Thread:Tr143/@comment-7932932-20160705051230/@comment-28140789-20160705190856

J-wing wrote: If you would be so kind to allow me to create this article, as you among other admins have allowed opinionated articles such as deathstroke's(AO) page referring to him as "the ultimate damage machine" and other subjective claims you will see that the title alone would not simply be a poorly written article without format giving a 1-10 list on the highest damaging characters in the game. I planned and for that matter have formatted this page on word to give an unbias list of the playability of characters. Generally speaking there isn't much of what you're calling "subjective" on the wiki. What you're citing is the one place on character pages where such "subjectivity" is both standard and somewhat warranted: the intro section. The intro section on each page list some basic essential information like distinguishing characteristics and (especially) how and where to obtain the character; otherwise, the intro is generally used as a blurb to suggest why you should at least try out a chracter, if you can.

That also speaks to the "general position of the Wiki regarding characters"--or, rather, the "culture" of the Wiki. The Wiki does not per se push characters, and, if it does, it actually pushes all of them.

Pretty much every article on the wiki refers to a term that actually occurs in the game. There is only a few exceptions: one is that we don't have separate pages for "crit chance" and "crit damage"; another major one is the existence of the multiplayer and single player guides. An argument can be made that these pages should not exist, but perhaps they should, as every character and gear page has its own strategy section, and in the case of a "Multiplayer" or "Single Player" page where a guide section existed, the guide would be too large.

Regardless, that's simply the current "culture" on the wiki. If you look at the Injustice Wiki (a), you'll see that they have one merely one guide that doesn't go into character interactions, character pages that don't go into strategy, and odd pages for characters who make the slightest cameo appearance in associated media. I'm not knocking any of these things, only saying that such is the culture of the Wiki there.

Nothing stops you from making a comment on any page to whatever effect you would, or from making a blog post (I've made several) to whatever effect you would (including to such a guide as you have thought up, as have I). Nothing prevents anyone from putting whatever subjective, anecdotal information they want onto any page, as long as it is in the comment.

You can't just set up an article page for your own guide. It doesn't meet the guide standards here  (comprehensive guides for whatever game mode), the strategy standards here (which are moderated by consensus), or the objective term standards here (that pages here are generally strictly reserved for all strictly named and used/played characters, objects, modes, and all like things in the game).

It really shouldn't have its own page.