Talk:Paladin

Vanity

I'm not sure, but wouldn't this be a vanity page? It's well developed, but it's about the author. If it isn't, than the article might still need to be edited to include a neutral point of view.--Zyborg22 13:35, 8 August 2005 (PDT)

Are you sure you have read the entire vanity page article, like me, rather than just the summary? -Paladin

That's why I'm asking. I'm not quite sure if this page fits within the guidelines of being a vanity page, so I'm leaving it up to a SYSOP to decide. I also think the "people think he's awesome" vibe of some of the text doesn't help much. Besides, it can always go onto your user space if it is deemed to be a vanity article--Zyborg22 13:52, 8 August 2005 (PDT)

This seems like with some refactoring, it could comply with NPOV. Deletion of gratuitous adjectives is probably the first thing to do. --Lizthegrey 14:00, 8 August 2005 (PDT)

The article merely states that people say that he is awesome and they do. It's important in the story of Paladin. I'm not going to be modest and lie just because I wrote it myself. -Paladin

I've reverted the last edit, but it almost seemed to fit in with the rest of the article. To be perfectly honest, it doesn't look like anybody has ever really rewritten this page, beyond a bit early on. (I can see why: It's very well-written. But it isn't necessarily written in what you'd call an encyclopedic fashion.) Should it be rewritten? I suppose one could argue that at this point, it doesn't really contain much un-encyclopedic content: It just happens to be written in a style, and with a floridity, which isn't generally used on YPPedia. Of course, it could well be largely moot: It was all written some time ago, so much of the content is probably out-of-date (though the player seems to still be around). Rewrite to normalize style and wording, or leave in its normal fashion and just try to gather some new info (or hope Paladin adds newer stuff himself)? --Emufarmers 21:13, 26 May 2006 (PDT)

Previous oceans

Discussion moved to YPPedia talk:Policies and guidelines#Defunct ocean pirates

Cleanup

Instead of starting an edit war does this article need cleaned up? It's full of NPOV issues and is generaly not of a wiki standard. The image also doesn't seem to show the Paladin that the majority of the article is about as confirmed by it's caption. --Angelbeaver ^(talk) 14:26, 8 October 2006 (PDT)

To qualify as encyclopedic content, the picture would indeed have to be of the pirate who is the subject of the article. --Eurydice 14:38, 8 October 2006 (PDT)

It is. --Paladin

Do not be deceived, he does in fact have a black beard.

And the Paladin on Midnight is not female. --Angelbeaver ^(talk) 07:44, 9 October 2006 (PDT)

Good thing the article isn't just about the Paladin on Midnight then. I honestly don't see the problem. The image is relevant to the article. The caption is just supposed to be slightly humorous. --Paladin

Perhaps, but it's not at all encyclopedic. --Angelbeaver ^(talk) 13:55, 11 October 2006 (PDT)

The image? It's relevant, and I don't know how any image can be encyclopedic. --Paladin

At the very least you should mention in the caption that it's Paladin on the ______ Ocean in addition to your quip and that should cover it just fine. --Guppymomma 15:19, 11 October 2006 (PDT)

Yeah, someone could do that. It'd be more encyclopedic I guess. --Paladin

Great. Would you mind telling us which ocean that is on? :) --Angelbeaver ^(talk) 15:00, 15 October 2006 (PDT)

I believe it's in the article, actually. --Paladin

Paladin as he may appear on one or more of the oceans.

That is most certainly not encyclopedic. --Angelbeaver ^(talk) 16:28, 20 October 2006 (PDT)

Nostalgia

Remember back when this article would actually get criticism? NPOV, vanity... no one would even think of trying to enforce those things on a pirate article now. --Paladin 06:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The vanity restrictions may have been largely relaxed for pirate articles, but the NPOV rule still holds true. Why - are you getting nostalgic because you want us to insist that your page needs to be notable? --Belthazar451 06:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My article easily met notability guidelines, even then. I want you to demand these things of every article. I know this is not going to happen; I'm just being nostalgic. And guess what, mister 16 April 2008 guy, you're not invited. --Paladin 06:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Userbox and "learned"

I would like to know your logic behind trying to add a userbox to this article. The article looks fine without it and none of the information that can be put in a userbox applies to or is meaningful in the context of this pirate. Moreover, the userbox that got added had a red link due to seemingly being incorrectly filled out.

This pirate does not have a portrait, he does not have a portrait gallery, he does not have familiars, any crew he was in that wasn't Null he was only a part of because he couldn't or couldn't be bothered to log on to leave it; I don't know what else you can fit in these fancy boxes but it is highly likely he won't have any of that either. I cannot think of a use for this userbox that the regular article as it is now doesn't already take care of better.

On another note, when I reverted, the spelling of "learned" changed back to "learnt" with it and I didn't turn it back into "learned". I don't really see a reason why I or anyone would. Can you tell me why you think it should be spelt that way? --Paladin 21:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, for the first part about the user box it's pretty simple, the article says "this page needs to be cleaned up by adding a info box" so I did. Plus it doesn't really matter anyway, I mean the one I put up only added a icon that showed your name with the ranks you are on in the different oceans, it didn't add much at all, I actually added just enough so that it wasn't changed much but still didn't "need an info box". If you're really against it though and pages don't need info boxes then I guess it can be left out, I'm just trying to clean up the pages, that's all. It would be better with that though so if people wonder "what was this pirate's stats" they can just click on it there. Maybe you can make the page look like what I put up before I reverted it back to normal for you so that it has an info box but still doesn't alter your page much but can take out the blank portrait page and replace that with the image you have already. Also, about the "learned" and "learnt" thing I just thought that was a miss spelling and that it sounds better, I mean as I typed in "leant" my spell check is trying to correct it, but after reading this it said it was some kind of British way of talking so I guess it is fine the way it is then. --Crfandy 18:12, 10 August 2008 (ET)

I wasn't asking just you, specifically, rather the both of you, though I do think you should think before obeying a template. It's true the links to the pirate pages could be of interest to people, but in this case, they don't tell you that much about the pirate.

You might also be careful about blindly following the directions of a spellchecker with an American dictionary when editing a wiki that − at least, as far as I know it does − accepts both American and English.

Post-edit conflict note: What are you talking about? This article has no use for an infobox at all. The infoboxes are a convenient way of formatting certain information and it helps flesh out starting articles. The information is either not present or relevant in this particular case, and the article had already been written before the userbox even existed. --Paladin 22:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Specifically the message box mentioned the Infobox pirate template not the userbox template. There is an Infobox user template but that would not be appropriate either. As for the appropriateness of the Infobox pirate template being added to this, or any, pirate page is completely accurate. All pirate pages follow this format and as such this page will do the same.

The article as it previously existed, never discussed any of the information that can be obtained by clicking on the links to the yoweb pirate page. I can learn more about this pirate from the yoweb page as to the sort of puzzles this pirate spent a lot of time in and excelled in.

As such, there is no reason for the Infobox pirate template not to be included in any pirate page and should remain. -- Cedarwings ^(talk) 02:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason this "infobox" has been added to most of these articles is that it is relevant in most of them. To my knowledge, there is no existing policy to include any such template on every pirate article, nor is there a policy or a reason to standardize all of them.

You are greatly overestimating the usefulness of those links to the stat pages. Due to inactivity and deletion and remaking of characters, they will not be representative of the pirate's activities or abilities.

Like I said, to my knowledge there is no policy or guideline saying every article should have a template, regardless of appropriateness, and if you want there to be one, I propose you suggest it over at those pages. I will not have you make this article worse than it was in some personal crusade for standardization.

I will, unlike my no doubt good-faithed colleague here, keep the template up for now, to avoid getting into an edit war, but there should be some discussion. I'm hoping you can give me some better reason than "everyone else is doing it". --Paladin 01:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been over four days and I have had no reply. My opponent in this debate either conceded or doesn't care. Either way, I'm getting rid of that inappropriate, ugly box. If you feel this article needs some of those links, add them to an external links section. --Paladin 01:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Cedarwings' lack of response could simply be that he hasn't logged on in almost a week.

In any case, it seems to me there's a reasonably simple way to resolve this infobox issue: are any of the Paladins that can be found on the oceans now you? If not, and they're just other pirates using the same name, then yes, there's no point in having the infobox. --Belthazar451 01:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Paladin can't be found on any ocean at all. Have you read the article? Actually, I heard some new ocean is an exception to that, but I can't really check that right now. If there's a Paladin there, the same player isn't behind him or her as is behind at least some of the other ones. How does this affect any of the stated arguments?

Four days is almost a week? Anyway, it doesn't matter when Amoyer has or hasn't logged in and why or why not. This thing isn't between me and him: on principle it's a matter for the entire editor team to resolve. It's not going to get frozen just because he isn't around. --Paladin 02:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)