Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-6512-20150908154921/@comment-1672596-20150909114608

Bluerock wrote: I remember creating these sections years ago, when I purged the Wiki of those ridiculously long trivia lists in every article, to place the points under more relevant headings. The “Personality and traits” sections used to be small, succinct observations that helped give an idea of the character, outside the standard retelling of events from the games. Unfortunately, they have now become bloated monsters, due to obsession over small details (especially optional radio dialogue), and misunderstanding of humor, context and the "bigger picture."

What is needed is some guidelines. A size limit for one would make people be more conservative in how much detail to go into. Wikipedia has some good examples regarding how to go about this on some of their fictional character articles, using brief summaries and cited examples. For example, Big Boss can be described as having a large appetite, supported by a couple of references, and have it all done in one sentence.

I don’t believe the sections should be eliminated from the Wiki entirely, as they do add some value, but some reassessment is definitely required.

Also...

Weedle McHairybug wrote: Problem is, several of those so-called "personal interpretations" ARE actual facts. Like the tone Cecile gave when saying "He does tend to sympathize with the left..." in Peace Walker basically showing she really doesn't agree with Sartre's claim about Che Guevara being the most complete man of the century. They would have done it differently if they wanted to show otherwise. She's simply providing context for Satre's statement. After all, it is quite a feat for anyone to be described in such a way. You personally interpreted that as her disapproving of it, and there is no room for such supposition on the Wiki. Except vocal delivery and tone does make a difference for what someone is conveying, especially in regards to a story. Now, if there wasn't any voice acting and it was all just text, THEN the bit about interpretation would be a sound accusation there, and that definitely wouldn't have belonged. But the problem is that the vocal delivery pretty much stated she didn't approve of what Sartre said. If they simply wanted to give historical context WITHOUT giving any indication one way or another for what Cecile gave, just have her deliver the line without implying anything one way or another in terms of delivery what she personally felt. Heck, just relegate the entire dialogue to just text without any voice acting at all.

And quite frankly, details make up the bigger picture. Otherwise, you just have a blank canvas, so details DO need to be given, no matter how small.