This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

If I remember correctly, "baditude" was a term coined years ago on GameSpot (if not elsewhere) that was meant to describe things like Shadow the Hedgehog; a sense of attitude that comes across as feeling forced. Naturally, someone at some point made a page for it. The problem is that baditude by itself is pretty hard to pin down in most cases. Determining what is versus what isn't baditudinal (baditudeous?) is a subjective endeavor, because what may come across as forced and trite to one person may not be so much to another. And when I look at some of the games associated with the page, the association makes no sense in my mind. (Street Fighter X Tekken? Really?)

So yeah, I'd recommend this page for deletion.

EDIT:

Based on the recommendations of comments below, I'd also like to formally submit the NosCon page for deletion. A word coined by the staff on a Bombcast isn't grounds for becoming a wiki concept. makes the best argument for its deletion:

Just another case of site jokes gone awry, I'm afraid. There are a lot of weird assumptions being made with that term (i.e., that developers are preying upon nostalgia and "apologizing" for past games) that simply shouldn't be there. Not to mention the entire (quite lengthy) article is basically an exercise in trying to explain what exactly is or is not a NosCon. Something that requires that much effort just to define is probably more trouble than its worth.

#2 Posted by LordAndrew (14430 posts) -

The page was problematic four years ago. As the wiki has matured, its very existence has become problematic. The concept's definition is arbitrary and the associations are subjective.

The text blurbs for the associations are no help either. The only character blurb reads:

Chaud is a hero with baditude as to contrast Lan's more gentle manner.

Not helpful.

#3 Posted by Dagbiker (6978 posts) -

If we are doing that then Extreme Violence needs to be edited to be objective.

#4 Posted by buzz_clik (7026 posts) -

Agreed! As amusing as the page may or may not be, it's entirely subjective.

Moderator
#5 Posted by Praxis (261 posts) -

Yep. Baditude is a nonsense word to begin with, so devoting an entire page to it is wholly unnecessary.

#6 Posted by Dagbiker (6978 posts) -

@Praxis said:

Yep. Baditude is a nonsense word to begin with, so devoting an entire page to it is wholly unnecessary.

I guess you weren't here for NosCon

#7 Posted by Praxis (261 posts) -

@Dagbiker: I'm not particularly fond of that page either, but I try to pick my battles.

#8 Edited by RenegadeSaint (1555 posts) -

I agree. This page should be deleted. Until a game has baditude as a gameplay element or it takes on an industry-wide definition, it should be removed.

@Dagbiker said:

@Praxis said:

Yep. Baditude is a nonsense word to begin with, so devoting an entire page to it is wholly unnecessary.

I guess you weren't here for NosCon

Wow, that page should go to. Really, NosCon? Its stated definition is non-sensical. People shouldn't be able to just make up defining criteria for something that doesn't exist.

#9 Posted by ajamafalous (12147 posts) -
@RenegadeSaint said:

I agree. This page should be deleted. Until a game has baditude as a gameplay element or it takes on an industry-wide definition, it should be removed.

@Dagbiker said:

@Praxis said:

Yep. Baditude is a nonsense word to begin with, so devoting an entire page to it is wholly unnecessary.

I guess you weren't here for NosCon

Wow, that page should go to. Really, NosCon? Its stated definition is non-sensical. People shouldn't be able to just make up defining criteria for something that doesn't exist.

That's a staff-endorsed page, bro.
#10 Posted by Kraznor (1588 posts) -

I mainly heard it used in reference to franchises that had an obvious tone shift in an effort to appeal to an older, "edgier" demographic. Specifically, in the Gamespot days it was used to describe "Prince of Persia: Warrior Within" which went from a T to an M rating and had a rock soundtrack. It then got applied to Shadow the Hedgehog (by me, strangely, in an "On the Spot" question to Greg Kasavin) and I guess it spiraled out of control after that.

So I guess in its present, super vague state, it needn't exist. Too bad though, as I think that kind of tone shift is still something of interest and a trend in the industry. Maybe "baditude" just sounds too general to describe it.

#11 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@ajamafalous said:

@RenegadeSaint said:

I agree. This page should be deleted. Until a game has baditude as a gameplay element or it takes on an industry-wide definition, it should be removed.

@Dagbiker said:

@Praxis said:

Yep. Baditude is a nonsense word to begin with, so devoting an entire page to it is wholly unnecessary.

I guess you weren't here for NosCon

Wow, that page should go to. Really, NosCon? Its stated definition is non-sensical. People shouldn't be able to just make up defining criteria for something that doesn't exist.

That's a staff-endorsed page, bro.

I don't think anyone has actually proposed it for deletion before.

The staff making up a word on the Bombcast doesn't mean its suitable as a concept.

#12 Posted by Praxis (261 posts) -

@RenegadeSaint: Just another case of site jokes gone awry, I'm afraid. There are a lot of weird assumptions being made with that term (i.e., that developers are preying upon nostalgia and "apologizing" for past games) that simply shouldn't be there. Not to mention the entire (quite lengthy) article is basically an exercise in trying to explain what exactly is or is not a NosCon. Something that requires that much effort just to define is probably more trouble than its worth.

#13 Posted by bobafettjm (1474 posts) -

I could certain live with myself if both of those were gone. I am not really too into these types of concepts.

#14 Posted by Hunter5024 (5962 posts) -

I feel like the page could probably be saved if we used descriptive text that made it more specific, but it will always be a subjective thing so I don't think anyone will cry if it's gone.

Online
#15 Posted by Deusoma (3032 posts) -

I say we keep it. People come to Giant Bomb for the personality first and the information second. If we take everything subjective out of the database, it will become a second-rate Wikipedia for video games, and lose all of its appeal. "Baditude" is a goofy-ass concept, there's no denying that. Here's the thing; that's the entire point, to officially acknowledge something a more serious website never would. Collecting all the games that show half a face on the boxart into one concept page is equally pointless, but we leave it because it's funny. Same with the wildly inaccurate list of "facts" on Brad Shoemaker's page that make him out to be some kind of sexy messiah, and the list of things Jeff Gerstmann hates on his page. Frankly, people, if you're going to get rid of all the goofiness on Giant Bomb, they might as well close down the site and have the Bomb Squad post their reviews on GameSpot.

#16 Posted by huntad (1958 posts) -

I don't really mind NosCon so much, because I understand what it means by looking at the page and it's unique. I have no clue what baditude means.

#17 Posted by LordAndrew (14430 posts) -

@Deusoma said:

Frankly, people, if you're going to get rid of all the goofiness on Giant Bomb, they might as well close down the site and have the Bomb Squad post their reviews on GameSpot.

Only if the Xtreme Baditude demerit badge is included on all of them.

#18 Posted by Praxis (261 posts) -

@Deusoma: "Games that show half a face" is accepted because, while silly, it describes something objective and quantifiable, which baditude does not. As far as the staff pages go, I've always just assumed that they are the wiki equivalent of the elephant in the room that everyone has agreed not to talk about. Half of the information on those pages is completely incomprehensible if you're not already up to your neck in Giant Bomb.

#19 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@Deusoma said:

I say we keep it. People come to Giant Bomb for the personality first and the information second.

That's a foolish line of reasoning for keeping such concepts in the wiki. You personally don't know what people come to Giant Bomb for. I know I spend far more time reading and working on the wiki than I do absorbing staff content.

#20 Posted by BurningStickMan (238 posts) -

Another vote for deletion. I don't want to see the wiki turn into what something like Urban Dictionary has become - more about trying ham-fistedly create and popularize new memes than document actual, existing slang. Same thing here. We don't need to "invent" new genre tropes for wiki lulz.

@Deusoma The half a face page is not subjective in any way. Same for "walking away from an explosion" or any of the other existing fads. Different issue. But absolutely, leave the staff pages hilarious cauldrons of semi-truths.

#21 Posted by ajamafalous (12147 posts) -
@Deusoma said:
I say we keep it. People come to Giant Bomb for the personality first and the information second. If we take everything subjective out of the database, it will become a second-rate Wikipedia for video games, and lose all of its appeal. "Baditude" is a goofy-ass concept, there's no denying that. Here's the thing; that's the entire point, to officially acknowledge something a more serious website never would. Collecting all the games that show half a face on the boxart into one concept page is equally pointless, but we leave it because it's funny. Same with the wildly inaccurate list of "facts" on Brad Shoemaker's page that make him out to be some kind of sexy messiah, and the list of things Jeff Gerstmann hates on his page. Frankly, people, if you're going to get rid of all the goofiness on Giant Bomb, they might as well close down the site and have the Bomb Squad post their reviews on GameSpot.
I completely agree with everything here.
#22 Posted by Hunter5024 (5962 posts) -

@Deusoma: You do make a good point about the wiki becoming a second rate wikipedia, maybe if the language on the page were a little clearer then we could keep it. For instance I think Shadow The Hedgehog is something that just about everyone could agree makes sense on the page, because he's literally just a remade Sonic whose supposed to be edgier. Things like that are a lot less subjective.

Online
#23 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@ajamafalous said:

@Deusoma said:
I say we keep it. People come to Giant Bomb for the personality first and the information second. If we take everything subjective out of the database, it will become a second-rate Wikipedia for video games, and lose all of its appeal. "Baditude" is a goofy-ass concept, there's no denying that. Here's the thing; that's the entire point, to officially acknowledge something a more serious website never would. Collecting all the games that show half a face on the boxart into one concept page is equally pointless, but we leave it because it's funny. Same with the wildly inaccurate list of "facts" on Brad Shoemaker's page that make him out to be some kind of sexy messiah, and the list of things Jeff Gerstmann hates on his page. Frankly, people, if you're going to get rid of all the goofiness on Giant Bomb, they might as well close down the site and have the Bomb Squad post their reviews on GameSpot.
I completely agree with everything here.

Subjectivity has no place in the database. That is a rule that comes from the very top. If you want to argue with Jeff about it, go ahead, but you won't get anywhere. The wiki is not something to be constructed for the lulz. Just because a concept is "goofy-ass" does not make it appropriate. This isn't the Urban Dictionary or TV Tropes.

#24 Posted by ajamafalous (12147 posts) -
@Hailinel said:

@ajamafalous said:

@Deusoma said:
I say we keep it. People come to Giant Bomb for the personality first and the information second. If we take everything subjective out of the database, it will become a second-rate Wikipedia for video games, and lose all of its appeal. "Baditude" is a goofy-ass concept, there's no denying that. Here's the thing; that's the entire point, to officially acknowledge something a more serious website never would. Collecting all the games that show half a face on the boxart into one concept page is equally pointless, but we leave it because it's funny. Same with the wildly inaccurate list of "facts" on Brad Shoemaker's page that make him out to be some kind of sexy messiah, and the list of things Jeff Gerstmann hates on his page. Frankly, people, if you're going to get rid of all the goofiness on Giant Bomb, they might as well close down the site and have the Bomb Squad post their reviews on GameSpot.
I completely agree with everything here.

Subjectivity has no place in the database. That is a rule that comes from the very top. If you want to argue with Jeff about it, go ahead, but you won't get anywhere. The wiki is not something to be constructed for the lulz. Just because a concept is "goofy-ass" does not make it appropriate. This isn't the Urban Dictionary or TV Tropes.

I also agree with you that subjectivity doesn't belong, but there have been a lot of pages proposed for deletion that were objective but that someone thought weren't 'serious enough' for the wiki.
#25 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@ajamafalous said:

@Hailinel said:

@ajamafalous said:

@Deusoma said:
I say we keep it. People come to Giant Bomb for the personality first and the information second. If we take everything subjective out of the database, it will become a second-rate Wikipedia for video games, and lose all of its appeal. "Baditude" is a goofy-ass concept, there's no denying that. Here's the thing; that's the entire point, to officially acknowledge something a more serious website never would. Collecting all the games that show half a face on the boxart into one concept page is equally pointless, but we leave it because it's funny. Same with the wildly inaccurate list of "facts" on Brad Shoemaker's page that make him out to be some kind of sexy messiah, and the list of things Jeff Gerstmann hates on his page. Frankly, people, if you're going to get rid of all the goofiness on Giant Bomb, they might as well close down the site and have the Bomb Squad post their reviews on GameSpot.
I completely agree with everything here.

Subjectivity has no place in the database. That is a rule that comes from the very top. If you want to argue with Jeff about it, go ahead, but you won't get anywhere. The wiki is not something to be constructed for the lulz. Just because a concept is "goofy-ass" does not make it appropriate. This isn't the Urban Dictionary or TV Tropes.

I also agree with you that subjectivity doesn't belong, but there have been a lot of pages proposed for deletion that were objective but that someone thought weren't 'serious enough' for the wiki.

I can't think of any of what you refer to off the top of my head. Can you name some examples?

#26 Posted by Napalm (9020 posts) -

Is Bad Dudes attached to that page? If not, somebody fucked up.

#27 Edited by Village_Guy (2662 posts) -

Why don't we simply rename it then, to... I don't know, Gritty Reboot perhaps? As far as I understand that is what it is. You know edgy, cool, hardcore all that kinda stupid stuff.

EDIT: Nevermind, we already have a page named Gritty Adaptation which covers exactly that... Behead this badtitude at once I say!

#28 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@Village_Guy said:

Why don't we simply rename it then, to... I don't know, Gritty Reboot perhaps? As far as I understand that is what it is. You know edgy, cool, hardcore all that kinda stupid stuff.

EDIT: Nevermind, we already have a page named Gritty Adaptation which covers exactly that... Behead this badtitude at once I say!

Why the fuck is Epic Mickey attached to a page about gritty adaptations?

That doesn't seem like a very sound concept, either.

#29 Posted by ajamafalous (12147 posts) -
@Hailinel said:

@ajamafalous said:

@Hailinel said:

@ajamafalous said:

@Deusoma said:
I say we keep it. People come to Giant Bomb for the personality first and the information second. If we take everything subjective out of the database, it will become a second-rate Wikipedia for video games, and lose all of its appeal. "Baditude" is a goofy-ass concept, there's no denying that. Here's the thing; that's the entire point, to officially acknowledge something a more serious website never would. Collecting all the games that show half a face on the boxart into one concept page is equally pointless, but we leave it because it's funny. Same with the wildly inaccurate list of "facts" on Brad Shoemaker's page that make him out to be some kind of sexy messiah, and the list of things Jeff Gerstmann hates on his page. Frankly, people, if you're going to get rid of all the goofiness on Giant Bomb, they might as well close down the site and have the Bomb Squad post their reviews on GameSpot.
I completely agree with everything here.

Subjectivity has no place in the database. That is a rule that comes from the very top. If you want to argue with Jeff about it, go ahead, but you won't get anywhere. The wiki is not something to be constructed for the lulz. Just because a concept is "goofy-ass" does not make it appropriate. This isn't the Urban Dictionary or TV Tropes.

I also agree with you that subjectivity doesn't belong, but there have been a lot of pages proposed for deletion that were objective but that someone thought weren't 'serious enough' for the wiki.

I can't think of any of what you refer to off the top of my head. Can you name some examples?

Nah, I honestly can't off the top of my head either. I click on every delete/combine thread I see, though, just to keep up on what's going on (usually without posting), and I know that I've seen a few pages proposed for deletion that I thought were fine but it was decided they should be deleted. As Deusoma says here, I think if we get too into removing all the goofy or weird concepts, GB will just become a second-rate Wikipedia. I come here for pages like Grief Beard, not just for hardline factual information about video games. Ultimately it's Jeff's decision, so if that's what he wants then so be it, but I certainly don't want that for GB.
#30 Posted by Deusoma (3032 posts) -
@Hailinel: TVTropes and Urban Dictionary are at one end of the spectrum, that being entirely un-moderated to the point of rendering the content completely invalid. Wikipedia is at the extreme opposite end, that being anal-retentively moderated to the point of sucking any and all entertainment value out of the content. Giant Bomb must remain firmly in the middle, maintaining some semblance of control over its content, but still allowing that content to be silly and irreverent. Twisting Jeff's words to claim that all subjectivity is the enemy and trying to whitewash the database the way you're doing is part of the problem, friend Hailinel, take a step back and look at what you're doing to the site. I say again, the information itself is not the important part of Giant Bomb, it's the casual tone by which that information is conveyed that makes this community something special.
#31 Posted by Deusoma (3032 posts) -
@Hunter5024 said:

@Deusoma: You do make a good point about the wiki becoming a second rate wikipedia, maybe if the language on the page were a little clearer then we could keep it. For instance I think Shadow The Hedgehog is something that just about everyone could agree makes sense on the page, because he's literally just a remade Sonic whose supposed to be edgier. Things like that are a lot less subjective.

Hunter here reminds me that there is an alternative to nuking the site from orbit: instead of just deciding whether or not to delete the entire page, we could actually talk about how to make the page more specific, talk about whether or not individual things really deserve to be in the list.
#32 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -
@Deusoma
@Hailinel: TVTropes and Urban Dictionary are at one end of the spectrum, that being entirely un-moderated to the point of rendering the content completely invalid. Wikipedia is at the extreme opposite end, that being anal-retentively moderated to the point of sucking any and all entertainment value out of the content. Giant Bomb must remain firmly in the middle, maintaining some semblance of control over its content, but still allowing that content to be silly and irreverent. Twisting Jeff's words to claim that all subjectivity is the enemy and trying to whitewash the database the way you're doing is part of the problem, friend Hailinel, take a step back and look at what you're doing to the site. I say again, the information itself is not the important part of Giant Bomb, it's the casual tone by which that information is conveyed that makes this community something special.
I'm not twisting Jeff's words. How dare you even make that accusation. The rule is and has always been that subjectivity is not allowed. There's no wiggle room because it's just that plain and simple. And how fucking dare you accuse me of doing damage to the wiki by even suggesting that such pages get deleted.
#33 Posted by chilibean_3 (1694 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

@Deusoma
@Hailinel: TVTropes and Urban Dictionary are at one end of the spectrum, that being entirely un-moderated to the point of rendering the content completely invalid. Wikipedia is at the extreme opposite end, that being anal-retentively moderated to the point of sucking any and all entertainment value out of the content. Giant Bomb must remain firmly in the middle, maintaining some semblance of control over its content, but still allowing that content to be silly and irreverent. Twisting Jeff's words to claim that all subjectivity is the enemy and trying to whitewash the database the way you're doing is part of the problem, friend Hailinel, take a step back and look at what you're doing to the site. I say again, the information itself is not the important part of Giant Bomb, it's the casual tone by which that information is conveyed that makes this community something special.
I'm not twisting Jeff's words. How dare you even make that accusation. The rule is and has always been that subjectivity is not allowed. There's no wiggle room because it's just that plain and simple. And how fucking dare you accuse me of doing damage to the wiki by even suggesting that such pages get deleted.

HOW DARE YOU, SIR

#34 Posted by TheHBK (5563 posts) -

I would say that we should keep it. Just reading about it, I believe that baditude has a place in video games because it happens so much and many video game terms can be subjective. Rico, that asshold has baditude. Retarditude too.

#35 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@TheHBK said:

I would say that we should keep it. Just reading about it, I believe that baditude has a place in video games because it happens so much and many video game terms can be subjective. Rico, that asshold has baditude. Retarditude too.

How does Rico display baditude? And why should it be allowed even though the term is subjective?

Honestly, it's amazing how many people take "no subjectivity allowed" for "It's all right, bro."

#36 Posted by Deusoma (3032 posts) -
@Hailinel: I apologize, Hailinel, I didn't originally come in here intending to antagonize anyone, but I'm genuinely worried that a community that is very special to me will be drained of the very things that make it special in the first place, and I've been feeling increasingly helpless about it these past few months. I guess I kinda took it out on you, and for that I'm sorry. But the truth is, I do think it damages Giant Bomb when such things are flatly erased, and I don't think a wholly orderly, emotionally empty database is what Jeff wanted when he wrote those rules in the first place. 
 
I'm not just blindly defending subjectivity, either. There was once a page here for the concept of "Guilty Pleasures", that being games that people are embarrassed to admit they enjoy, such as grown men playing a franchise meant for children. I myself nominated that page for deletion, since the idea of what is and what is not a guilty pleasure is universally  in the eye of the beholder. But this "Baditude" idea, the concept of video game developers artificially trying to create a "badass" character through stock personality traits, that can be quantified, that can be pointed to and agreed upon, with Shadow the Hedgehog being the poster child, and the Prince's change in personality between Sands of Time and Warrior Within being the most infamous example. 
 
I really think this page can be informative and entertaining, even if it requires discussion as to which games and which characters it applies to, so I say it should stay.
#37 Edited by ThePaleKing (613 posts) -

I agree that it should stay. Though I think the definition could use some clarification, with some editing of the related games to match that (like does that Dudebro game and Bulltstorm belong on the page, when they are satires of the very concept?).

Edit: I agree with Deusoma that there should be some leeway for personality in the Giantbomb wiki. I always took Jeff's stance on subjectivity as relating more to the quality of a game, like saying "X game is shit".

#38 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@Deusoma said:

@Hailinel: I apologize, Hailinel, I didn't originally come in here intending to antagonize anyone, but I'm genuinely worried that a community that is very special to me will be drained of the very things that make it special in the first place, and I've been feeling increasingly helpless about it these past few months. I guess I kinda took it out on you, and for that I'm sorry. But the truth is, I do think it damages Giant Bomb when such things are flatly erased, and I don't think a wholly orderly, emotionally empty database is what Jeff wanted when he wrote those rules in the first place.

I'm not just blindly defending subjectivity, either. There was once a page here for the concept of "Guilty Pleasures", that being games that people are embarrassed to admit they enjoy, such as grown men playing a franchise meant for children. I myself nominated that page for deletion, since the idea of what is and what is not a guilty pleasure is universally in the eye of the beholder. But this "Baditude" idea, the concept of video game developers artificially trying to create a "badass" character through stock personality traits, that can be quantified, that can be pointed to and agreed upon, with Shadow the Hedgehog being the poster child, and the Prince's change in personality between Sands of Time and Warrior Within being the most infamous example.

I really think this page can be informative and entertaining, even if it requires discussion as to which games and which characters it applies to, so I say it should stay.

It's not wholly orderly and emotionally empty. People put effort into these pages. Just because I put a ton of effort into writing pages that I do my best to keep as objective as possible does not mean that I put no emotion into it. Subjects I care about, I tend to write more on, and the more effort I put into those pages. It's not about silly fun and games; it's about doing my best to make each entry I contribute toward more informative and better formatted than it was before I started editing. It's not about being snarky for entertainment value; it's about making contributions that I feel are genuinely informative, and that aren't cluttered by meaningless joke concepts, duplicate pages, pages that have no reason to exist other than to fulfill someone's agenda, and pages that cannot be clearly defined because they're too subjective.

I accept your apology, but if anything, you more than anyone needs to learn what the guidelines of the wiki are. I can't count the number of times I've had to go in and fix a page you yourself edited because you deliberately inserted subjective, snarky commentary into an article. Not to mention all of the times I've had to remove italics from game titles you keep inserting despite there being a rule against that, as well. My point is, if you're going to criticize me or anyone else for our contributions to the wiki, you should learn to follow the guidelines that the staff has had laid out since the beginning. The rule against subjectivity is nothing new, and yet you've continually flaunted it over and over and over. Despite these rules and guidelines that were established, you seem to think that they're either wrong or they shouldn't apply because they don't conform to how you personally view the wiki. And that's aggravating to me and others that have done our best over the past four years to make the wiki as informative as possible while doing our best to remain within the rules and guidelines that the staff has in mind.

#39 Posted by MikeGosot (3227 posts) -

If there's a strange page,
In your Neighborhood,
Who you gonna call?
WIKIBUSTERS!
 
A page that isn't clear,
Or it doesn't look good,
Who you gonna call?
WIKIBUSTERS!
 
Anyway, i think NosCon has a place in there. I can understand the term, but i don't understand baditude.  Gritty Adaptation is a better term.

#40 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@ThePaleKing said:

I agree that it should stay. Though I think the definition could use some clarification, with some editing of the related games to match that (like does that Dudebro game and Bulltstorm belong on the page, when they are satires of the very concept?).

Edit: I agree with Deusoma that there should be some leeway for personality in the Giantbomb wiki. I always took Jeff's stance on subjectivity as relating more to the quality of a game, like saying "X game is shit".

There is a difference between writing that is "dry" and writing that is "objective." It is possible to be objective and informative while also keeping subjectivity and meaningless snark out of the wiki.

#41 Posted by Jeff (3662 posts) -

@ThePaleKing said:

Edit: I agree with Deusoma that there should be some leeway for personality in the Giantbomb wiki. I always took Jeff's stance on subjectivity as relating more to the quality of a game, like saying "X game is shit".

That is precisely what I meant. I'll update that guide when I get a chance. Sorry if this created confusion.

Staff
#42 Edited by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@Jeff said:

@ThePaleKing said:

Edit: I agree with Deusoma that there should be some leeway for personality in the Giantbomb wiki. I always took Jeff's stance on subjectivity as relating more to the quality of a game, like saying "X game is shit".

That is precisely what I meant. I'll update that guide when I get a chance. Sorry if this created confusion.

What about subjectivity in general, though? (ex: "...Metal Gear Solid: Rising, renamed the inferior and ridiculous Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance...")

That's the kind of subjectivity that I see a lot. It doesn't say anything about the quality of the game itself, but it's still imposing an opinion.

EDIT: There's also the time I went back to a page I wrote and saw whole paragraphs I had written, complete with sources, to be more "entertaining," complete with the removal of those source links.

#44 Posted by LordAndrew (14430 posts) -

@GenocidalKitten: Please read on.

#46 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@GenocidalKitten said:

@Hailinel said:

@Deusoma
@Hailinel: TVTropes and Urban Dictionary are at one end of the spectrum, that being entirely un-moderated to the point of rendering the content completely invalid. Wikipedia is at the extreme opposite end, that being anal-retentively moderated to the point of sucking any and all entertainment value out of the content. Giant Bomb must remain firmly in the middle, maintaining some semblance of control over its content, but still allowing that content to be silly and irreverent. Twisting Jeff's words to claim that all subjectivity is the enemy and trying to whitewash the database the way you're doing is part of the problem, friend Hailinel, take a step back and look at what you're doing to the site. I say again, the information itself is not the important part of Giant Bomb, it's the casual tone by which that information is conveyed that makes this community something special.
I'm not twisting Jeff's words. How dare you even make that accusation. The rule is and has always been that subjectivity is not allowed. There's no wiggle room because it's just that plain and simple. And how fucking dare you accuse me of doing damage to the wiki by even suggesting that such pages get deleted.

Calm the fuck down, you act as if he's accusing you of murder.

He was making an accusation that I do not feel is true and that I did not appreciate. I responded strongly against that. That's all.

#47 Edited by ZombiePie (5752 posts) -

Jeff has upheld this page as valid so there's nothing to discuss beyond this other than to await further clarification on his Wiki Guide. I will however go on to say that multiple parties involved in bringing this deletion request to the forefront should avoid making these threads become larger issue than they need to be. Please in the future file a request and limit the back and forth debates to a minimum until a staff or moderator chimes in with a verdict. As such there is no need to make the simple act of flagging pages for deletion a controversial and spiteful process.

Moderator