Talk:List of Ultima characters

Sherry in U3

Not sure about the computer version, but didn't you get the compass hearts from a character named Sherry in the NES version of U3? Or is the chart referring to Sherry the Mouse? Y0u | Y0ur talk page 20:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This list can't hold all the characters

The The Companions of the Avatar has a lot of characters which would not fit on the article here, therefore it perfectly reasonable to put them elsewhere. Otherwise many notable characters would be lost. Also, the ones who get mentioned here already, don't have nearly enough information about them, as they do over there. Individual articles for all the companions were deleted/merged into the companions article. Wikipedia isn't running out of space people. No reason to destroy valid information, just to make it all fit here, and then to erase some notable characters from the list. Dream Focus 20:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Merge discussion merge Lord British, Avatar (Ultima) and The Companions of the Avatar into List of Ultima characters?

The merge discussion should be here, not at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Lord_British. Dream Focus 01:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been suggested that Lord British, Avatar (Ultima), and The Companions of the Avatar be merged into this article or section. I say Keep for all three.

• Keep Avatar (Ultima) which just closed as Keep at AFD.
• Keep Lord British as a highly notable character, with plenty of mention in the real world press, as the game character and the persona of famed game designer Richard Garriott.
• Keep The Companions of the Avatar as the information would make this article too long, so its valid to place it in a separate article. Removing a large chunk of the content to merge it over, as someone has tried to do, and eliminating most of the companions to make it all fit, is ridiculous. Just keep it over there. Dream Focus 01:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

First, as the closer stated, the result of the AfD has no effect on a merge discussion, so please do not use that as a reason to keep it. Now for a few quick questions: Do you even care about quality articles? Do you see any of these three becoming good or featured articles? If I just said "Screw it, it's not worth it.", would you even touch these afterward? Really, I mean, you whine and moan about the evil deletionists destroying such important information, but do you honestly even care about anything more than the principal of these characters having articles? It is so annoying playing this whole game with people like you, who go on and on about how important this stuff is, and then when its all over, the articles just sit in the same poor state for years.

How exactly is the section on Lord British any different from the article? The first paragraph deals with the creation, the second deals with the character's role in the series, and the third deals with the whole "immortality claim." That is no different from the article, but it is nice and compact. Does it really make the character unimportant just because it has a few paragraphs and no title? In the time that you've wasted trying to protect it, you probably could have at least gotten one Ultima game article to GA status, but instead, all you have is a single page that does not assert any sort of real notability at all. TTN (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality level is not a valid reason to eliminate something. You may see 99% of the articles on Wikipedia is unimportant, but they matter to someone. I see nothing wrong with the articles, having found them interesting to read, and believe they meet all requirements to exists on Wikipedia. The article sent to AFD closed as Keep, proving its notability. Only the nominator thought it something that should be deleted. Dream Focus 02:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Reduced the whole Lord British to four paragraphs. In the process, no encyclopedic information was lost, and it could probably be shortened further. Stuff like "how to kill British in this or that game" violates WP:GAMEGUIDE and got chopped out. As for the rest, not much when you really work on the text is being said: the majority is just drawn out wording or unrelated details.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The finished result could easily fit into the list as the four paragraphs now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

In order to get your way, you went over and deleted more than half of that article, erasing not just the well covered assassination bit, but other valid content. I undid your changes. Please use the talk page there to discuss things before editing again. Dream Focus 03:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There was not point in "getting my way", I edited so that a) trivia was removed b) it was worded so as to not be as overly wordy and c) primed it for any real world information that can readily be added. So if you want to keep it, start adding reception and other real-world content.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep the AFD was !voted as keep, Dreamfocus, you can contact everyone in the AfD about this attempt to merge, as long as it is a neutral message, and you contact everyone. Ikip (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Well I made a reasonable attempt to give the article some much needed Exlax so notability can be proven. It's a shame because I think with some work it might be important enough for an article, but apparently Dream Focus wishes to assume bad faith, conspiracy theories (yes I said it, deal with it) and onwership. Bleh.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  You don't want notability proven, since as soon as you were done, you went over to the merge discussion and said you had hacked it down enough to be easily merged. It isn't a conspiracy theory, to notice what is obvious before you. I have contacted everyone who participated in the AFD, other than those who already posted here, since they of course know about the merger discussion. Dream Focus 03:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  • No that would be an observation on my part. I never said "support" or "merge" or whatever, just that it could fit into a list. It's you that jumped the gun. :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not in favor of a merge. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we move the material to the talk page until we reach consensus, or am I going to have to request it be protected? Ikip (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears like large sections of referenced material was removed, but the material seems rather trivial, and the sourcing could be better. Ikip (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The only one that seems a clear case for merging is The Companions of the Avatar. Merging a list of characters to a list of characters seems uncontroversial. Furthermore, the Companions article is completely unsourced, and game-guideish, but the other two have at what looks to be real world info. Abductive (reasoning) 03:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support merge per what I said here i.e. a few miscellaneous sourced statements isn't enough for a decent article. bridies (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge: The point stands that both the Avatar and Companions of the Avatar are not referenced enough to be character articles according to Wikipedia standards. In fact, it seems that the AFD consensus was actually to redirect/merge, but it was shut down for not being a valid AFD anyway. There is no reason for the article to be deleted, but it should still be merged.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  It closed as Keep[1]. And 7 people said Keep, with 5 saying redirect, and one saying merge. Dream Focus 03:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Merge would make article too long. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC).
• Keep. Merging would make the article too long. Lord British and the Avatar are notable characters and covered in reliable sources, including academic ones. Offliner (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Someone should cut them down the content verifiable in independent reliable sources, and then see if they "would make the aricle too long". bridies (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I'll have to have a good look through next week before I give my opinion. I'd just like to ask people to read WP:Writing about fiction if they haven't done so already. I quickly looked at the Lord British article. The sources presented don't come close to the GNG. A bullet-pointed list of ways to kill the character? Our coverage of this aspect should reflect the attention given to it by our sources, which would seem to be a few sentences at most. Plot information should be included in the plot summary of the games. This can probably all be cut down to a mergable level. Will look at the "List of" article another time. Marasmusine (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Per above. With the thousands of sources it should be possible to write at least good articles about these subjects independently, so best not to merge. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Merge Avatar: Though the result of the AfD was "Keep", I feel that there are several issues which were not properly taken into account. Yes, there was only one "Delete", but I believe that was the result of the comment about GDFL's impact on merged content. That's why there was a chunk of "Redirect" and "Merge"'s. However, many of the "Keep"'s did not cite any policy or guideline. Most simply stated that the character deserves its own article based on common sense that the character appeared a lot, which is not how Wikipedia is structured. When asked to provide sources, very few were supplied despite the assertion that many exist. If those in favor of Avatar remaining its own article, then I suggest the quickest way to end this is to provide said sources to satisfy WP:V and WP:RS. Because in the article's current state, I have to agree the article is not up to standards and a merge would strengthen this list. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

  Wikipedia is not a set of rules. You are to use common sense, and ignore all rules, they just suggestions on what to do in most cases. The founding principle, it a policy/law, which was there long before the suggested guidelines of notability came about, reads WP:IAR "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." It all comes down to consensus. The AFD established consensus was to keep. Dream Focus 16:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  Dream- While I agree common sense must play a part in our practices here, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules clearly states "if", not to always ignore all rules. And regardless of age, the other guidelines still have to be taken into account as one of the Five pillars also clearly states "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy; unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references."

  So again, I suggest the best way to end this quickly is to provide said sources that establish Avatar's notability. In it's current state, the sources in such an article of its size does not meet standards. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

  The character has notable mention in various third party media publications, as well as in studies done, and is the star of 14 Ultima games, all of them notable, many redefining the industry. Did you see the parts I added earlier this week? Dream Focus 16:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  Yes I did Dream. In fact I linked the version I examined in my response above. It is a good start, but in it's current state not enough to warrant a separate article. So again, I ask that you present and add the "various third party media publications" and studies. That is what will bring this matter about the Avatar to an end. I guarantee you that if you provide a slew of sources, the above opposition will see no point in continuing the matter. Most have conceded the character is an important gaming element, but that does not cut it by Wikipedia's standards. And that is what they are trying to enforce. Despite the lengthy argument, we all want the same thing: quality, informative video game articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

  Quality informative video game articles? How do you get that by destroying an article, or some of the informative content? The character is notable enough to be on a list with other characters, but not by his self, even if the valid information about him wouldn't all fit properly on the merged article? It seems some people are just obsessed with mindless rules. You don't need someone to tell you something is notable, you able to think for yourself. Video game characters didn't get as much coverage back in those days as they do now. Old media sources aren't always archived. If the character was notable enough to be in 14 Ultima games, all of them quite notable, plus a Japanese Anime and manga series, then common sense would say, that character is notable enough to have their own article. Dream Focus 23:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "mindless rules." Managing articles that are not up to par is just basic cleanup work. As it stands, none of these have a chance of reaching GA status, and they have been given enough of a chance to reach that point, though if you actually provide some real sources, that can easily change. The list itself can be expanded upon and possibly reach FL status with some work, so including these within the list to strengthen it makes perfect sense. While you keep mentioning the importance and the status of the characters, you need to actually show that through substantial secondary reliable sources, not through one or two that can easily fit within the list. TTN (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Dream- TTN is correct that this is not about mindless rules. Though you say we are destroying the article, can you honestly say that this version is optimal quality? If you think it can be better, then improve it by adding the sources you say are out there. If you need time to research, then take a week. There are a number of video game sources you can search if you need some help. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

Quality level is not a reason to destroy an article. Otherwise most of Wikipedia would be wiped out. I see nothing wrong with the article. I judge things by content, not how well others believe them to be written. The notability of the topic is what you are suppose to be considering, not how the article is written. Dream Focus 10:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because a topic is (barely) notable does not mean it cannot be merged. Most of these article consist of unreferenced or in-universe information which should be removed. It's no use saying "oh someone might get round to adding some substantial worthy content some day". Most of the articles are appallingly bad; that content should be removed; the articles will thus be small enough to be merged. It's that simple, unless someone can prove otherwise by adding substantial, reliably (and independently) sourced content to the article, but no one will. You should also leave out the bad faith accusations, it's getting tiresome. bridies (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Most people have thus far said Keep, not merge. It is unlikely anyone will convince the other side of their opinion, so no sense to try to debate it any further with you. There is no consensus for merge, so the articles must remain. Please don't try to wipe out half their content, so you have an excuse to try to merge them. Dream Focus 10:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You have an inability to debate anything coherently. bridies (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you just have a low reading comprehension skill, and thus can't understand the writing of others if not presented in a certain way, thus the reason you don't like the current wording of the articles you wish to destroy. Dream Focus 11:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

A certain way? As in an intelligent, coherent manner that shows some semblance of understanding policies and guidelines and does not resort to "YOU GUYS ARE TRYING TO BURN MY ARTICLE TO THE GROUND WAAAH"? Damn, you're right. bridies (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

←Let's please keep this discussion civil.

Dream- I am considering the notability of the article. Given the sources and content presented, I have to say it is not notable enough. You can always change my mind by presenting me with more sources though. Also, I can't help but feel we have different definitions of "notability". Yes the Avatar is an important and well-known character. But per Wikipedia:Notability, "a notability determination does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic". "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The article in its current state does not meet that criteria.

So again, the quickest way to settle this is to present the sources you and others have said existed. The fact this is the fifth time I've asked you to do this is very disconcerting. If they don't exist, they don't exist. If they do but are hard to find, take some time to search. If you are unable to find them, we can merge the content for now. The article name will remain as a redirect and it can be turned back into an article once enough sources is found. Mergers and deletions are not the final stage of articles on Wikipedia. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 12:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

Most people have already said Keep not merge. Most people are convinced the sources found throughout the article, are enough to establish notability. I'm sorry I can't convince all of you, but the majority have already stated both in the AFD and in this discussion to keep it, not merge. Dream Focus 13:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a discussion not a vote, and the various "keeps" have been spurious arguments based on article length and unproven claims of "thousands" of available sources. bridies (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Merges are based on consensus. And you shouldn't insult or dismiss the opinions of others. Most people said keep, then that's the consensus, and must be followed. The fact that a small number might not agree with that, is not relevant. You can not move against consensus. You can try to convince them of your point of view, and see if they change their mind, but don't go trying to ignore their opinions entirely because you disagree with their reasoning. Dream Focus 14:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus does not equal votes. Policies and guidelines have wide consensus and your arguments have absolutely no grounding in them; neither does "article too long" (the actual valid content is not too long) or "thousands of sources available" (prove it?). bridies (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Dream, while I agree merges are based on consensus, consensus is not a democracy based on majority. And I hate to keep repeating myself, but many of the "Keep"'s did not cite any policy or guideline. Most simply stated that the character deserves its own article based on common sense that the character appeared a lot, which is not how Wikipedia is structured.

So for a sixth time, please provide further third-party sourcing for the article. I find it very disconcerting that this issue of sourcing keeps being ignored. I've listed several options above that can be pursued including a time extension. If you have no intention of addressing my above post about finding sources, then I am not convinced the article complies with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

Ignore all rules is policy, which outweights any suggested guideline. It reads "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." If consensus is it'd be good for Wikipedia to keep this article, since many people will enjoy reading it, and those who don't won't be likely to ever find it anyway, then it should be kept. The notability guidelines are just the suggested guidelines, just as Common sense is a guideline. Bestselling novels are often nominated for deletion, but even though the rules say to eliminate them if they have no reviews(many don't), consensus and common sense often ends in keep. See this [classic example]. I have not found any more references than what have already been added. I believe them to be enough. If you don't agree, I'm not going to convince you otherwise. Dream Focus 15:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now we're going in circles. I seem to recall pointing out that WP:IAR clearly states "if" and bringing up another policy on par with WP:IAR that says "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy; unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references."

Anyway, I thank you for address my sourcing question. In regard to the extent of the sources in the article. The following content is from the sources.

• "Players could chose their avatar's gender and race. This was a first in computer games. The models the artists used for the female avatars were female athletes, and the armor they were was femine, but not hypersexual. Overall, they were a good representations of both gender and race." -Ray
• "The ethical character building of the Avatar character in Ultima IV, develops in the game morally as what he describes as the same as religious architecture." -Haysediscusses
• "The term 'avatar' was first used in a virtual context in 1985 in the popular Ultima series of video role-playing games. Ultima IV (1985) named the player character "Avatar" and later games in the series followed suit." -Waggoner

While this is a good start, it doesn't offer that broad of information and is rather minimal in my opinion. If this is as good is it's going to get, I think the sources would better strengthen this list. Why have two weak pages, when you can combine them into something greater? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

How exactly would combining it make it something greater? That makes absolutely no sense at all. Its the same information, minus a large chunk reduced for size problems, so it can't possible be improved by being combined. And the only people interested in reading this sort of article, won't be as interested with a lot of the information interesting to them removed to make it short enough to merge. So you end up with less people clicking around to read the Ultima articles at all, assuming they had all been equally gutted. Dream Focus 15:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• I recommend a request for comment. DreamFocus has all but admitted he doesn't have a leg to stand on, yet is still claiming consensus. There is recent edit warring on the Lord British article over the removal of unsourced content so it seems no progress is being made on the actual article content either. bridies (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I did not admit to any such nonsense. And at the Lord British article we discussed, two editors disagreeing, I asking for a third opinion. And there was progress made there, references added to the assassination part, proving it had plenty of media coverage, and was even the subject of a university professor's study on the video game history that people remembered, that an event everyone questioned recalls. Dream Focus 15:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep rather than merge as these seems capable of being larger than stubs as well sourced articles that are relevant to at least some segment of our readership. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Those against the mergers

• Dream Focus
• Ikip
• A Nobody
• Peregrine Fisher
• Xxanthippe
• Offliner
• FeydHuxtable

Those for mergers

• Kung Fu Man
• bridies
• ZXCVBNM
• Guyinblack25

• Abductive is for the companion article being merged only, saying it was the only clear case.

7 against the mergers, 4 for the merges, and 1 guy for one but against the other two. I think consensus is to not merge anything. Dream Focus 16:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Dream- With all due respect, Wikipedia is not a democracy and Polling is not a substitute for discussion. A vote count does not equal a consensus. This has been mentioned several times before during the course of the discussion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

I looked on the Wikipedia page for merging, and it didn't say any of the sort. Consensus means what the majority of people agree upon. In the AFD its different, but merges are in fact, determined by what the majority of people want. Dream Focus 16:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but per Wikipedia:Consensus, consensus "is the communal process of collaboration to create content." The process "should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons." (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

Arbitrary section break

Dream, while I know you are doing what you can to improve the articles for the readers, you have to keep Wikipedia's intended audience in mind. Encyclopedic video games are not written for gamers and as such Ultima articles are not written for Ultima enthusiasts. Our articles here on Wikipedia are written for general readers that may or may not know anything about the subject and its related topic. So while you may consider the fact that the Avatar rarely speaks, the general reader may not. As such, we have to tailor the content to provide proper weight to facts, and real-world perspectives are always favored over fictional ones.

Combining them will make the topic greater by eliminating excess detail that does not further the general reader's understanding of the topic. See Characters of Kingdom Hearts and List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow for examples. Each major character previously had their own article, but they provided nothing of real-world importance to a general reader. A few, however, kept their own article space because they were cleaned up, like Soma Cruz.

Regardless, the sources are rather minimal, they look like just passing mentions, and I don't believe that equates to "significant coverage". I'm sorry, but other than WP:IAR and WP:UCS, which is really just a detailed extension of the former, no other policy or guideline has been presented that supports Avatar (Ultima) remaining a stand alone article.

Bridies- If this discussion will only result in an edit war that better the two sides, I also believe a request for comment would help. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia's intended audience? Where is that listed at. Wiki means casual, doesn't it? And these character articles have been around for years, then suddenly a small number of people decided to change the notability guidelines, without a general vote or most being aware of it, and then got together in various wikiprojects, to find every single character page there was, and eliminate them. Even Princess Zelda has her page challenged. And I don't need any policy other than the one I have cited, no one caring about your suggested guidelines. No one can take them seriously anyway, since there was no general vote, they just the opinion of a small number of people who camp out there and argue nonstop to get their way. Most people have stated it should be kept, it just a small number of you determined to eliminate. Accept the will of the people, consensus clearly established, and stop trying to wikilawyer. Some people have no interest in history, science, sex, cartoons, comics, video games, or many other categories of articles on the wikipedia, and they simply ignore them. If you don't like it, you won't be searching for it, and thus won't notice it exists at all. If thousands of people read it each year, and enjoy it, then leave it be. What you consider excess detail, we consider interesting and relevant facts. If there is anything you don't think belongs there, discuss it on the relevant talk page, and form a consensus. Dream Focus 16:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Dream, with all due respect, this is not about voting. A larger number of people wanting to keep something without citing any policy or guideline is not a consensus. And just because an article does not do any harm does not mean it should be kept. Potential readership or subjective usefulness does not factor into notability, which is based on "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Look, it's quite clear you don't agree with us and have no plans to (if I misinterpret that, I apologize). So I hate to play this card, but we'd be well within Wikipedia's rules to merge the Avatar article's content to this list and change it to a redirect. But I know that will turn into an edit war and possible blocks for the involved parties. We don't want that and neither do you. Will a request for comments satisfy you so we can move forward with this issue? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

I've requested an RFC (hopefully correctly) below regardless. bridies (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

RFC break

Both sides claiming consensus in above merge discussion; additional opinions sought. bridies (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

After some consideration, my stance is that of merge. The "List" article is plot information and should be subsumed into the plot summaries of the specific game articles. As I mentioned above, the short references on the Lord British article do not warrant the large section on killing the character, but perhaps a sentence or two in Ultima (series). This is not a case where I choose to "ignore all rules", I believe using the style guide, notability guidelines and verifiability policy will make for a better encyclopedia. Marasmusine (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Are mergers determined by the opinions of the people there, or by your interpretation of policy and guidelines? Unlike the AFD page, the merger page doesn't say that it does. I don't see it listed anywhere, that mergers are determined by guideline interpretation, only consensus. And most people said not to merge. There is NO CONSENSUS TO MERGE. Therefore, it shouldn't be done. Dream Focus 11:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Is your opinion more important than that of other editors? If most people are against the merge, should it be done? Do you not believe the coverage Lord British has gotten in the press, as both the name legendary game maker Richard Garriott uses, as well as the media coverage for the assassination of the character in Ultima Online, clearly justify that article's existence? It meets all requirements, having third party media coverage. So why is it even being considered for a merge? Dream Focus 11:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I just added a quote from Wired magazine on the historical importance of the Assassination of Lord British in Ultima Online, the protest that followed, and its affect on the industry. Quite a notable event. Also, please read the talk page additions for more proof of his notability. Dream Focus 11:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Is your opinion more important than anyone else's? Despite the inclusionists popping in here to give their "opinions" (that's why we don't go by pure numbers), you are the only one who is actually vocal about keeping these. You still haven't found anything that actually makes an article for Lord British necessary. No mater what you find, the topic of the character dying only needs a paragraph to sum it all up. Also, the newest source is leaning towards being more relevant to Ultima Online than the character's article. TTN (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Everyone's opinion is equal. And most people's opinions are that the references and the context of the articles are sufficient. A smaller number of you delitionists, who all hang out at the same wikiproject, all thinking the same, and determined to wipe out every character article you can get away with, seem determined to do this. Dream Focus 15:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Dream- Wikipedia:Merging (I assume this is the page you are citing) is more of a "how-to" page created a few months ago from content on Help:Merging (see its edit history), it is not a guideline or policy. It looks to give scenarios where merging is the best practice, but it gives no guidelines on how to determine those scenarios. That is what consensus is for, which is a Wikipedia-wide practice that covers mergers too.

So in response to your first comment above, merges are determined by consensus and our interpretation of policy and guidelines. Consensus must be made by reasonable arguments based on the policies and guidelines. You've presented some good points, but unfortunately the articles are lacking in encyclopedic quality. Without the sources to establish notability and present a real-world perspective, the content would better serve our readers in a condensed form among similar characters. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

You aren't serving your readers, you are driving them away. I find your arguments all ridiculous. And the merger page saws to follow WP:fict which is no longer even a guideline, and has been changed many times since the merger page first linked to it. You don't like how its written, you don't like character articles and think we should wipe them all out, you don't like long articles preferring them to be short pointless and not interesting to anyone at all, and you use your interpretation of the ever changing suggested guidelines as an excuse to destroy something you don't like. Why discuss things at all when the opinions of most people here don't matter at all, you determined to do things your way no matter what? Why pretend its consensus, when clearly there is no consensus here? Dream Focus 15:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)