.  You say that there's nothing to suggest the article would be any worse without it, yet there's nothing to suggest it would be any better either. (Reycount (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC))
 * The term fair use image means a copyrighted image that is only allowed in this ideally free encyclopedia due to laws that allow the use of copyrighted images if they are used for a compelling reason. By the virtue that the two images serve the same purpose and as such cause the article to use excessive copyrighted files, that in itself is enough to say that the article would be better. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. In that case, would it be possible to get the perspective of someone else who tends to the article regularly to agree that only the one image is necessary?  If a consensus can be reached, then I would have no problem accepting the decision, whether it's to remove it or to leave the article as is.  If needed, I could post the question on the article's discussion page. (Reycount (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC))