Talk:KOS-MOS

This article was nominated for deletion on February 7, 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was rough consensus for a merge and redirect.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the KOS-MOS article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find video game sources: "KOS-MOS" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Archives: 1

Video games: Characters Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Video game characters task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Comments/input

I figured I'd create a section for my thoughts and comments as I look over the article. Sergecross73 msg me 18:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile the name KOS-MOS, pronounced "cosmos"
- I could be wrong, but I don't recall this being accurate. I'm bad at conveying pronunciations, but I think of "cosmos" being pronounced "Kahz-mose", whereas, I thought I recalled "KOS-MOS" being pronounced more like "Kose-mose". The pronunciation didn't seem to be in the source given either. The rest of the sentence was good and sourced, but I think the part above needs to be reworked or dropped. Sergecross73 msg me 18:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Reception section should be rearranged so that they scholarly, detailed sources, are mentioned more upfront in the section. I think its more important, and honestly I think it'll help dissuade people from wanting to re-merge it again. The non-scholarly stuff is fine...but its also a lot of the stuff that editors use to try to pad out non-notable character article. Just a thought. Sergecross73 msg me 19:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]