Talk:Urban Legend in Limbo/Characters

From Touhou Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Playable (Unlockable) Character[edit]

First of all, the current edit war needs to stop. Now. Second, how about we actually assess the merits of relevant arguments, and use Talk Pages for disputes? "I got here first" is a piss-poor reason to justify any edit, and will bring negative attention from anybody. That said, at this present time, I actually do find stronger support for use of "Unlockable Character" over "Playable Character (Unlockable)". ULiL is primarily a fighting game, and ought to follow the formats of, in descending order, Hopeless Masquerade (direct sequel), SWR/soku/IaMP, PoFV, and then others. Hopeless Masquerade uses "Unlockable Character", so unless someone has a very, very good reason to use the other, it gets strong support from me.:Alternatively, we can change the format of all of the other fighting games to something else. Which is fine, but discuss here. - Kiefmaster99 (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

HM used to use "playable character" in earlier revisions, but it was changed by the same user to "unlockable". -- Mazian (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Point taken. In which case, we all still need to come to a common agreement on what to use for all of the articles. - Kiefmaster99 (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
This user has also vandalized the Phantasmagoria of Flower View page in exactly the same manner. They clearly have been deserving of having their editing rights frozen for a long time, and this new edit war only supports this. They were even given a warning previously. As for the other games, they also changed the texts for IaMP and SWR to "Unlockable character", but then again the previous text ("boss character") was even less descriptive. Drake Irving (talk) 05:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Right, time for business. First of all, I had no intentions of being part of this edit war; I find it distressing and also wish for it to stop. My prime argument to use "Playable Character (Unlockable)" over "Unlockable Character" is that it's being specific in what it's referring to. I try to think logically and thoroughly to the best I can; what does "Unlockable Character" mean specifically? An unlockable player? Unlockable boss? It sounds ambiguous. "Playable Character (Unlockable)" is very thorough in its meaning. Yes, we've got sub-headings saying "Playable Characters", but we still need to indicate it as such next to each character, following the tradition of this wiki listing characters' roles. Not only just that, it doesn't flow correctly with other characters that's just got "Playable Character". I've yet to see any valid reason why "Unlockable Character" would be preferable. Apparently, both terms are the same and Nintenchris5963 chose one over the other because it looks better; based on my point of view, they are not the same. Originally on the PoFV char page, the edit war stopped and kept the roles as "Playable Character (Unlockable)". I thought that, because of this, it would be a kind of conclusion to keep it that way, especially for other places, but I was wrong. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 16:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It's been awhile now since this was discussed. As far as I can tell, having 'Playable Character (Unlockable)' would be the most supportive. If there really is no opposition to this, I shall go through all /char pages and change 'Unlockable Character' to the other one soon (unless someone else does this). Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 09:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to add that Kaguya was an unlockable character, but never playable. As are most of the Extra Stage bosses, I guess. --Wymar(⑨⑨) 01:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey Wymar(⑨⑨). Kaguya was never an unlockable character, it's only her route that is unlockable. Go to this page and see for yourself, and I did not put it there. It was Camilo113 who put it there, but I moved it from the role line to the description line. Nintenchris5963 (talk)

I agree with Tony. It should be Playable Character (Unlockable). As said it's thorough and unambiguous. 'Unlockable Character' can be, albeit often isn't, misleading. But the other way leaves no doubts. UTW 11:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Generic agreement. We should really just be consistent throughout the wiki in this regard. Drake Irving (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

As long as we're in agreement of what to use for all articles for sake of consistency, go for it. - Kiefmaster99 (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Using "Playable Character (Unlockable)" is plural and gigantic. Using "Unlockable Character" is singular and not ambiguous. "Unlockable Character" means Unlockable Character, and it makes even more sense. What if there is a Non-Playable Character? Would you put "Playable Character (Unplayable)" as a result? Nintenchris5963 (talk)

A non-playable character would be "boss". It's quite unfair to force your way on the wiki after an agreement has been made. Please don't vandalize the wiki just because you can't have it your way. ☢ Quwanti 11:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
You aren't doing a very good job of arguing your case. "Gigantic" isn't really a noteworthy complaint (plus it's just one word), and I'm not even sure what you mean by "plural". You claim "Unlockable Character" is not ambiguous, but give zero reason for this, while as stated several times "unlockable" does not necessarily imply "playable". If there's a non-playable character, you obviously would not title them "Playable Character", because they... aren't playable. They're simply given a different section: see Double_Spoiler/Characters for an example where there is a default playable, an unlockable playable, and several non-playables. If you want to not get shut down (and you will, if you continue to force your changes), you need to actually convince other people. Drake Irving (talk) 04:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Listen, it's not like I hate "Playable Character (Unlockable)" or anything. Sure I didn't want "Playable Character (Unlockable)", but I just want to make things short and all. How about this? This is for you, Tony64. "Unlockable Character" means a locked character that soon will be unlocked, and later it will be playable. (I'm sure everyone already know this.) It may not say "Playable", but later it will become playable. Or you can say "Unlockable Character (Playable)" if that's okay for you, Tony64. Nintenchris5963 (talk)

Does anyone agree this time? Nintenchris5963 (talk)

I cannot agree that 'Unlockable Character' is the best term for this. There is Kaguya Houraisan, for example: you have to clear Stage 6A to "unlock" her, but she does not become a playable character. Also, whether the character is available from the beginning or not does not seem like the best primary standard to show the character's role. I don't think it is necessary to display it first. Mario1star (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Is Kaguya Houraisan is unlocked after beating Stage 6-A WITH a continue? Nintenchris5963 (talk)
And you don't actually unlock "her". You just unlock her route. Nintenchris5963 (talk)

Okay. How about this? What if I say "Playable Character (Unlockable Character)"? Is that okay for you guys? Or does "Unlockable Character (Playable Character)" would do the trick? Nintenchris5963 (talk)

I have no idea why we're still doing this. If you're fine accepting "Playable Character (Unlockable Character)" and supposedly dislike redundancy, why is "Playable Character (Unlockable)" so difficult for you? At this point it sounds like you're just cycling through word combinations at random without any reason or criteria besides "not being the thing I'm arguing against". Is this even about the phrase itself anymore, or is it about you not having absolute fine-grained control over the games' Character pages? Drake Irving (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I said I don't hate "Playable Character (Unlockable)". Sure I don't want it, but that doesn't mean I hate it. The word "Unlockable" inside the parentheses has no subject. It needs a another word like "Character" near the word "Unlockable" inside the parentheses. Just like Kaguya Houraisan's role in this page. It says "(Unlockable Route)", and I did not put it there. It was Camilo113 who put it there, but I moved it from the role line to the description line. And don't take off my text where I say "Or does "Unlockable Character (Playable Character)" would do the trick?". I'm gonna keep on discussing until some users (not all users) either agrees "Playable Character (Unlockable Character)" or "Unlockable Character (Playable Character)". Nintenchris5963 (talk)
The subject of "Unlockable" is "Playable Character". Literally the only term it could possibly apply to is "Character", which is why it's redundant to put it there a second time. Really specifically, the primary term is "Character", while the most important modifier, and the one that introduces the least ambiguity, is "Playable". Following this, "Unlockable" is a sprinkle of notable information further describing the subject. As in, "What kind of playable character is this?" "It's an unlockable one". Similarly, if said player were only temporarily playable (hypothetically), you might then state "Playable Character (Temporary)". If you say "Playable Character" by itself, it introduces no ambiguity about what that means. If you instead say "Temporary Character", that introduces ambiguity, since we don't know what is temporary about them. This is essentially why "Playable Character" should be the base term in both these cases, and is why something like "Unlockable Character (Playable)" sounds awkward.
I also never said you "hated" the phrase, you just seem to find it irrationally difficult to accept for reasons that are still unclear. You started off a whole year ago with nothing but "it looks better" and the jumble of arguments you've given since are just as unconvincing and near-contradictory. You will not change anyone's minds with the way you're approaching this, because you seemingly have no solid reason for rejecting the way it currently stands in the first place.
Lastly, I did not edit out your other suggestion (which is just as redundant and arbitrary) on purpose; I had the edit sitting in a tab for a while and the wiki never notified me of an edit collision. That being said, I suggest you reflect on your own words and stop editing others' posts as well. Drake Irving (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I'll accept that "Playable Character (Unlockable)" will be the best term for all character pages. But, what if I move "(Unlockable)" to the middle between "Playable" and "Character"? It'll be just like the topic name on this talk page that Kiefmaster99 created. Also, no more "Unlockable Character" for sure. Nintenchris5963 (talk)

Is it a deal? Nintenchris5963 (talk)
No. It is not. Absolutely no one else is interested in the tantrum you have been throwing for months over this trivial detail. Please stop pushing it and move on with life. -- Mazian (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
That problem is like a long time ago. It's over now. Just forget about the past and focus about the future. Nintenchris5963 (talk)

Forget about the past[edit]

I can't believe you people are still angry at me about what happened a few months ago. Why are you all keep talking about the past? I chose to stop the edit war and I'm already starting to act nice and not throwing a tantrum anymore, but all of you people kept on bringing it up. I even agreed with you people that "Playable Character (Unlockable)" will be the best term for all character pages. I just only want to move "(Unlockable)" to the middle/center between "Playable" and "Character" (no changes at all). I also promised to myself that "Unlockable Character" will be no more. All of you, just forget about the past already and let's be friends. Please? Nintenchris5963 (talk)

Oh my god, I really can't believe it, stop it man please, you're just ruining things up, live your life, no one's going to agree on that... --Camilo113 (talk) 04:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't hold a grudge against for what you had done. Now you just keep trying to get something to change what we have agreed on in the past. For this reason alone your proposed change isn't going to be accepted. Please shift your focus on something more useful. ☢ Quwanti 08:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
This is to Camilo113: Me ruining things up? YOU'RE the one ruining things up by unleashing your anger at me just because I can't have "Unlockable Character". Guess what? I'm THROUGH with "Unlockable Character". I am now accepting what you people agreed on, which is "Playable Character (Unlockable)". Do you even understand me? I bet you don't. Nintenchris5963 (talk)
This is to Quwanti: This is no change at all. All I want is to move, not change. Nintenchris5963 (talk)
Right... Let's not make things worse. I for one do not think of the past events, but I can understand Camilo's rage, because (as I may also speak for everyone here) you're continuously making a suggestion that, in reality, doesn't make sense. I mean, your comments are inconsistent: if you say that you now agree with "Playable Character (Unlockable)", why change it to "Playable (Unlockable) Character"? Yes, it is a move, but it's still also a change because it's changing the grammar structure of the phrase. It looks very off. I have to be blunt, but I don't think people will agree with this simply because (a) there was a major agreement to "PC(U)", (b) you're not making any strong reason to the change and (c) people would've responded ages ago if they've liked "P(U)C". This is why people are saying to you to move on with this. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 15:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Fine. I'll admit that I don't have a strong reason to change. Then, what if my friend from another website do have a strong reason and explain it instead of me? I'll try to bring him/her over here and see if his/her reason works. If I explain the reason that he/she came up with, it will look like I stole it and no one is going to accept it. Also, I even explained the reason about what does "Unlockable Character" mean on your talk page. Did you even read it? Nintenchris5963 (talk)
Didn't you just said "I am now accepting what you people agreed on, which is "Playable Character (Unlockable)". Do you even understand me? I bet you don't"? I'm sorry, but if you just said you were accepting it yet you're still trying to make up a good reason to change it ,then no, I don't understand you.
I don't know why we're even having this discussion again if the term was already agreed on and the discussion settled. --Camilo113 (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Honestly Nintenchris, I've tried to be nice and give you benefit of doubt, but now this is getting very ridiculous. I'm really starting to not understand you. For one thing, you shouldn't rely on other people to explain your reasons to change. (Even if you did that, people still won't change their mind anyway). Also, yes, I did read that on my talk page, and the reason I did not respond was because I was (and still) under the impression that you're not understanding the comments I've and others put on this talk page. Your comment did not make sense. Even then, if you say that you're through with "UC", why are you referencing the comment you've put on my page? If you're through with something, you'd never look back at it. This feels like déjà vu as I'm repeating myself; people are not going to agree with you no matter what you propose (look at the comments I've made on my last comment), and again, you're being even more inconsistent. This discussion is very trivial and unimportant (I've been in discussion that's way more major than this), and because it's trivial, it makes me wonder why you're so keen to have it your way. Even I'm saying this now, stop cycling in words and move on. Tony64 (Talk/Con.) 17:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, now you're just hurting me for all eternity. If what you're saying is true, then this counts you hate me forever. Even if you people say you don't hate me forever, I still believe all of you hate me for the rest of your lives. Fine then, hate me forever if you wish. I don't care if you people want me to stop discussing and tell me to move on. The discussion will continue no matter what, even if the discussion stopped until I think of another way to discuss. I will never give up on my discussion. Even if you people will never agree at all, the discussion will be continued no matter what. Nintenchris5963 (talk)
NintenChris, you seem to have missed that everyone actually agreed on keeping "Playable Character" rather than changing it to "Player Character (Unlockable)". I can only hope for your sake this clears things up for you. Ibaraki Ibuki (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

For a person who urges others to let go of the past, Nintenchris5963 isn't really acting like someone who should be doing the same thing. If you really want everyone to move on from this debacle, I suggest you drop the issue quietly or try presenting your argument in a calmer, more polite manner. Ibaraki Ibuki (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

About to change images[edit]

I want to say n advance that I'm planning to change the characters images to the ones used in the select screen at the VS screen, those are the same as when the characters are introduced in manga style in Story Mode, I think is the mot appropiate like any other fighting game, and put the actual full images used when a spell card is activated in each character respective gallery, I hope it's not too confusing and can be corrected.

I wonder what happened to the Unzan image. Nintenchris5963 (talk)
Please keep the same format of profile images to all characters and not use the complete images from summoning a spell, in doubt view the characters page from Hopeless Masquerade and other fighting games.