I don't want to be rude, but I looked at the Nathan Drake page redesign and it doesn't look as good as it used to. It's kinda lacking from what it used to be. The Apperance and Personality should be seperate. It looks better and the Relationships section has been annihilated. There's nothing there! In your desire to get info 'Sourced' you got rid of facts from the game which were put on sections like that. I mean, Sully has nothing left in his relationship, and sure ND didn't say all the stuff that was put in the relationships, but it's kinda common sense to any Uncharted fan that they can put stuff that appears in game. Example: 'Elena knows Nate better than anyone, even able to finish his sentances for him'. True, Appears in game, when she already knows what he's trying to say in U3 and in U2 where she maps out the plan in the Train Yard before he can finish it. So why hasn't that been kept? Just because ND didn't say exactly that during an interview doesn't make it valid?
And Nate's apperance? You dumped down some stuff about Cary Grant. What about wehat he actually looks like? He has brown hair etc. We're discussing a video game character! Anyone with eyes can write that section! And the Fourth Labyrinth should be before DF at least.
I'm only writing this because me and my friends have loved this Wiki, watching it grow, fileld with lots of cool facts and stuff from fans, but not let rampart by Admin (like you). It was the ultimate Uncharted lore site! Now, any thign that isn't said is removed and it's removing the bits you can only get by really playing and loving the characters.
I saw Elena's Wiki is the next casuality. You said you'd redefine it and I'm worried, so I've made sure to back up all the 'Personality' stuff etc. So it can go back aftyer. It's all fact and I KNOW every bit thta was mentioned which may seem to be speculation was back up with in game proof.
"And Nate's apperance? You dumped down some stuff about Cary Grant. What about wehat he actually looks like? He has brown hair etc. We're discussing a video game character! Anyone with eyes can write that section!"
You say anyone with eyes can write that section. Well, anyone with eyes can also look at the many pictures of Nate that are on the page. That saying, "a picture is worth a thousand words" applies here. Anybody who has looked at the page knows what Nate looks like. Why spell out for them what the already know. Additionally, the previous "Appearance" section was written like a fan essay. For example, it featured the line, "His eyes have changed with no-one able to make a true fact on their colour." I'm pretty sure that was never mentioned in any game, comic, or book. It's blatant speculation.
As for me "dumping" in info about Cary Grant - this section is important to show how Nate's character evolved from an original idea to who he is in the game. It's fact, it can be sourced, and it's relevant.
The Personality Section:
Again, all of this section was written like an essay.
The Relationships Section:
"The Relationships section has been annihilated. There's nothing there! In your desire to get info 'Sourced' you got rid of facts from the game which were put on sections like that. I mean, Sully has nothing left in his relationship, and sure ND didn't say all the stuff that was put in the relationships, but it's kinda common sense to any Uncharted fan that they can put stuff that appears in game. Example: 'Elena knows Nate better than anyone, even able to finish his sentances for him'. True, Appears in game, when she already knows what he's trying to say in U3 and in U2 where she maps out the plan in the Train Yard before he can finish it. So why hasn't that been kept? Just because ND didn't say exactly that during an interview doesn't make it valid?"
These sections were very biased, especially Elena's. I debated quite a bit whether to even leave them in the article. They versions that are there now are unbiased and factual. The versions that were there before contained lines such as, "it can be said that she (Elena) knows Nate's mind better than any of his other companions" and "Elena is ultimately Nate's ultimate advantage and weakness". There was no solid evidence for any of these claims - they're just the observances of one person. And there's the rub - games such as Uncharted are subjective. By saying that Elena knows Nate's mind better than anyone, the opinion of the author is forced upon the reader. It can be just as easily argued that Sully knows Nate's mind better than anyone. It's stated in our Manual of Style, (and in the manual of style of almost every well run wiki in existence) that as little attention must be drawn to the author as possible. This means that no opinions or bias can be expressed in an article. (The phrase "no opinions" may sound oppressive, but in the scheme of this site, or any wiki, it's simply a good editing practice. As I said above, we're not here to force our own opinions).
The Fourth Labyrinth:
This, I'm not sure about. I've seen a statement from Del Rey Books that says the book is not intended to impact on standing chronology, and it can slot in anywhere in the Uncharted timeline. By this logic, it makes sense that it goes at the end of the list. If you can find a source that says otherwise, that would be great.
"not let rampart by Admin (like you)"
Um, I'm not sure what you're saying there, but admin policy has not changed since I started here. Anything that was ever deemed speculation was always removed. I've been busy and the number of admins here has dropped over the last few months, so a lack of vigilance is to blame for the articles filling up with unverifiable info. This overhaul was inevitable.
"I saw Elena's Wiki is the next casuality. You said you'd redefine it and I'm worried, so I've made sure to back up all the 'Personality' stuff etc. So it can go back aftyer. It's all fact and I KNOW every bit thta was mentioned which may seem to be speculation was back up with in game proof."
Yes, Elena's article is the next casualty, or victim, or martyr, or target, or sacrifice - whatever you want to call it. I don't think I said that I would "redefine" it, but I will be rewriting it in the same manner that I rewrote Nate's. I don't know why you bothered to "back up" all of the "stuff" seeing as page histories are automatically stored on the site and can be accessed by anyone. If it's all fact, as you say it is, then I'll have absolutely no reason to remove it from the page. Otherwise, it'll be taken out like the unverifiable essay-like content from Nate's page.
Maybe an example of why we need to source would help here. When Uncharted 3 was announced, Naughty Dog released that cutscene of Nate in the desert picking up a gun. Someone, somewhere, with a knowledge of weapons decided that because that gun was similar to the AKS-74U, it must be the AKS-74U. This info was added repeatedly to the "Uncharted 3 weapons" page here, and the "AKS-74U" article was created multiple times. Yet despite this very widespread belief, nobody could provide a reliable source as to the gun's identity. It was all based on their own observances, as is all of the info that I removed from Nate's page.
Of course, the AKS-74U article and references were always removed when they were added, and I ended up getting a bunch of messages just like this one on my talk page. "Why did you remove my edit?!?"
When the game was released, of course, we all found out that that gun was in fact the KAL-7. And that's why I removed their edits. And that's why I changed the Nathan Drake page. Without a source, no matter how right or factual you believe a page to be, it's unreliable, unverifiable, and can be proven wrong. And when that happens, we start to look like an unreliable fansite, full of false information.
Well, about stuff being speculation, like the bit about Elena knowing Nate better than anybody, is it really specualtion? It's a fact, in game. No one else has ever done what she did. Every character has always had to ask for Nate's motive ex. Sully 'Remind me why we're doing this again?' and Chloe 'What are you trying to prove' Elena never says any of that. She just tells Nate what he's thinking and it even says this in the Official Game Guide which is authorised by ND and Justin Richmond even had an intro saying it was the most reliable thing for Uncharted lore. Don't believe me? You can read the Game Guide yourself. One of the first pages.
When I said rampart it was flattery. I.e Fans would go wild unless hauled back by Admin (like you).
The Apperance added to the Wiki personally. Sure you can look at the pictures but it looks nice to have a written definition to it.
Look, I'm not trying to be a buzz kill and ruin the Wiki. I love Uncharted to the point of fanatism and it really sucks a whole heap that all the work 'observers' have put into it are being taken away. Try to see it from my point of view. I'm NOT saying you'll change it but give me a bit of sympathy. I helped write a whole load of stuff for it, taking all 'observations' from in-gae evidence and now I'm being told it's being taken away. It's heartbreaking and sucks a lot. I know you're just doing your, job? But it kinda hurts when all the info you had is just gone with a 'Not sourced'. And anyone who comes onto this Wiki will see nothing about the characters anymore!
I went onto the Batman Wiki and it's not good, it has so little info and I don't want the Uncharted Wiki going the same way. I mean, a friend asked me:
'Who's Elena Fisher?' and I was said.
'Go on the Uncharted Wiki. It's got a great bit on her personality and all the stuff she's been in' and he liked the sound of her so much he went to buy the games. He's stuck on U2 somewhere but that's not that point.
I just don't want it to be bare to the point that it has nothing REALLY about the character left. It'll just be, 'a description of U2' and no nothing about the actual character as a character.
Note: Can I at least put that Nate is married to Elena on his Wiki or will that get taken off for violating some Wiki policy?
Also, why do you have to control the Wiki. It isn't really yours, is it? It's the community's. You're just supposed to moniter it, make sure people don't put down stuff like 'And Sully grew and extra head in Drake's Fortune'.
Or am I wrong? Is it yours? You should have votes when going to remove big pieces of people hard work. Unless it is yours? Is it? It doesn't say Founder next to your profile, just a little bit about Head Admin, saying it needs to stay in 'Perfect Shape' not stripped state.
Honestly, I don't see what the issue is here. You've said over and over that your info comes from the Uncharted 3 guide, or Amy Hennig, or some official place, yet when you add it to the article you refuse to source it properly. If the information on the page is accurately sourced and properly presented, then I will have no need to remove it.
The Wikipedia link above says pretty much everything you need to know about sourcing, why to source, and where to source from. If you have a reliable and published source, the feel free to either quote it or mention what it says in context.
Just a quick note on your claim: "The bit about Elena knowing Nate better than anybody, is it really specualtion? It's a fact, in game." It is speculation. As I said before, games are subjective. If Justin Richmond has said in the game guide that Elena knows Nate better than anybody, then the right thing to put on her page is:
It has been said by Justin Richmond of Naughty Dog that "Elena knows Nate better than anyone else."
As for me controlling the wiki - I am here to monitor it. And sometimes that involves removing large sections of pages. And often people are unhappy about it. This isn't a "we love Nathan Drake" fansite where we all throw in our opinions on Nate; it's an Uncharted encyclopedia, based on fact, and written like any other encyclopedia.
The wiki does belong to the community, and I respect that. If I didn't want you adding content to the pages, the I would have locked them. The fact is that the page is still there, open for everyone to edit. I've told you at the start of this message how to add content to articles, and if you follow that, there will be no need to undo your edits. Otherwise, as you said above, I have a "job" to do, and that job is to remove original research, speculation, and unsourced info.
Look, last I checked mate this was the Uncharted Wiki. Of course, being Admin you have the power, but as a Wiki carefully thought out opinions that match an ingame view that is widely appreciated is allowed. It's like a Johnny Depp fansite for Uncharted. It may not be sourced, but as long as it fits a person's interpretation having played the games it should be there. Go to Wikipedia proper if you want a unbiased, boring, (and by the time that the Admin have finushed with this site), pretty uninformative information. It doesn't have enough detail!
The Admin are supposed to monitor, not destroy a people's site! (By the way, I have nothing agaisnt you Klock, you're a good Admin, but it is a little tight. I am so banned...)
Honestly, I don't know why I have to keep saying this. Quite frankly, I'm getting tired of having to justify my actions here, but I'll say it again:
This is a factsite. It always has been, and always will be.
The Nathan Drake article is one of the most visited on the wiki, and it is one of the most important ones to keep free of speculation. I've told "Elena" what information is acceptable to add, and what isn't. If you find an article boring to read, why not rewrite/reword it to make it more interesting. If a piece of information "fits a person's interpretation having played the game" then it should be very easy for them to Google it, find a published article that mentions it, and cite it here. Otherwise it's quite probable that if nobody else has mentioned it, it's their own personal opinion, which does not belong in articles.
Apparently they weren't used the right way... though I thought they great way for people who didn't like editing to use the site without ruining the articles themselves. It definitely showed you which pages were most popular for example. Gave the place a more relaxed feel I suppose.
I never said that they were being used the wrong way; they were being abused as a direct result of a group of editors pretending to be characters from the game. Moderating them became a nightmare. Even after they were removed, it didn't fully stop. The fact that it spread onto talk pages shows a complete disregard for the reason the comments were removed in the first place.
There was also a major bug that caused any messages posted to a message wall to appear in the comments of an article with the same name. So if somebody posted a message to User:Elena Fisher's message wall, it automatically created the same message in the comments of the Elena Fisher page.