Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Wolfenstein 3D

A lot of sound and fury, but in the end signifying virtually nothing. I see 5 deletes, 1 keep, and 1 absention (Herby's withdrawn vote) from editors who have demonstrated a minimum measure of good-faith editing, and I discount the remaining 6 deletes and 2 keeps that came from editors who appear to be sockpuppets of each other who have brought an old Wikipedia anime battle to Wikiquote. We don't have confirmation of this yet, but we have plenty of evidence of bad-faith editing of many varieties from these new usernames. Special thanks to Eris11, a new editor who tried to defend this article with calm and reason amid all this confusion. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wolfenstein 3D
This page looks to just be all the short sound bites from various enemies in the game. Nothing is longer than five words (except "Hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo ha ha ha ha!"), with nothing particularly meaningful (the game was basically all about shooting, not about dialogue). —LrdChaos (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote closes: 14:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote extended to 14:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC), for more consideration and potential developments in general electronic-game article guidelines. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. ~ UDScott 13:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom If a user is going to work on this maybe they should be given some time for now -- Herby talk thyme 07:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Zarbon 14:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC) I'm going to add more quotes from the various other wolfenstein games and the short quotes themselves are widely popularized. Plus, I added heavily to the follow-up game as well, surpassing the short quotes but maintaining a good article.
 * Comment: The intro is too encyclopedic.--Jusjih 10:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Just give it time. Recoome
 * This user has been blocked as a likely sockpuppet of Zarbon. See WQ:AN. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - "give it time?" To WHAT? Be more illegal? Hells no! Lord Frieza 19:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as bordering on a copyright violation. There is no evidence anyone has ever actually quoted any of these, is there? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 22:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Response - I just want to point out to Fys that everything I added is quoted and relevant. Nothing is created. I don't add copyright violations. - Zarbon 04:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand. Copyright comes in where you copy someone else's creative work, or part of it. A video game is a creative work. If an article on Wikiquote includes a copy of a substantial part of a video game soundtrack, then it may be regarded as a copyright violation. For example, if someone copies out the whole soundtrack of a film that would be a copyright violation, whereas it would be allowed to quote just the most well-known lines. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 10:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I can more than positively reassure you that it isn't even 1/10th of the soundtrack and/or speech that takes place within the games. For example, Return to Castle Wolfenstein has over thirty times the amount of talking that goes on in comparison to what I posted. Hence, it's only the highlight quotations from the game. - Zarbon 15:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't played RtCW, so I can't speak with any authority as to whether you're right or not about how much dialogue it has, but really, that doesn't matter. You've included just about every single quote, no matter how insignificant, pointless, or irrelevant, from "Wolfenstein 3D", and that is copyright violation, because it violates the copyright on Wolf3D. It doesn't matter much other stuff you add to the page to dilute the presence of that stuff; the fact of the matter is that every single quotation from the game is reproduced here, and just adding more quotes from other games is extraordinarily unlikely (I would say 99.99999999999999% impossible, if not more) to tip the balance to fair use. —LrdChaos (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete- it's a really useless page. besides it breaks copyright. Taracka —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taracka (talk • contribs) 18:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This user is a suspected sockpuppet of Wiki-star and/or Zarbon and has since been indefinitely blocked. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Simply delete oui oui, I hate people who break ze rules. THIS IS COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT! Is it not?? Cui
 * The above vote was made at 19:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC), and is so far this user's only non-user-page edit. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This user has been blocked as a likely sockpuppet of Wiki-star, who is also suspected of being Zarbon based on a recent CheckUser report. See WQ:AN. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Super strong keep! - I agree with Zarbon and Recoome. Zarbon has worked on it for way too long. Please keep the page. Thanks for calling me over Zarbon. Lord Frieza 19:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This user is a suspected sockpuppet of Wiki-star and/or Zarbon and has since been indefinitely blocked. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, delete, delete!! It's so stupid. who cares about Wolfenstein 3D? the game sux anyways and yeah copyright breaking is bad. P.S.: I am not a sockpuppet. Goober King 00:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above vote was struck because it was actually made by Lord Frieza, who has been blocked for posting comments here and elsewhere with forged signatures. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * delete - Someone delete it already. Frieza-sama!!! 01:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above vote was struck because it was actually made by Lord Frieza, who has been blocked for posting comments here and elsewhere with forged signatures. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: We're going to continue to have problems with video game articles until we come up with some practical style and structure guidelines. Even though they are usually not known for their dialogue, it is possible that some may have pithy statements. Unlike wrestling articles, we don't have an existing formatting guideline to help conscientious editors (like Zarbon, of late) to achieve specific goals. In case I don't catch this before the deadline and the problems haven't been resolved or the issue definitively decided by then, I agree with Herby's suggestion to give this discussion more time. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, I've replaced the mass copy of WP article text with a properly formatted lead section, also from the WP article. This should address the "too encyclopedic" issue. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Alright, the vote currently stands at 4:2 in favor of keep. Myself, Recoome, Herbythyme, and Jeffq feel the article should be kept and worked on furthermore through time, while Fys and UDScott have voted for deletion. - Zarbon 20:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Zarbon, please stop striking or characterizing other people's votes. These are sensitive practices that should only be done by sysops who have gained the trust of the community to consider all factors in a VfD discussion, and are expected to follow the Deletion policy that they have carefully read, as well as other practices that they have learned through experience. Further attempts to interfere with a VfD discussion, however well-intentioned, may result in a temporary block. Please note that VfD-closing sysops take into consideration the Wikiquote experience of the participants, and typically discount any votes registered by editors who show practically no involvement in Wikiquote except in the deletion discussion, or editors who register votes as part of vandalism, prank editing, or other disruptive activity. We usually reserve striking votes only for those editors who register duplicate votes or forged signatures. Again, these judgment calls should be left to the people who the community has entrusted to make these calls. For the record, neither Herby nor I have yet voted to "keep". Herby has refrained from recording an explicit vote, awaiting further action. I have only commented that we might extend the discussion deadline. Our comments might persaude a sysop to extend the vote, but if tallied, they would count as "undecided" or "neutral". And you didn't count LrdChaos's nomination, which is considered an implicit delete unless it specfically indicates unsurety. If I were to tally the vote right this minute, I would discount Master Batour (Cui), Taracka, and Freiza (for the aforementioned reasons), total up, with Cato's subsequent vote, a 4-to-2 consensus to delete (using 2/3 minimum for consensus), but probably hold off a closure and extend the vote in the hope (however unlikely) that we will come up with some practical guidelines for video-game articles in the next week. Your concerted efforts to improve the article are the kind of thing that usually sways VfD participants to support a "keep", but your frequent overreaching undermines this good work. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite the further work, there is nothing here that is a sensible, worthwhile quote and I do not believe that there will be.--Cato 21:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeffq, I forgot to count LrdChaos because he opened the vote. I admit that as a mistake, however, the fact that you yourself mentioned and typically discount any votes registered by editors who show practically no involvement in Wikiquote except in the deletion discussion, or editors who register votes as part of vandalism, prank editing, or other disruptive activity. This is why I kept crossing this sockpuppeteers vandalisms. For one, the only activity is here on the deletion page like I mentioned and his numerical ip is more than close to comfort. I am going to be level-headed here and allow you to work things out, but I don't want articles to get deleted because of poor involvement of adminship, etc. Thanks again for conveying this to me, although I'd appreciate it if you believe me more often since I am after all, trying to help add pages that will benefit wikiquote in the long run. Also, UDScott and FYS both mentioned that the error of the pages was the short quotations themselves and I added a lot more after that, so what reason would they have to counter the existence of the page...I mean, the only person who substantially votes against the page the way it is now is Cato. Am I right or wrong? I already discussed this with FYS and UDScott. I guess they haven't gotten the chance to change their votes yet. The page is no longer limited to less than five word quotes. In it is a compendium of three games, with numerous quotations from each to help the survival of the article. - Zarbon 00:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you right or wrong? I'm afraid you are wrong, Zarbon. Editors who vote to delete often try to improve the article to head off their own recommended deletions (at least here on Wikiquote). Many of the regular VfD participants would much rather see articles improved than deleted, and we recognize a fundamental principle of wikis — the people who identify the problems are frequently the only ones that can be expected to fix them. I have often done major surgery on articles that were ultimately deleted, even with my approval. I don't consider this wasted effort for two reasons. First, it does happen sometimes that experienced editors demonstrating how to improve an article can inspire newer editors to further that work, so that deletion may be avoided. Second, even when an article is deleted, it may be resurrected at a later date or the material provided to editors who wish to work on it offline for future resurrection. These are all things that one learns with a lot of wiki experience on a wide variety of articles and regular engagement in adminstrative work — experience all sysops can lay claim to. Your lack of awareness of this and other delicate issues is why you should avoid trying to draw conclusions and making bold moves against users in these discussions. Leave the sysop work to the sysops. And if you pester conscientious editors to change their votes, as I said before, you may achieve exactly the opposite effect. All of these actions are an implicit statement (and pretty loud one, given your unshakable persistence) that you don't respect the judgment of these editors, which is not the way to win an argument. And just to head off the next question, there may not be any way to win this argument. But if you simply must push this, might I suggest that you study Templates and its subpages to see how we structure and format articles, read Sourcing for some feel for what we want in sourcing and what problems can occur in different genres (e.g., electronic-game vs. TV-show vs. people articles), and consider creating a draft electronic-games template? (If you do, I suggest creating it in a user subpage.) Giving the community a proposal to work with is far more effective than complaining, and would probably serve your purpose better even than more work on the Wolfenstein 3D article itself. Again, I offer no guarantees, but a proper EG template is a sore need that the rest of us might get behind if you start it, and could improve both your case and your reputation here. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeffq, I'm not even going to contest any of the things you just mentioned. For one, I agree with you fully and like I said earlier, I will not pull any other sysop maneuvres. I am going to take your earlier advice though, and continue to revert any vandalism I see come to the pages. You don't have to tell me twice about the sysop issue, I am completely agreeing with you. - Zarbon 05:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I notice that Zarbon has done a lot of work to the page. However, I stand by my vote for deletion, for a couple of reasons. First, the page itself is titled "Wolfenstein 3D", which is one single game. However, the page includes quotes from two other games, "Spear of Destiny" and "Return to Castle Wolfenstein"; while these games are a prequel and a sequel respectively, they are not "Wolfenstein 3D". This problem is easily corrected either by splitting the other games into separate pages, or the preferable renaming of the "Wolfenstein 3D" page to encompass the entire series. My second reason for deletion, however, is that the largest percentage of quotes on that page are the boss quotes; "(when dying) Ahhhhh! (painful scream)" is not now, nor will it ever be, worth including in Wikiquote. Thirdly, between the "Common Enemies", "Wolfenstein 3D Bosses", and "Wolfenstein 3D Storyline", nearly every single quote from the game is present. This is copyvio, pure and simple. I've never played "Spear of Destiny", but I imagine we have a similar situation for that. As for "Return to Castle Wolfenstein", I haven't played that one either but I'm willing to consider that it might have more in the way of dialogue, but I don't know to what degree. —LrdChaos (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * LrdChaos, I agree about the split. Return to castle wolfenstein, like I mentioned above, has more than ten times the dialogue that I added. And about the wolf 3d and spear games, the quotations are short but memorable. I also don't think that it's all the quotes from spear of destiny, because I only added one storyline quote whereas I added approximately fifty percent of the quotes from wolf3d's storyline, but still not all. I can, however, show every single quote just to prove that it isn't a copyvio since the percentage of quotes added are as follows:

wolf3d: 50% spear of destiny: 30% return to castle wolfenstein: 5%

Also, return to castle wolfenstein relied very heavily on dialogue, yes, that's why there's longer quotes. But to rule out games just because they have short quotations isn't really a reason. Lots of games on wikiquote now have short quotes. I'm pretty sure that the wolf3d quotes are more than legendary at this point, because of the amount of fame they have garnered. On a second basis of thought, a split isn't a bad idea, where we can link each article to the other through "see also". But to blatantly delete after I tried so hard to compile them...I don't know, it would just be meaningless. - Zarbon 16:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think you're too familiar with what constitutes a copyright violation. While there's no hard and fast rule that says "under x% it's ok, over is wrong", it's fairly obvious that copying 50% of something is going to be a violation (it's been a few years since I last played Wolfenstein 3D, but I would definitely put the figure copied much higher, at at least 75%). I'd argue that 30% is definitely pushing it, too. For that matter, even 5% could potentially be troublesome, though this is less likely and there are other factors that would go in to making a determination about whether it's fair use or not. But really, copyright is only one of the issues involved here. As I've already said twice, the content of many of the quotes on the page are so short, unoriginal, and meaningless that they have no place in Wikiquote; in particular, the "boss" quotes and the "common enemy" ones. No one is voting here out of spite for you, but the fact that you've put effort into trying to fix the page does not guarantee anything except reconsideration by some. As JeffQ mentioned, there are plenty of times where people put effort into an article and it's still deleted. —LrdChaos (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand full well what you're saying. I'm just saying that, for example, the boss quotes may seem meaningless to you, but they are very very popular and loved by many gamers and fans alike. Just because you feel that they may be meaningless, doesn't actually make them meaningless. That's all I'm trying to convey. And more than once is it probable that very short quotes are highly memorable to longer ones. In this scenario, it works well, since the game's quotes were so well remembered by fans. I hated games such as the Final Fantasy series and the Metal Gear Solid series, but I don't go around saying that the quotes are bad, etc. It's more than highly probable that many people love them while others do not. It's the same case here. No where is there a rule where a quote has to exceed 5 words...or anything else for that matter. I wouldn't be saying this if I really didn't love the game, but the fact that I love the game isn't the only reason. It's also the fact that the game was groundbreaking and the quotes are considered legendary at this time, especially when it comes to redefining the fps genre. Basically, what one person doesn't care for or doesn't find worthwhile to keep, another person may love more than anything. Which in this case, I think I've proven that many people love the aforementioned quotes. - Zarbon 20:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * While you're right that there's "rule where a quote has to exceed five words", but typically very short quotes like that one lack any meaning. Some fans might find them funny, but they have no larger appeal; this is especially true in the case of "quotes" which are nothing more than a transcription of laughter or a scream, but also applies to lots of the others. I think you're being quite disingenuous when you say that the original Wolfenstein 3D quotes are somehow legendary, or were involved in "redefining the FPS genre." For one thing, Wolfenstein 3D, as one of the first FPS games, didn't so much redefine the genre as help to define it in the first place, but the quotes had nothing to do with it. Laughter and screams especially are never unique and have no place in Wikiquote under any reasonable standard. For most of other short quotes, I can't see how anyone could possibly consider them "legendary." They're so short, and common (the fact that they're in German doesn't really change that) that I suspect that most people who played the game "back in the day" have long forgotten them. I know I had, and contrary to your insuation, I didn't hate the game, I loved it. My comments about the quotes have everything to do with the substance—or lack thereof—of the quotes, and are completely unrelated to the merits of the game in a larger context. —LrdChaos (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - its meaningless. Sweetness32
 * This user was subsequently permanently blocked for widespread blanking, vandalism, and prank editing. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Cato. I would add my wondering those phony German "quotes" are 1) substantial and 2) within our objectives as creating English quotation collections including translation of notable works in other languages just as Kalki expanded Kawabata Yasunari recently. --Aphaia 00:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per the nominator. Honestly, I don't think videogames are capable of being noted enough for a quote-by-quote page. Link 14:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * NOTE: The above user has been indefinitely blocked for attempting to impersonate w:User:User:A Link to the Past. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: So why don't you open up deletion requests for all the other hundred or so video game pages just because you don't feel they're capable of being noted enough. Why only request deletion for this one Link...? - Zarbon 17:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't appreciate your sarcasm Zarbon. Not kidding, what other non-notable games are on this website? Maybe they all should be deleted. You don't see Resident Evil referencing to the games, do you? Thought Final Fantasy could speak for itself; those games are very well heard-of, recognizable and last, but not least, notable. Link 20:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: You have a problem with not appreciating sarcasm, but you seem to be fine with degrading the first fps game ever made in history. I personally do dislike final fantasy and resident evil both, final fantasy more than most. But I don't think it doesn't deserve a page. Same goes for all notable games. But to compare the likes of final fantasy to a first in an entire genre would be nonsense. final fantasy was neither groundbreaking nor legendary. but this isn't the debate here. it's whether or not the game, this game, should have a page. i don't see your reasoning. you just said you don't think game articles should have pages. fine, but why only degrade this game. why not degrade all other game articles. you just decided to post here just because this was open. you don't really care whether or not the page is deleted, whereas I personally care strongly. - Zarbon 03:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I see how it is now. This has the exact same copyright problems like dbz which I fully understand how to make it deleted. Sk8terhata 18:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This user has been blocked as a likely sockpuppet of Wiki-star, who is also suspected of being Zarbon based on a recent CheckUser report. See WQ:AN. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Wolfenstein article clearly needs to be edited, not deleted. Zarbon has put in am impressive amount of work and that justifies editing, not deleting, his article.  No one on here has been able to sufficiently define copyright infringement.  I would agree that 50% of the total dialogue is a bit much and that screams of pain are unnecessary quotes but there should be some sort of discernable standard to adhere to. In the mean time, stop spitting venom at each other. FYS, LrdChaos, defend your claims with substantial, clearly defined standards.  Zarbon, stop getting so defensive. Keep the article. Eris11 12:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unimportant game, doesn't matter what Zarbon put into it, basically no one's even heard about it (like me) and it really doesn't have enough reminiscent quotes from the game itself to justify the page's existence. Is this like the longest poll ever on wikiquote for something like it or what? Brendan Filone 15:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This user is a suspected sockpuppet of Wiki-star and/or Zarbon and has since been indefinitely blocked. And, no, this isn't the longest poll, by far. If you were competing for a prize… sorry. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)