User talk:Scottch

Hey, on Image:Wiki2.png, you posted that "This non-free image is not usable under fair use" - it's absurd to say that's not fair use! --Nerd42 18:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, I think we're having a misunderstanding. To solve it, you need to read Fair use to find out what "fair use" means. Fair use is an intellectual property term, and saying something is not fair use means you are saying it is a copyright violation. I think what happened was you just meant to say it was a duplicate image that wasn't useful, not a copyright-infringing image that wasn't covered under the fair use doctrine.

Image:Wiki2.png was what I uploaded to replace the old green site logo - this was before it was adopted. We shouldn't need it anymore, yeah. --Nerd42 02:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A Thank You
^_^ You're welcome! I try my best! -_- But there are some pret-ty sloppy articles I've seen out there. Leon for one.--Dreyfus 22:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: Category:Items and cards
Well, I think all of them should be on Category:Items because they are items made out of Sora's (And Riku's) memories or none of them because they really are just memories. But not only the item cards because they are not the item they are a card of it. What do you think? --Painocus


 * It seems like they would be distinct. "Items" for RPGs is more usable items or "quest" items, not the means of attacking.  The card system (which I LOATHE, by the way) is so unique it ought to stand alone in my opinion.  Scottch 12:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Image Links
Sorry about any missing links to sources... I try to include them as best I can, but sometimes I accidentally close the tab (before copying the URL) that had it and lose the link entirely. That isn't really an excuse, though, is it? Guess not, even though it wasn't meant to be one. I myself actually put in the images of Disney characters out of the context of the games only to show how they actually look as opposed to how they were changed into 3D. Thanks for the notice, though!--Dreyfus 08:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No big deal, a lot of yours already have sources, that was mostly for the other guy. And don't worry too much about the pictures, any pictures are better than none.  I'm probably being too picky too early anyway, that's more a part of perfecting a wiki than expanding it.  Any picture is better than none.  I'll probably work on replacing those however, by screenshots form YouTubes if I have to, so if you have any objections put them on the community portal beforehand and I'll hold up.  Scottch 09:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding my edits
I imagine this is because I'm tying to use an in-universe view for the articles. I think this is the best way to go around with those articles, but am willing to bend that ideology if consensus demands. We need to set up policy and guidelines for this sort of thing. I'm also entirely removing any speculative material, such as Heartless "classifications", which has no official basis and theories like how Assassins are really Marluxia's Nobodies. I'm basically sticking to official canon.

Oh, and removing redundant categories, as is the norm on Wikipedia. Interrobang 08:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good good, the categories thing is good. But cooperative editing is what we're shooting for.  Remember that Wikipedia  and the Kingdom hearts WIki are in dramatically different stages of development.  "The way it's done on Wikipedia" isn't always best for all wikis.  Besides, this wiki is more targetted towards gamers than Wikipedia is; some speculation, when clear that it is non-canon, may be acceptable.  I'm glad you took out the classification of heartless for example, but I'm not so happy with the fact that you wiped out all the Heartless descriptions.  Scottch 08:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I still don't see speculation as something to note; you're essentially giving credence when there shouldn't be any by simply noting it, even if you do not that it's non-canon. How are readers supposed to form their own theories if we push one particular theory in their face? Let them read and decide. I don't see any particular need for Heartless descriptors when they each get their own article. Interrobang 08:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A short summary never hurt anything. There's nothing wrong with redundant info, as long as the bulky stuff is in te main articles.  And this isn't about "giving credence" - Wikipedia uses that idea with "notability" and such that having info or an opinion on a wiki (merely STATING it, not supporting it) somehow "validates" it, and that's simply not true.
 * While you're here, I think we should hold off on the categories. For now, let's get as many as possible, and we can prune later.  And not pruning via editing across several pages, but some sort of centralized discussion.  Why don't we wait until we've got a general idea of what we're going to cover and get more users?  Scottch 08:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My argument has nothing to do with notability. It's simply the fact that you'd be offering one theory over another, thus giving readers the impression that there's some credibility behind the theory over all others which isn't the case. As for the categories, I'm not sure what you're indicating. The collection of categories in a article or the creation of new categories? Why is this something that requires attention? Interrobang 08:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not so much that we're throwing one theory over another. It's just sometimes there are really no other theories, but we should add those too.  I'm not saying it completely correctly, but if we say something to the effect of "a common fan belief" or whatever and make it clear that this is not canon, it should be alright.  I think info on the fandom is good material to cover.
 * And what I mean about the categories is that we can work out what categories are "excessive" later, rather than doing so now by emptying them and leaving them dead. Obvious ones to remove, or vandal-created categories would be an exception of course, but for now let's hold off on emptying categories and get a good feel of community opinion before writing any off on a whim.  Scottch 08:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't really do such with the categories; I simply replaced two with more correct naming, like "Artificial Heartless" to "Emblem Heartless". Is that what you're indicating? Just so we're clear, by "redundant categories", I'm removing the parent category from a article that already has a child category. Interrobang 09:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but with so many levels of categories, that might not be the best way to go about it. Plus not all of the parent-sub category relationships are good, I've seen some screwy ones and had to fix them, I'm sure there's more.  Let's hold off on categories for now and include on the safe side, so it'll be easier to sort out later is all I'm saying.  Scottch 09:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

YouTube template
Hi, it looks like there is no way of making the system accept a youtube in a template (other than subst: of course). It insists on reading them in the wrong order. But it looks like the solution you have for "what links here" will work well. -- sannse (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a bummer :-\ I'll have to come up with some sort of documentation for re-subbing the template if it is ever modified to be better.  Scottch 10:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Improved OXIII
I'm trying to make an better template that's less confusing and removes unknown variables here. Can you please tell me how to remove the third column? Xehanort&#39;s Heartless 13:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. What unknown variables?  Scottch 14:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For example, there aren't any confirmed "original names" for VII-XII. Thus, we don't input anything in for that on their pages, and the template makes it so that the row for that won't show up on the pages. Xehanort&#39;s Heartless 14:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have some code hidden in a sandbox hisory elsewhere, I'll have to look for it. However, it might be desirable to leave it up anyway, to distinguish that the person's original name or whatever is unknown, as opposed to the more senior members.  Zexion stands out, fro example, for having an unknown weapon and a shattered weapon panel at the end of the game.  Also note that all the titles are known, you may want to re-add that. Scottch 14:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Xemnas doesn't have one in Proof of Existence. Xehanort&#39;s Heartless 14:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but he does have a title that he is referred to by Ansem, the other Org members, and virtually every website listed everywhere. Scottch 14:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Websites don't count as official sources. If that were the case, we'd be listing DiZ as a member of Organization XIII and the Nobody of Ansem, which was supposedly such a obvious fact before Kingdom Hearts II was released. If "the Superior" was a title similar to the PoE titles, why don't we hear any of the PoE titles in dialogue? Why would it be omitted from Proof of Existence in the first place (I'm sure they could've make the arch a readable target or something)? I believe we should veer on the safe side and not make assumptions, as many did with DiZ's identity. Xehanort&#39;s Heartless 14:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we're not doing guesswork, we're talking about something that has already occurred, not speculating over identities as other websites did about DiZ. As to all the "why's", there's not really an answer to those, but it's generally accepted that his title is "the Superior" - in fact, you're only the second person I've ever heard say otherwise, the first being another editor here.  Scottch 14:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia seems to take my side, treating "Superior" differently than the PoE titles in the text, so it's not really just me. People guess and accept a lot of things; it still doesn't really it official in my eyes. Xehanort&#39;s Heartless 14:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)