User talk:Wrp103/Archive01

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome[edit]

Hello Wrp103/Archive01 and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

Cheryl Wheeler[edit]

Hello! I'm glad to see someone did an article on Cheryl Wheeler. She's been on my to-do list for a while but I haven't gotten around to it.

Some specific points you should bear in mind for future articles:

  • The Wikipedia convention is: album titles italicized, song titles in quotation marks.
  • Your second round of edits was much less fannish -- but you should still remember that, although fans refer to her as "Cheryl", an encyclopedia refers to her as "Wheeler". (There are, alas, several other fan-authored articles that violate this rule.)
  • Headings, like "External link", capitalize only the first word, unless a later word would normally be capitalized anyway (e.g. a proper name).
  • To embed an external link in text, like the one you titled "tours extensively", you enclose the URL in single brackets. Use double brackets only for a wikilink (to another Wikipedia article). Usually, you wikilink only the first occurrence of a term, although in a long article some people will wikilink the first appearance in a new section. (What to wikilink in the first place is a matter as to which opinions differ. Some people link just about everything. Don't be surprised if someone comes along and wikilinks motel in the discussion of "Alice". For my part, I link when I think the reader might reasonably want more information; knowing more about Gandhi or Buddha sheds some light on that song, so I linked those names.)

So, now that you know all about Wikipedia policies... are you by any chance a John Gorka fan, too? JamesMLane 20:27, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Username[edit]

Hiya. You might find WP:FAQ helpful, but I'm not sure how much it covers - I mainly read docs as I come across them, or someone points them out.

For usernames, you can change your signature (~~~) in Preferences (under 'nickname'). The software surrounds whatever you put there with ... , so you can do various interesting things; I use —Kate]] | [[User talk:Kate|Talk which makes a link to my talk page. Alternatively you can change your actual username (which is what I did) at Wikipedia:Changing username, but that has to be done by a developer, so it can can take a while.

Hope that helps! —Kate | Talk 04:52, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

Human[edit]

I have a short favor to ask of you. The Human discussion is getting strong, and I think it would help to lay our cards on the talbe so the "secularists" can see just how different is our point of view on just what is a human. But at the same time, I want to be able to get a "generic" (ha ha) religious view. In any case, would you take some time to drop by my user talk page and add your personally believed factual definition of what is a human. I appreciate it. Tom - Talk 14:56, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why'd you change the image I placed on C programming language? Dysprosia 13:16, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, it's not a problem, but it's just I preferred the cover of my copy, it looks a little neater somehow, I don't know. If I can get a cleaner image later, you wouldn't mind if I switch it back?
I have two tips for you in response:
  • make an edit comment next time, saying what you are doing, so for example "changing picture: previous one looks too yellow". This means that if someone wants to know why an edit is done, then they can read the comment.
  • Your signature isn't quite right. The talk section is linking to "Talk:Wrp103" and not "User talk:Wrp103". You should change that.
HTH Dysprosia 06:03, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Holy Temples[edit]

Thank you for being circumspect in your edits. Tom 14:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah. This is the personal way to communicate, though I think the talk pages for the articles are more convenient, if you know a person is "Watch"ing an article. I usually just use the user talk pages if I'm not sure they will see it at the article talk, or for a semi-private remark. Tom 20:35, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah. It triggered a new message. I click on diff so I will see immediately the new stuff. And I like the way you have added Talk to your sig. That is getting common enough they ought to add it to the software. Tom 23:49, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Linked list wikicode[edit]

Hey, sorry to roll back your wikicode changes in Linked list, but as you once explained to me yourself, English text which indicates an operation being performed rather than being explanative should not be in comments. Parenthesized comments have also been obsoleted some time ago in the interest of consistency. Derrick Coetzee 21:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints=[edit]

I reverted the page one step, as I agree that the edits were going in the right direction - however, it needs to be re-looked at in fine detail and corrected - something I don't have time to do today. Can one of you take? -Visorstuff 18:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Wiki Syntax[edit]

Good morning. Thank you for helping to clean up the Wikisyntax. I was not aware of that effort until I saw some of your edits. I do, however, have to disagree with some of the minor changes you've been making in a couple of paragraphs where the author/editor has chosen to itemize his/her arguments. For example, at Bee learning and communication, someone wrote "The primary lines of evidence used by the odor plume advocates are 1) clinical experiments with odorless sugar sources which show that worker bees are unable to recruit to those sources and 2) logical difficulties of a small-scale dance..." You changed those to "(1)..." and "(2)...". This may be a small point, but I believe it is stylistically incorrect. Surrounding the number on both sides generally indicates a footnote, not a segmented argument.

I'm guessing that this is going to create some false positives on the automated list of possible syntax errors but I'm going to revert those changes. I've made a comment on the project's Talk page about the problem as I see it. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 12:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Humungous Image Tagging Project[edit]

Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

Linked list[edit]

Hi, I've put this on WP:FAC. One of the objections is that the VB code seems out of place in an article that is all Wikicode. Would you object if I did a bit of reorganisation? I know that you put a lot of work into it, and I'd love to see this article placed onto WP:FA! Heck, an article like this one could even be placed onto the front page :-)

Incidently, I initially saw this article when I wrote my article about Btrieve, which uses linked lists for duplicate key entries. So this was a great wikilink! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:02, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it's good! We could still put those VB code examples into the language support. Out of interest, what are your references for this information? We need this to get the article to featured article status.... also, have you got information on the history of the linked list? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Wow! I see we have an experienced old computer dog around the place :P I think that's great! It's kind of like how I learned about binary trees: someone showed me. Still, I've added some references so that should help with getting this to FAC. If you have any C programming books that explain linked lists, please feel free to add a reference to them with page numbers... hint hint :) Ta bu shi da yu 14:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the help[edit]

Just noticed that you started helping me do the renaming on the pages to include "The" - thanks bunches - I should have some time tonight to do some more edits. If you notice anything that looks like it needs work (expecially if there are articles that deal with terms unique to mormonism [like Seventy]) send me a quick note with those as I am going to work on those next. Have a good day Trödel (talk · contribs) 15:37, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Black History[edit]

In spite of my tenure, I haven't gotten into creating templates and categories. If I am not mistaken, User:Cookiecaper has done a lot of that at WP:LDS. Sorry I'm not more help. You may want to just ask at the LDS project talk page. Tom Haws 05:00, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Invitation to Visual Basic Classic Wikibook[edit]

I see you have tweaked the Visual Basic article on Wikipedia. Any chance you would like to join in editing the wikibook: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:Visual_Basic_Classic? --Kjwhitefoot 07:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject LDS[edit]

Hello! I noticed you were on the list of members in the LDS WikiProject, and I was wondering if you were still interested in helping out there. You see, over the past few months, it appears that it has slowly drifted into inactivity. But you CAN help. Please consider doing both of the following:

  1. Take ONE thing form the To-Do list and do it. Once you're done with it, remove it from the list, and from the<>{{Template:LDSprojectbox}}<>, so we know its done. Keep the page on your watchlist. We have a backlog going for more than half a year. Please help to work on it, and remove it.
  2. Vote on the LDSCOTF, and work on it!
  3. Tell your friends (esp. LDS friends, & esp. Wikipedian friends) about this WikiProject, and enocourage them to join (and be active).

Remember: your involvement in this WikiProject is just that - involvement! Please help us out.

(Note: I'm sending this out to everyone who's name was on the membership list, so I will NOT be watching this page for a response. If you want to contact me, do it on MY talk page, please.)

Thanks for all that you do -Trevdna 15:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting![edit]

Hello there! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my arbitration commitee nomination. Although it was not successful, I appreciate the time you spent to read my statement and questions and for then voting, either positively or negativly. Again, thank you! Páll (Die pienk olifant) 22:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singer-Songwriters[edit]

In Hong Kong, pop music are controlled by mainly record enterprises. There lacks freedom of artists developing his/her own talents (such as songwriting or musical instruments), leading to short-sighted eyescope of regarding the music as business-oriented rather than art-oriented, overloading of Karaoke, over-selling of images rather than true musical talents.

This situation is unique in Hong Kong and not found in other regions and countries. User:Eric278

Welcome from Penn State![edit]

There are a couple of Wikipedians from Penn State around here; also see the Penn State WikiProject. I see that you are well established, but if you need any help along the way leave me a note on my talk page or catch me in any of the major channels on WP:IRC. Hope to see you around, GChriss 01:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Godheads[edit]

Bill, on the criticism of mormonism page you introduced the concept of godheads. I don't know if I have ever heard that specific concept discussed. Did Joseph ever discuss the concept? In the LDS believe in exaltation and that our objective is to become like our Father, I can see where some might make the supposition. However, that would be just supposition. The principle of exaltation of clear teaching: for those who strive to follow Christ, He brings us into the presence of God the Father as a co-inheritor and thus become like him. However, to go further than that seems to far. Thoughts? Storm Rider (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, although many speculate that there are other gods out there, and presumably they became gods in a similar fashion, so the idea of gods and/or godheads seems a reasonable possibility (although not doctrinal). I guess what I am hoping for is that we identify most, if not all, of the points that appear in valid criticism and possibly some from anti-mormon material as well. By identifying which parts are doctrinal, which are common beliefs, and which are speculations by some, we can help the reader separate fact from fiction. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon what you said above, I would agree with you. However, it must be made clear what exactly is doctrine, theology, and pure supposition. Anti-Mormon literature seems to delve into the supposition and then present it as doctrine; it is always a very sensationalist presentation.
Some thoughts on Godheads: Godhead has a very specific definition within Mormonism and the Christian world at large. To attempt to say that there are other Godheads is to say there will be others that serve in the same capacity of Christ. That has never been stated or taught by LDS authorities. These are the types of theological questions we bring up around a campfire to debate into the wee hours of the morning, but it must be understood that it is pure supposition. They are mysteries that have not been taught.
What I think would be a great entry into the Mormonism and Christianity article is the purpose of creation based upon Mormonism. This question is seldom if ever addressed by other denominations of Christianty. It is like we die, we get resurrected (why a body is never contemplated) and then we go live with god for eternity and sing praises to him. This is a description of a very needy god that must have adoration for eternity. It is not a pretty picture. Conversely, Mormonism teaches that our Father in Heaven is committed to us understanding the purpose of life our life is to realize our destiny as sons and daughters of God and to become like Him.
As a final note, I am coming to the conclusion this article needs to be deleted. It is repeated in at least four other articles. How many are needed? Storm Rider (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no problems if the article were deleted, as long as everything that is currently in the article would fit somewhere else. Where would, say Islamic criticism for Mormonism be located? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Lindsay[edit]

Hi, Bill. There's nothing stopping you creating a new article on Jeff Lindsay. I suggest you start it in a sandbox on your own userpage, and I'll chip in when I have a moment (extremely busy this weekend). That way we can get it up to scratch before you post it - chances are if you post it before it's ready, someone will come along and speedy delete. Easy to create a subpage - just make the link and then edit it: /Jeff Lindsay. That's now a subpage of your talk page. David L Rattigan 12:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill. Thanks for the notice at Talk:Anti-Mormonism#Jeff_Lindsay_-_again. I chipped in my two cents. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 08:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have revised the article again, and chopped out an awful lot of unnecessary detail. It was the mass of biographical detail that made it look like a vanity article, and that needed getting rid of if it was to stand any chance of surviving the AfD. Some of the info may come back as the article grows organically, but I think it is better to leave it as a basic stub until the dust settles. David L Rattigan 19:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

linked list[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linked_list&diff=next&oldid=64373236 Ste4k 00:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that the intent is to provide useful information, but it seemed to me that it was in its early stages. The external links section should be for polished, authoritative links.
Admittedly, the linked lists page is in poor shape. I'll wait until we get it cleaned up before posting the link again. --VTBassMatt 21:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you should only use "minor edit" for truly minor edits, like obvious typos, not for reverting a revert, which is a policy difference. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 02:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From Minor edit: It is often a matter of personal judgement, but generally implies trivial changes only, such as typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, adding new hyperlinks and rearranging of text without changing any content. (emphasis mine, of course). I intentionally didn't mark it a minor edit the first time around so that it would not, as you say, raise a red flag. Further down the Minor edit page, it does in fact say Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances, so in the future I'll take that into consideration. --VTBassMatt
I think the hyperlinks they are talking about are wikilinks (square brackets), not external links. In general, it is better to perform a minor edit and not mark it as such rather than the other way around. I almost never select minor edits for that very reason.
Posting a link to your own web page is considered link spam, unless you are maintaining some official, authoritative web site. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 21:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animals in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[edit]

This article was just listed for speedy delete by an anon - I am notifying you since you contributed to the article :) Animals in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints --Trödel 20:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magus[edit]

I figured I'd just continue here. Anyway, given the options (fight Magus and kill him, or don't fight him and let him join), him surviving means he must have joined. The only options are he joins and lives or doesn't join and dies. Also, in Chrono Cross, Lucca's letter makes note of Magus searching for Schala, which is something she wouldn't have known about if Magus hadn't joined the group. Recall her words to him in the ending before he departs: "So... you're going to search for Schala?"

So he definitely joins the group. I won't revert until we've discussed the matter, though. I do need to fix the placement of the reference beside that, however. Ryu Kaze 14:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the first rule of RPGs - just because you defeat somebody, that doesn't mean they actually die. You definitely have an option to either fight Magus for experience or to invite him to join. If you have him join your party, then you can see Glenn and Magus during some of the endings, and Lucca can ask Magus about finding his sister. If you defeat him, you can see Frog and the end, but not Magus. In either case, he survives, but the choice is still there. Likewise for Lucca saving her mother's legs: if you succeed, then you can see her walking in some of the endings; if you don't, then you only see her sitting. There are a lot of optional tasks that have minor effects on the endings you see. Check my list of endings to see how many ways things can be affected by minor choices during the game. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Magus' case, if you defeat him, he most definitely does die. We see him choking his last words out, his body vanishes and we can pick up the amulet he wore. The curse on Frog also gets broken as a result.
The only way for him to have survived is for there to have been no fight. Also, as I mentioned before, Lucca knows he's gone to look for Schala in Chrono Cross, something she would know as a result of him having joined the party. Given that it's canon that he survived and canon that Lucca knows about him looking for Schala — and given that him joining means he survives and not joining means he doesn't — we can be 100% sure that he joined. Ryu Kaze 15:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The case with Lucca's mom is different, ny the way. We can't be sure what happened canon-wise there, but we do know what happened with Magus. Ryu Kaze 15:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but my point is there are several places in the story line where variations can happen. (That was another of my edits, mentioning that Lucca has the opportunity to save her mother. The original text had it as a sure thing.) When you are standing at the cape, you are presented with a choice to either invite Magus to join or to fight him. Which option you choose affects the endings that you will see. That's why I phrased it as the player has the option to let him join or to fight him.
In many ways, this doesn't really matter (IMHO), since I think that most of the details should be removed from the overview article and placed in the article identified as the main article for the story. But, if the detail is going to be there, I would like to see it correct. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the information isn't incorrect in this case. Where there are choices, what actually happened is more important. Take Final Fantasy VII as an example: it's full of choices, but official materials have indicated which of most of these are canon. Ryu Kaze 16:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about the same thing here? Have you played Chrono Trigger? There is a point in the game where you, as a player, are asked if you want to fight Magus or if you want to invite him to join your group. You can make either choice. Whatever choice you amke, it affects the ending of the game. The text in the article said that Magus joined the group, which was wrong. If the player asks him to join the group, he will, but if the player decides to fight Magus he doesn't join the group. It is one or the other.
The fact that the canon has Magus doing something later doesn't change the fact that the player gets to fight Magus or ask him to join. If you defeat Magus, you don't really kill him (think about how many times you defeat Ozzie.) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 17:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we're talking about the same thing. The fact that the player gets a choice, though, doesn't change what actually happens in the story, which is what we're summarizing. In the definitive story, Magus joins the group, he doesn't die, and Lucca knows he's going to look for Schala later on in Chrono Cross, as indicated by the full ending of CT; even with Radical Dreamers, he obviously survived and he's looking for Schala there, as also indicated by Lucca's words with him in the full ending. If he didn't join the group, Lucca wouldn't know what she knows. He would also be dead, as we can't disregard what we're shown. Unlike Ozzie, Magus doesn't show up later and we actually have a body. Furthermore, we have Magus barely getting out a few words before he fades away and we're able to take a personal trinket that belonged to him. Everything about that presentation — and the fact that he never shows up again — says "He's dead in this scenario". However, that isn't what happened in the definitive story, which is, again, what we're summarizing.
So, to summarize my own points here: he either joined the party and survived or he didn't and he died. He survived, ergo he joined the party. The fact that Lucca knows he's gone to look for Schala further emphasises this fact. Ryu Kaze 17:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take issue with your choices: he either joined the party and survived or he was defeated but still survived. There are lots of times when you defeat a character in an RPG, only to have them show up again. Yes, Ozzie was a bad example, since he keeps running away, but there are lots of other folks who are defeated and show up again. For that matter, if one of your own characters are defeated in a battle, they can be resurrected after the battle is over. As for Lucca knowing he is going to look for Schala, that only happens if you asked Magus to join your party. If you fight Magus instead, then he never shows up at the end of the game. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point exactly. Since the actual story is that Lucca knows he's gone to look for Schala, he must have joined the party, and, thus, been with them in the ending. By the way, you're contradicting yourself now, Bill: you said there's lots of times you defeat someone only for them to show up again; this is true; however, if you kill Magus, he's dead. Because you've killed him. He doesn't show up again. Period. He chokes out some final words, dies, and you take a personal item from him. Obviously this isn't what happened in the story, because Magus is shown to be alive in both Radical Dreamers and Chrono Cross. Further, it is noted that he went looking for Schala in both (and actually found her in Radical Dreamers). Therefore, Magus didn't die; therefore, he didn't fight Frog or anyone else at the northern cape; therefore, he joined the group; therefore, he was there with them at the end.
It's very simple: he either joined and lived or didn't and died. If he lived, he joined. If he didn't, he died. Since we know he lived, he joined. Furthermore, since Lucca knows about him doing something that she would only know if he had joined, he did join. There's no other answer. That's how things went down. Ryu Kaze 18:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it were simple, this discussion wouldn't have dragged on as long as it has. ;^) Lucca only knows that Magus is going to search for Schala if you don't fight Magus at the cove. If you don't invite him, Lucca and Magus never have the discussion. And, no, I'm not contradicting myself. The fact that you can defeat Magus, listen to his (what you perceive as) last words doesn't mean he dies. IMHO, almost nobody really dies in an RPG - think about Titus in FF X ... he didn't even exist, but we see him alive and well in X-2. ;^)
My version of the two options are: you either invite him to join your party and he does, or you fight him and he doesn't join. In either case, he is alive at the end of the game. Have you played Chrono Trigger? Do you remember the choice I'm talking about? Do you realize that after you defeat Magus when he is trying to summon Lavos, you can find him later at the cape / cove in the Zeal kingdom? At that point, you can either fight him or ask him to join your party. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 19:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've played Chrono Trigger numerous times, Bill, and the obvious knowledge I have on the subject doesn't appreciate the patronizing nature of that question. In any event, yes, you are quite contradicting yourself. Magus is clearly alive and well after the battle with him in his castle. He clearly does not have trouble speaking. He clearly does not collapse and appear to die. We do not take a personal item from the spot where his corpse fell at that time. All of these, things, however, do occur at the cape if one fights him.
And I'm sorry, whatever your personal opinion of death in RPGs might be, people very often do die in them. Tidus was a terrible example for your argument. Tidus was as dead as Seymour or the Crusaders from Operation Mi'ihen at the end of Final Fantasy X. He didn't just appear to die. He was dead. And he did very much exist. As much as Yuna or anyone else. He was simply a summon, and so his life was maintained with one extra requirement (that his summoner keep summoning him).
Anyway, you're ignoring the basis of your own argument: that people get fought in RPGs all the time and then show up again alive and well. That does not happen if you fight Magus at the cape. He goes down, can barely speak, we take an item from his dead body and then he never shows up again. To conclude that all that means he's alive and well is like concluding that the director of Titanic was trying to suggest that the boat didn't sink this time.
You can't ignore what we're shown. The consequence of fighting him is that he dies. The consequence of not fighting him is that he joins and he lives. In order for him to be alive later, based on what we've been shown, that could only have occurred if he joined. Furthermore, the fact that Lucca knows something she could only know if he had joined means he absolutely had to join.
I don't know why you would say "Lucca only knows that Magus is going to search for Schala if...". This isn't an "if" scenario. Lucca does know he's gone to search for Schala. Play Chrono Cross if you haven't yet and read Lucca's letter. She knows it. Play Radical Dreamers. There he is after finding her. Meaning that he searched for her. Just as indicated by the ending of the game if he joined. Meaning he must have joined. Also, keeping in mind that Radical Dreamers was made right after Chrono Trigger, it's fairly unlikely that players should be going "What the hell?! Magus is alive and searching for Schala?! Such a possibility simply doesn't fit with any of the possible outcomes presented to us in Chrono Trigger! What shoddy, amateur work!"
Again, this isn't an "if" scenario. This is a discussion of what is. It's been made inescapably clear what is. Ryu Kaze 20:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you thought I was being patronizing, but I was wondering if the meeting of Magus was optional, and perhaps you never saw that scene. Do you agree that the player is given the option of fighting Magus or asking him to join? You seem to think it is impossible that the player can fight Magus, but Magus can still survive. To me, that seems perfectly reasonable, and in fact probable. The "last words" of Magus could easily be what he said before he passed out. As for Chrono Cross, the developers had to assume certain results from Chrono Trigger, but even so, my version of the options work regardless of what the player chooses. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 22:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No harm done. Anyway, yes, the player is certainly given the option of fighting Magus or having him join. However, given how things must have played out based on the sequels, we should present the story in accordance with that. For a couple of reasons, really: 1) because it's officially indicated to be the way things actually went and 2) because a reader should be able to read the Chrono Trigger article and then go straight to Radical Dreamers or Chrono Cross and be informed of how continuing plot developments got to be what they are. As such, I also think we should mention that Magus goes off searching for Schala in the ending.
Anyway, the issues with your version of events is that it calls for assuming things outside of what we're shown in the game, and arguably contradicts the aftermath of the battle scene from a directing and storytelling standpoint (a director's job is to convey the intended story; a tenet of storytelling is that if someone appears to die and never shows up again or suggestion of their survival is never offered, then it's most logical to assume they are dead).
As far as the notion of Magus just passing out goes, that hardly makes sense given Frog's transformation back into Glenn if Magus is gone. Him simply being unconscious wouldn't render that effect, or Frog would have turned back into Glenn every time Magus fell asleep. Also, again, there's the overall presentation of the scene and the fact that there is never the slightest suggestion afterward that Magus could have survived if that battle took place.
Based solely on what we see within the game, the only conclusion we can draw is that Magus joined the group. Otherwise, we create a ton of plot holes, assume failure on the part of the director and writers, potentially mislead the readers and don't adequately prepare them for reading about Radical Dreamers, as any article with a sequel should try to do. Ryu Kaze 22:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear that we are going to resolve this issue. I can't see any impelling evidence that Magus joins the group, only that he survives. I think it boils down to you believe that Magus is actually killed, while I think he was merely defeated. You seem to think either: (1) even if the player fights Magus, he still joins the group, or (2) the option of fighting Magus is a side story that shouldn't be discussed. I, on the other hand, believe that Magus was merely defeated, which apparently broke the curse of Frog. In either case, Magus is alive at the end of the game.
Since it looks like we aren't going to resolve this issue ourselves, I think we should take it back to the talk page for Chrono Trigger. We can outline the two views, and see if we can come up with some consensus among interested parties. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 02:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. By the way, no, I'm not arguing that even if the player fights him, he joins the group. I'm saying that if he was fought, he died, and given that he didn't die, and given that Lucca knows things she would only know if he had joined the group, he did without any fight. Ryu Kaze 02:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

Bill, In what way was the reference to the firing of Jeff Nielsen not a NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.88.121.162 (talk • contribs)

The POV was the other part of your edit. As for the firing, you cited no reference, so the reason was speculative. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 00:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wrp103/Archive01&oldid=1054793848"