Talk:UNATCO

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on November 4, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] I suggest a move . . .

. . . to UNATCO, not UNATCO (Deus Ex). I mean, how many UNATCOs are there?--Codenamecuckoo 20:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the move was made to make it easier to refer. I say keep it. --Dynamo_ace 22:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

No, that's backwards. There's only one UNATCO; our policies on this are pretty logical. There's no reason we can't keep UNATCO (Deus Ex) as a redirect, but the main article should be at just UNATCO. In the unlikely case anyone ever creates a different UNATCO, this should be moved to a disambiguating title, but at present this is as silly as having The Beatles at The Beatles (band) (note that the latter, too, is a redirect). I'm moving this. JRM · Talk 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The article originally was at UNATCO, actually, with some uninformed soul performing a copy & paste move. I've repaired it. JRM · Talk 18:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UNATCO starting date?

The way the article is worded it sounds as if UNATCO has existed for years. If we watch the opening it implies UNATCO was created shortly after the terrorist strike on the Statue of Liberty.

from http://db.gamefaqs.com/computer/doswin/file/deus_ex_script.txt:

BOB PAGE: UNATCO?

WALTON SIMONS Formed by executive order after the terrorist strike on the Statue. I have someone in place, though. I'm more concerned about Savage -- he's relocated to Vandenberg.

Given that detail we find out later in the game when the terrorist strike happens:

French Connection Found in Rubble APR - New York Recently released evidence from last year's bombing of the Statue of Liberty supports growing rumors that link the incident with the French terrorist group "Silhouette". Already members of Congress are calling for immediate cessation of diplomatic relations between the United States and France unless the responsible parties are brought to justice.

Given these two facts, we can deduce UNATCO was formed around last year in the game(2051). Is there a specific example that implies UNATCO has been around for years?

[edit] Tags

I have removed these tags (yet again) because they do not accurately describe the content of the page. It is not "all plot summery" so the plot summery tag doesn't belong. It also obviously does not "describe a work of fiction in a primarily in-universe style" as anyone who actually reads the article can see. The tags are completely bogus and don't belong here. -- Grandpafootsoldier 18:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Every single word of this article is plot or setting detail, and, while the tone is no longer in-universe, it still describes the game entirely, with no reference to the real world. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Every word is not "plot or setting detail". There is also information about the units in the game. Besides, there is nothing in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) which says that an article can't be about a plot aspect. In any case, that tag is meant for an actual plot summary in an article that is too long (as it clearly says) it is not meant for an ENTIRE article which you think is "just plot summary".

Your claim that there is "no reference to the real world" is also wrong, as the article makes note of the slight controversy surrounding the Internet domain name used by Ion Storm for the company. But this point is also moot because WP:MOS does not require "reference to the real world" anyway. Here is the beginning section in case you don't believe me:

Out-of-universe perspective

Articles on fiction can approach their subject from two angles. In one method, articles can describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world. This MAY include:

* the author or creator;

* the design;

* the development, both before its first appearance and over the course of the narrative;

* real-world factors that have influenced the work;

* for fictional characters in dramatic productions, the actor who portrayed the role and his or her approach to playing that character;

* its popularity among the general public;

* its sales figures (for commercial offerings);

* its reception by critics;

* a critical analysis of the subject;

* the influence of the work on later creators and their projects; and

* a summary of the plot or elements of character and exposition, treated briefly, and clearly defined as fictional.

As I said before these tags are bogus. They don't belong on this page. But, knowing you, you're just going to totally blow off everything I just said, cite the same source again as if I hadn't already pointed out the flaws in your use of it, claim that its dogma (when it's officially just a guideline anyway), and do what the f*@# you want to - as usual. I really don't know why I bother arguing with you in the first place... -- Grandpafootsoldier

By the way, how does this article satisfy WP:N? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

How does Barret Wallace satisfy WP:N? How does Terran Confederacy satisfy WP:N? If you're going to go that route than you have to be ready to question the "notability" of literally thousands of pages on this site. Furthermore, in case you didn't notice, there is a tag on WP:N at moment which questions its validity as a guideline, much less as dogma (which you seem to revere such pages as). -- Grandpafootsoldier 01:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't. Good, then, that WP:WPFF is planning to merge and clean up Barret Wallace.

I can't clean up every single article in this project simultaneously. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesn't trump WP:WAF and WP:N. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't using those examples for the issues we discussed before (fiction aspect and plot summery), I obviously using it ONLY for your bogus query of "notability". Any idiot can see right through your clumsy and underhanded arguments AMIB. You have yet to post an answer to what I brought up in the first place about how you are using those tags incorrectly. Instead (as usual) you just say "f--k you" and revert my edits. -- Grandpafootsoldier 07:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not bogus. This is a subject about which no reliable publication has ever seen fit to comment. Where are the sources for the claims in this article? What is this if not just "I played the game then recapped it in detail"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)