User talk:Dissident93/Archive 6

Hey, just wondering if you found reliable sales data for Sim City 2000? Should be on best selling PC games list. Is recognised to have sold 1.7 million copies in USA alone. Couldn’t find a talk page for List of best selling PC games.

Regards and best of luck with your busy schedule.

Hi, I recently edited the Final Fantasy X page by adding a section about blitzball. I felt it needed to be added because even though blitzball is a mini game, it can still be a large portion of the game. Hours can be dedicated to just blitzball. I don't think it should just be weaved into one sentence about mini games because most mini games in Final Fantasy are just about luck and chance while this one involves skill. It's also a big plot point. I added in the extra sentence about the director in case anyone didn't believe the section belonged. The fact that the director wants to add blitzball to another game adds to it's importance. Can you explain your edits to me? I'm not the best with finding sources for these so I would like to hear about why you removed them as well. Thank you.Princess Oddity (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It belongs more in the legacy section, as the gameplay section is supposed to be all self-contained without references to future games. The rest of the section was fine, however. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, alright. I understand that. Looking back at the sources you took out, I understand why you didn't think they were credible as well. I hope those interested can work together to find more credible sources about the topic. Thank you for your help. Princess Oddity (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked through the page for other sources and one I used that you removed has already been used on the page. Twice, I believe, as references 4 and 6. This is personally enough for me to add the source back into the blitzball section. Princess Oddity (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get rid of the IGN wiki guide source, you'll have to also delete reference 5 and 7 (the numbers have changed after a couple edits). You can't just keep removing mine without removing those if you really don't think they're proper sources because they're from the same site. Princess Oddity (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked and couldn't find them, but yes they should be deleted as they are considered unreliable. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You removed them. I replaced the sources with proper ones. Princess Oddity (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could we talk about Sonic Forces?2602:30A:C015:EFF0:C56B:C07D:C1DF:2808 (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@2602:30A:C015:EFF0:C56B:C07D:C1DF:2808: Sure, what's the issue? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite. Tails said that he was faster than Sonic, but you took it out, and I just wondered if we could disuss it.2602:30A:C015:EFF0:5929:1DAD:B84:E61A (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@2602:30A:C015:EFF0:C56B:C07D:C1DF:2808: I removed it because it's seen as an in-universe fact, which would make it mostly WP:GAMECRUFT to mention. See point #5 there. Even if it's true, it doesn't belong unless it affects gameplay as well. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, I guess you're right. I'll try to do better. Thanks!2602:30A:C015:EFF0:C5A6:42EE:3E23:E718 (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@2602:30A:C015:EFF0:C56B:C07D:C1DF:2808: No problem. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either spelling is fine. I prefer the latter to distinguish from other interpretations of "lead".  czar 00:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Czar: Oh, I know, I was just thinking that we should probably be consistent with MOS:LEAD, which spells it that way. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	I'd like to applaud every improvement you've made to my own edits on video game articles. Your assistance in the matter is much appreciated. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dissident93! I just wanted to ask you that I think we should remove "third-person shooter" from video game articles' genre section specially from early gta articles, because it is not a "game genre", it is a perspective in which we can shoot. Your opinion regarding this matter. Thanks! ☺ Pure conSouls (talk) 10:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This should really probably go to WT:VG. The idea that "third person shooter" isn't a genre, versus "first person shooter", coupled with many modern games supporting both at once.... "FPS" or "TPS" is more akin to "open world" than to say, "action" or "rpg". -- ferret (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you should have presented this question to WP:VG instead of just me. Anyway, third-person shooters are normally considered a genre that makes it stand out from first-person shooters, such as games like Resident Evil 4 and Gears of War. However, something like GTA isn't normally grouped in with these, if at all, so I also kind of agree that it doesn't belong in those specific instances. Sandbox/action adventure is fine for them. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion. I thought to ask a person whose knowledge of wikipedia is more than mine. Now I'm going to present this in the wikiproject video games. ☺ Pure conSouls (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I recently did a small edit on the Terraria article which you reverted plus mentioning "NOTBROKEN". Although I'm not a native English speaker, I think I understand the legitimacy of this guideline. But specifically in my case I am still wondering, maybe you can help me out. How come that redirecting to the intended platform/console (PS Vita or Xbox One) is worse than redirecting to "Vita" or "XB1"? Tt seems odd because you have to find the article in the disambiguation page. Thanks in advance. --Danbotix (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Danbotix: Looking back on it, I guess I just assumed they all correctly redirected to their intended pages. I'm not sure if they even need links there, per WP:OVERLINK, but I'll just revert it due to your stated issues. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your answer and keep the good work going! --Danbotix (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you think this seems like trivia huh? Considering Atlus and A-1 Pictures is announcing a full Persona 5 anime (not like the sub-chapter The Day Breakers), you think Miyu Matsuki and Kazunari Tanaka are alive today after they announce that the original Japanese actors are reprising their roles?

Well, to be honest: we both know that both Matsuki and Tanaka were already passed away (Matsuki died in 2015 while Tanaka died in 2016) when the Persona 5 game was released in Japan, so did you remove something that you think is "trivia"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.158.201.26 (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @175.158.201.26: I wasn't aware of their deaths or who they even were, but the way it was written just seemed more like trivia than necessary information, as the article doesn't make any mention of either of them prior to this. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dissident93,

You sent me a notification to thank me for fixing a very minor spelling mistake in your DOTA 2 article; a mistake that was so small that most people probably wouldn't even have noticed it. No one has ever thanked me like that on Wikipedia before and I wasn't sure how to say you're welcome and thank you in return.

So ... You're Welcome and Thank You!

My father was a typesetter so at the end of movies he would tell me what font the credits were in and explain how to identify it; he thought a fun weekend was teaching me to touch type; and he taught me to proof-read everything which passes in front of my eyes. The latter is both a blessing and a curse - let me tell you - and it's pretty rare that I read something, anywhere, without finding a mistake. Normally people are frustrated or angered by my pedantry, so being thanked for it is like a breath of fresh air! Sorry to ramble on, but after seeing so many fights and wars on Wikipedia, it is genuinely very nice to be thanked for my very small contribution to your excellent article. You are obviously a very good writer and I hope I'll be able to be as productive and useful as you are some day.

Just so you know ... I went to that page because a friend told me he was watching the DOTA 2 Championship - I think is was called The International - and I went to YouTube to check it out. I'd never seen it before and so it was quite bizarre watching the live games and listening to the commentators; it seemed like they were speaking in a foreign language and I had no idea whatsoever what was going on. That led me to Google DOTA 2 and try to find a page which outlined the game and I ended up at your Wikipedia article. The reason I'm explaining all of this is to commend you, because I found the article to be very well written and, unlike any of the other pages I read before going there, I came away with a very good understanding of what DOTA 2 was and how it is played. I then went back to YouTube and, thanks to your page, I was much better able to follow the action and understand what was going on.

So ... I congratulate you and thank you for a very fine article. Keep up the excellent work because it is helping people...

:-)

Thanks and Regards,

FillsHerTease (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 07:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] 

• @FillsHerTease: I've never had a comment like this before, so it's greatly appreciated. One thing to note, it's not my article, I just happen to be the primary editor maintaining it over the last two years, but I'm still glad that the 100s of edits I've made to it provided some sort of understanding to a new reader. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 08:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to understand the logic here. I just joined this week and trying to understand when I'm allowed to use Metacritic vs Opencritic. I like opencritic better because it's platform agnostic and gives more data (like when critics agree more than usual on splatoon 2)

I saw it listed here and thought it was approved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Review_aggregator — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrozenWasteland (talk • contribs) 19:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Review aggregator is an article about review aggregators, so includes OpenCritic in its content. However, it is simply an article, and it is not a guideline or policy as far as editing Wikipedia itself is concerned. For content added to articles, they must be backed by a reliable source. Currently, OpenCritic has not been accepted as a reliable source. It was last discussed just a month or two ago and the decision remained not to include it in articles or use it as a source at this time. MetaCritic and GameRankings are the accepted video game aggregators at this time, and we omit GameRankings in most cases where it is nearly identical to Metacritic. -- ferret (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We as a community have not all agreed on using OpenCritic in articles. It often, if not always, just repeats what Metacritic, the industry standard, already states anyway. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. Still learning how this talk stuff works.

What is a reliable source or not? I'm curious why OpenCritic was considered unreliable. Is there somewhere I can see the context?

Also, is there somewhere I can see what are the accepted gaming news sources as a whole? I was wondering if Forbes and TrustedReviews were ok as sources? Sometimes a Forbes writer writes reviews about Japanese games before they're released in the US, and I thought it might be interesting to quote him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrozenWasteland (talk • contribs) 03:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FrozenWasteland: Previous discussions about OpenCritic took place here and here, but keep in mind that these discussions took place a while ago and were archived, meaning that if you want to bring it up for discussion again, you have to make a new thread. But I wouldn't do it at the moment, as people would have not changed their opinions since then for the most part. Also, this is a community curated list of reliable sources regarding video games. As for your examples, Forbes is considered to be situational, meaning that common sense should be used if using it as a source, as the site often publishes blogs from writers with no credentials. I don't know anything about TrustedReviews and it's not listed at WP:VG/S, so I'd bring it up on the talk page there (which is how all of the sources there get accepted as reliable). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can almost guarantee that numerous sites confirm Great Fray. --PSI Thunder (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @PSI Thunder: Status quo after a number of years? And what sites confirm this? If they aren't reliable, it doesn't matter. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the official upload of the opening. Per the description:

Animated and Directed by Tyson Hesse, featuring custom music by Hyper Potions, this animation is our final gift to you before the game launches on Tuesday!

So yes, they do have music in the game. -- 68.32.218.140 (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the proof:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2328678/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm

Thanks :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimpos (talk • contribs) 03:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Chimpos: IMDB is not considered a reliable source, as it's all user submitted (just like Wikipedia). Is there no other source that claims this? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

so every other movie that's on there is considered unreliable information? IMDB is like the bible in Hollywood, it's the first place anyone looks for information on anyone that participates in the movie industry. The only other thing you could do is go and see the movie when it comes out and wait for the credits to roll? The companies that make movies police the information on their movies as it makes sense that they don't want any incorrect information to be out there. I really don't know what else I can suggest. I can tell you the exact dates that the soundtrack was recorded in Prague with the City of Prague Philharmonic, I can even give you the contact information of the contractor that booked the players for the sessions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimpos (talk • contribs) 02:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Chimpos: In terms of sourcing information for Wikipedia, yes. User-submitted websites have no quality control, as anybody, such as yourself, can add the info there and then cite it here. Find a better, reliable source that reports this, or it will continue to be reverted. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you made the changes to the references I provided earlier. I was wondering if you provide an example on how to cite the name if the reference is repeated twice or more. I don't really want to expand the List of 3DS games when I continue working on it. So if you could provide that, (such as the multiple Nintendo Download information) I'd appreciate your help. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Zacharyalejandro: It's apart of the cite web template tool, where it says ref name. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific tag that I have to put in in order for it to display properly? Like "NA eshop 08-25-2017" or something like that? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 07:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Zacharyalejandro: Are you asking about the ref name? If so, then no, any name would work, it's just preferred to use condensed ones for readability. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dissident93: I figured it out. Thanks again for the help. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With Shantae, Azure Striker Gunvolt, Gal*Gun, and Shovel Knight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebb1993 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Are those apart of the core game, or more of easter eggs? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Descriptions for Reception. I am only asking of this because you were one of many editors who helped me engrave the "Stick to Metacritic's reading" message in my head. Thanks in advance. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you want to merge the soundtracks of the Tekken games to the actual game, but at least show the track listings so that you don't inconvenience the other wiki users who might want to search for the tracks. Otherwise, you can as well revert them back to seperate pages. Thank you.

TB Chigz (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @TB Chigz: No, since the tracklistings are considered WP:GAMECRUFT, they wouldn't belong in the main articles either. All of the Tekken OST pages lacked third-party sourcing and were mainly just there to provide tracklistings and nothing more. Even the citations basically redirected you to VGMDB anyway, which exists for this exact thing. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 08:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I can find a decent source for the section that you redacted (== Spectator Mode ==) on August 29, 2017, could I add it back? Topper13009 (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Topper13009: Of course, but the problem is I don't really see one really talking about such a minor gameplay mode outside of a raw changelog or something, but you are welcome to try. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dissident93: Ok, here's a source from one of Dinnerbone's blog posts showing some info about spectator mode. Do you think it would work, and I could edit the section back in, with some tweaking to fit the source?https://mojang.com/2014/01/minecraft-snapshot-14w05a/ Topper13009 (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Topper13009: If there isn't a third-party source that mentions it, I wouldn't re-add it. A first-party changelog makes it impossible to gauge its WP:NOTABILITY, because everything on that page could be added simply because its directly from Mojang. As you can see, this is not ideal. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 08:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Dissident93: Ok, I am adding the (modified) info back with a third-party source, so feel free to fix what I may have messed up. Thanks for the help! Topper13009 (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Headcannon is just Simon Thomley, and individual developers are not supposed to be listed in this section of the infobox. Also, what source credits Whitehead as the director?

Also, holy shit you do a ton of edits. I guess now I know why you don't hang around vgmdb often anymore Raizen1984 (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Raizen1984: I'm aware that Headcannon is just a company brand name for Thomley, but that's exactly what I meant in the edit summary. Is "Christian Whitehead" the developer a company or simply the generic branding of a designer? The infobox dev field is normally reserved for only companies and not single people, but since "Headcannon" exists as a company branding, they technically belong there. I'd bring this up on the Sonic Mania talk page to get more opinions if I were you, as I'm not really sure what is the best way to handle this myself. Also, Whitehead is called the "lead developer" in the game's ending credits, and his role as the project leader is noted in other sources, so he's the game's director in all but the technical name. As for VGMDB, I still show up and contribute there, but really haven't found a need to comment on the forums on anything interesting in a while for some reason. I guess the composers I follow haven't really been that active in the last few years? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the other citation only mentions Xbox, whereas the FAQ describes the sitution in a little more detail. — Niche-gamer 19:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Niche-gamer: That's fair, but it also has other relevant information that could be used in the article. It's not misleading if you write it correctly and use the FAQ in addition to it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, gotcha. — Niche-gamer 19:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for you to provide a reason to this editor about why you removed his original edit after Tarkus reverted me back with a source? Thanks in advance! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask why you reverted my edit on the List of Nintendo development teams?Rogue Commander (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rogue Commander: Per my edit summary, where I said that we don't need a huge list of companies that Nintendo has ever worked with, when none of them are either owned or otherwise legally affiliated with the company. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dissident93: That section is explicitly called "partners". Its not for Nintendo developers or affiliated companies, but partner companies, companies they work closely with and have worked closely with Nintendo. Many of these companies have been integral to the development of Nintendo middleware and software, or are the driving development muscle behind Nintendo's key franchises. In fact, most of Nintendo's first party franchises are created by these companies. Some of them co-own key franchises with Nintendo, and other developers have been published by Nintendo exclusively or near exclusively. They are key partner companies and while working for Nintendo, they ARE Nintendo developers. They are so integral to Nintendo's development strategy that there is not reason to not list them. Every other major publisher or platform holder also list second and third party partners and affiliates, including Sega, Sony interactive Entertainment, and Microsoft Studios. There is no reason to treat Nintendo any different. This list was included for years on the other developer page that was merged into this one and no one complained, and I saw no discussion regarding its removal. It was simply not moved to this page seemingly due to laziness on the part of the Wikipedia's editors as the two pages were otherwise identical in content. I don't see a reason to remove this list, nor do I see a reason to split it into its own page, and there has been no discussion or consensus on this. The issue isn't one of page length, or formatting. The page is still shorter than the actual Nintendo page and the list is clean and within the page's already established format. There needs to be a better reason than "they aren't part of Nintendo", since that is explicitly not what that section is for either. Creatures isn't part of Nintendo either, nor directly affiliated with them, but its included on the page.Rogue Commander (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rogue Commander: But how do you objectively define a "close partner"? Working with them on a set number of games? Having them only publish games on Nintendo platforms? The page should only include non-subjective information regarding affiliated companies, whether that is by legal ownership or contracts of exclusivity. Creatures co-owns the Pokemon Company along with Nintendo, which gives them more merit versus a company who had Nintendo publish three of their games in the past. Do you see my reasoning? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Dissident93: There is nothing really subjective about this. All of those companies have developed key games and franchises, or technologies, for Nintendo. A few, like Tecmo Koei and Paon, co-own a franchise with Nintendo. Some, like Skip Ltd., have exclusively or near exclusively worked on Nintendo games. Some, like, Level 5, have exclusive publishing deals with the company in question. Creatures is not owned by Nintendo. By any definition, it is not a Nintendo owned company, it is completely separately privately owned corporation. It has no more merit to being on this page than the others, as its only real connection is the co-ownership of the Pokemon Franchise and being a stockholder in the Pokemon Company alongside Nintendo, placing it on the same level as Tecmo Koei in the regards to the former factoid, while the latter factoid is irrelevant for the merits of inclusion on this page. So no, I don't see a problem, and you failed to properly articulate one. These are companies that Nintendo has directly partnered with in the past. That is the only real point that decides whether a company gets included here or not. Nintendo rarely partners with companies. And when they do, they tend to be deep, long lasting partnerships. So there is no issue regarding page length or merits of inclusion here.Rogue Commander (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • While you make some good points, I still disagree that this info needs to belong in the article. Using the same logic, what's stopping us from adding this on the pages of every other game company? 95% of this could be better shown through written prose instead of a bloated, massive table that anybody could add. And I didn't claim Creatures was owned by Nintendo, just that they clearly collaborate together and have a shared interest in the Pokemon Company by way of co-ownership, which separates them from the random company that only worked with Nintendo on two games a decade ago. If you want more opinions than mine, I'd bring this discussion up at WT:VG. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Dissident93: The Thing is, every other game company where this would be applicable already has this on their pages: Sony, Microsoft, and Sega, all current or former platform owners, have similar lists, and they are longer and less clean than this one. And nothing is stopping other pages from including one, except laziness on the part of Wikipedia's editors. I'm not opposed to writing this out; I just copied the information from the old page without format changes. Writing it out may very well be more preferable and I would be okay with that. I might even help with some of the writeups if that was the case. If we can't come to agreement, I would very much rather have a consensus with others or at least get a second opinion rather than the opinion of one or two before deciding to not include this information. And I was merely saying that Creatures had really no more reason to be on this page than the other partners. Nintendo has a minority stock ownership Bandai Namco. Does that make Bandai Namco more worthwhile to be placed on this page? Not really, since this is primarily a list of developers of software and hardware.Rogue Commander (talk) 03:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, apologies, I was mistaken with the wording. The source replacement wasn't necessary - the old one sourced it just fine if you read it all - but your wording is better, I mixed that part up. Sergecross73 msg me 18:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, making the free agency section a subsection of the anthem protests section is tantamount to us taking a side in the "why isn't Kaepernick signed yet?" debate. It implies that it's a fact that he's unsigned as a result of his protests. While it may likely be the case, we don't know for sure. Having each section separate is a more neutral approach. Lizard (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lizard the Wizard: I don't disagree with you, but I think there should still be something done with it. Right now it could just be used as the catch-all section for including any negative article about Kaepernick, especially since any opinionated writer who doesn't agree with Kaepernick can write one up and anybody with a bias against him can place it in there without fear of it being removed. Perhaps we should only include the opinions that think he was unsigned due to his protests and place them in the main section? A player being unsigned because his performance had dropped isn't really news and basically happens to every player who doesn't retire first, so this is more of a bias-pushing action than what I did. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That seems like a better idea. Get rid of the free agency section altogether and have a sentence or two about it in the anthem section. I'm thinking some variation of the "...some believing that his protests, and not performance, were the reason he was unable to be signed with a team for the 2017 season" part that's in the lead, with sources. Lizard (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lizard the Wizard: Exactly what I think. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] I had left out the comma as unnecessary in a compound predicate #13 czar 19:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Czar: I was taught that commas should go after dates. Is there an exception to this rule or am I mistaken? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commas go after dates that function as parentheticals—MOS:COMMA has geographical and year examples of this. If the day isn't used in the date, the year doesn't become a parenthetical.

"in January 2008 and was ported"
"in January 1, 2008, and was ported" (where "2008" becomes an aside between "January 1st" and "and was ported")

czar 21:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed on Atelier Lydie & Suelle that you took at the Alchemists of the Mysterious Painting part. Why was this done? I understand that it is sometimes necessary to make it common name, but why in this case? VTnav (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @VTnav: Per WP:SUBTITLE, there really isn't another article to disambiguate with Atelier Lydie & Suelle, so there is no need to have the full title. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so except all of the other Atelier related articles include the full name including the subtitle so this game not using the same convention may create confusion. Sakura Cartelet ^Talk 00:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a requested move to discuss this page. Sakura Cartelet ^Talk 00:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do wish you would opt to discuss these things instead of immediately going to edit warring. The platforms are not "normally" the first thing mentioned, the formatting of articles, as you know, differs greatly. The platforms do not need to be mentioned in the first sentence, they are in fact inconsequential, the game could be released on a NES, it would still be the Witcher 3. It was also next to the date. Being where it was meant that re-releases, either expanded or on new platforms now and in the future can be added easily. Your option separates them from the date (which is something I'm sure has been discussed at the video game project), and creates a situation where future releases (see Doom (1993 video game)) would create a vast list of meaningless platforms in the opening of the article (note Doom doesn't mention the platforms in the opening sentence either). I provided a reasoning, you should have talked to me or opened a discussion rather than just revert it and ignore that reasoning. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Darkwarriorblake: It is really not edit warring unless if it happens multiple times in quick succession; see WP:3RR and WP:BOLD. But anyway, I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I could in turn argue that until it does get released for platforms in the future, that it is WP:CRYSTALBALL-like undue maintenance to argue that it will. Plenty of other featured articles do in fact mention the platforms in the first paragraph, which is something that hasn't really ever been argued with. But as it's still mentioned in the lead and that's what actually matters, it really isn't that important to debate further over this. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is important. Because the article read fine as it was and you changed it and I disagreed with it. So it does need discussing. It's not just Crystal and you need to stop referring to other articles because WP: OTHERSTUFF exists. The formats were with the date which, per the last discussion, is fine where it is. There is no reason for you to move the formats beyond that being your personal preference, and since I disagreed, the WP: STATUSQUO should have remained. And I do consider it edit warring when you revert without actually discussing anything, since it would then require me to revert to explain what I already explained, as I have had to do here. I am going to move the formats back where they were because they were fine as they were and it made sense unless you have a genuine reason beyond WP: OTHERSTUFF to justify the change, and when I do so I expect you to open a discussion if you continue to disagree and not continue to revert it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Noticed you moved themback yourself, thanks for that because I really don't wish to fight about it. EDIT FURTHER: see my reasoning is that the platforms are ultimately not very important. It's kind of like mentioning that "Die Hard was released in 20th Century Fox for DVD, VHS and Netflix". It doesn't change the core of the game, and given it's popular and status it'll probably be re-released on PS5 and XBOX Two, and all the other jazz, and yes that is crystal ball, but I guess my underlying point is that it could be being re-rereleased for the PS20, it wouldn't be important to the introduction to the game. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You said removed trivia about it not being released on the PS3 (non-news is not news) that's not make any sense that you removed the line. it's a news also made by WWE 2K via twitter. and this news is sourced and mentioned everywhere that first videogame only for 8th gen hardware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broken nutshell (talk • contribs) 04:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Broken nutshell: Just because it's mentioned (on social media no less) doesn't mean we have to include it into the article. Does it really matter than it didn't release for a platforms released over 10 years ago? If this was brought up for GAN, it would be removed for similar reasons. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I recently updated the Wikipedia page for the online video game H1Z1 and noticed that you reverted the page back to its original copy.

I'm a big fan of the game and thought it would be great to have the Wikipedia page reflect their recent title and artwork updates. Plus, the tournament at TwitchCon isn't on there either.

Is there a reason you reverted the page? Should I change the copy I used?

Thanks so much!

CPetlak

• @CPetlak: I reverted because I wasn't aware that the game title moved back to simply H1Z1, which I just found out now. That being said, your contributions were mostly badly written, and you also apparently removed valid sources too. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reason why I change MicroProse to Hasbro Interactive is that, they weren't a publisher after Hasbro Interactive acquired them, just a brand name (brand names for publishers do not classify on pages). All the original release boxed copies I have seen copyright Hasbro Interactive, not MicroProse. Here are the back covers to the Jewel Cases to prove I am right.

http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/rollercoaster-tycoon/cover-art/gameCoverId,157639/ http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/rollercoaster-tycoon-corkscrew-follies/cover-art/gameCoverId,157772/

Luigitehplumber (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @LTPofficial: It seems to me that perhaps MicroProse served more as the distributor than publisher, which is something the infobox phased out recently. In this case, the box does clearly say published by Hasbro Interactive, so I'll change it back. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it back already. All of the MicroProse titles released during the Hasbro Interactive era (when they owned MicroProse) were published by Hasbro Interactive.

• @Masem: The box art does state it was published by Hasbro Interactive. Could this have been a later print that kept the 1999 year? I mean who are we to argue if it explicitly states this. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It isn't, what I showed were original versions of the games. MicroProse was acquired by Hasbro Interactive in August 1998 (and the game was released in March 1999), and as I say, Hasbro Interactive downgraded MicroProse to a brand name only. Luigitehplumber (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If it wasn't for the box art explicitly stating otherwise, I'd still think that MicroProse as a publishing brand name is what we should be using instead, so I don't really agree with that. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thing though, is that all the Hasbro branded MicroProse have "Hasbro Interactive" as the publisher, and they are perfectly fine with that. As an admin said to me when I added "Atari" to Infogrames branded titles that had Atari's logo on them; The Atari brand name is on top of the cover, but not the publisher's assumed name at the time. I always judge the publisher on the back cover. MicroProse is not the assumed name for Hasbro Interactive. Luigitehplumber (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can You explain why You remove Pay to Win model in this Theme, It looks like you would protect some business, maybe You doing this unconsciously or not. See the discussion about this problem and topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darek555 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reversed your two page redirections for Tatsuyuki Maeda and Naofumi Hataya. I do agree that the pages need a lot of work done to them, but at the same time I don't think the best solution is to remove them entirely.

Just posting this here to see if you have any suggestions for page improvements, as I would happily work on them. --Awakes (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Awakes: I created both of those pages years ago before I started to understand more Wikipedia's policies on notability/biographies. As you can see, the only source they have is a single archived worklist page from a decade ago. No other real sources discuss them, so if these were officially taken to AfD, they would garner no support for keeping them, and would end up just being outright deleted (or redirect to Sega, as I did). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

According to the List of Mario role-playing games, user FallenWallet recently added this game to this page, adding that Puzzle & Dragons: Super Mario Bros. Edition is a Mario role-playing game. I posted a discussion about it on its talk page, and I thought you might want to discuss on if you want to remove it, or do something about the game being added in a separate section in the article of games. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that perhaps the addition of Puzzle & Dragons: Super Mario Bros. Edition should have had an article, but I would like to say that Puzzle & Dragons: Super Mario Bros. Edition is not only a puzzle game. Like I mentioned in the Notes, it combines role-playing and puzzle gameplay. For example, the game has a story and an overworld, with many more RPG elements. The characters can level up, the payer can create teams with the character, and much more. - FallenWallet — Preceding unsigned comment added by FallenWallet (talk • contribs) 19:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @FallenWallet: Super Mario Bros. 3 has an overworld and a story too. A game having RPG elements doesn't make it one unless it's a major part of the game. However it shouldn't matter what we think; do sources consider it an RPG? If not, then it doesn't belong. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, very true. But even then, this game has 2 genres. The genres are role-playing and puzzle, I don't see why you couldn't consider this title another Mario RPG. If we're talking about an RPG, we should be considering the fact that an RPG could have more than one genre. I would consider the game a puzzle game because of the tile-matching, while also considering the game an RPG because of the leveling-up, the parties with leaders, helpers, and allies, and turn-based combat. Also, the characters have skills that vary. I know for a fact that the game is a puzzle game, but I also know that the game is an RPG. - FallenWallet

And sources do consider the game an RPG. - FallenWallet

• @FallenWallet: Provide some then? It helps your argument as we can't really debate what sources call it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this one will be completely reliable but it's one to begin with, "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puzzle_%26_Dragons_Z_%2B_Super_Mario_Bros._Edition". - FallenWallet — Preceding unsigned comment added by FallenWallet (talk • contribs) 00:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @FallenWallet: Wikipedia can't be used as a source, for obvious reasons. Check WP:VG/RS for a list that can be used. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said that I wasn't sure if the source would be reliable. - FallenWallet

But, I will find another source. - FallenWallet — Preceding unsigned comment added by FallenWallet (talk • contribs) 00:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @FallenWallet: Right. By the way, a single source that does state this isn't enough. You will need to find at least two, preferably three, for it to be re-added on the list. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News broke today that Gordon was a drug dealer in college. Vandals think it's funny to change his position to "plug," a slang term for a drug dealer. I put in a request at WP:RFPP hours ago and it still isn't protected. Lizard (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lizard the Wizard: Interesting, I didn't see this story. I guess it's no surprised why he was constantly being suspended then. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Truly a waste of talent. Like the waste of page protecting rights to the 1,000+ admins on this site when only around 10 of them bother to exercise it. Lizard (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dissident93. As you requested I've added a source to the DQX article. I'm not the best at making the sources "Look pretty" so feel free to adjust the source link if desired. The Source I added is this one:

http://support.jp.square-enix.com/faqarticle.php?id=2620&kid=64325

It's written in Japanese but this is the DQX Support page from Square-Enix where they help explain error messages, and this is the explanation for the one about service being restricted to Japan.

I went ahead and added this source to the main article. If any concerns let me know. Thanks. CranberryFo (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Cranberry[reply]

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

~ [[User:Dissident93|<font color="#66000">'''''Dissident93'''''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Dissident93|<font color="#D18719">'''''talk'''''</font>]])</sup> : ~ Dissident93 ^(talk)

to

~ [[User:Dissident93|<b style="color: #660000;">''Dissident93''</b>]] <sup>([[User talk:Dissident93|<b style="color: #D18719;">''talk''</b>]])</sup> : ~ Dissident93 ^(talk)

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @Anomalocaris: How long has this been an issue, by the way? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I don't know when this became an issue, but I would date it to 14 October 2016 based on the creation date of MW:Extension:Linter. I sometimes look at Special pages and I noticed Lint errors about 4 months ago I sent my first signature notification on 15 October 2017, and I hope to finish in a couple of weeks ... except by then there will probably be a few more users to notify. —Anomalocaris (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just got notify that the Source 2 article was taken down. And I was notice that you was help me along the way. Unfortunately, there is no new information on engine and whether or not it going to be released. But if there is, I will make sure to cover that in future articles. Picaxe01 (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dissident93! I've seen that the Ocarina of Time (Original version) is removed from the open world video games category, so should we remove its HD version as well? I didn't played the game but think that its just a remastered port with little changes for the 3DS (not sure though). Pure conSouls (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pure conSouls: Yes, I wasn't aware that it also had the category. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dissident93, please accept these holiday wishes :) I've caused this year to end on a chord of disappointment for many, but I hope that despite my mistakes and the differences in opinion and perspectives, and regardless of what the outcome is or in what capacity I can still contribute in the coming year, we can continue working together directly or indirectly on this encyclopedic project, whose ideals are surely carried by both of our hearts. I'm hoping I have not fallen in your esteem to the level where "no hard feelings" can no longer ring true, because I highly respect you and your dedication to Wikipedia, and I sincerely wish you and your loved ones all the best for 2018. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC), humbled but optimistic about the upcoming year of renewal and growth![reply]

For some reason, the discography of Digital Eclipse is in the Backbone Entertainment page despite no citations pointing out that they're the same company. Would you be able to look into this? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Iftekharahmed96: The article claims the company was formed by a merger of two other companies, but I haven't found a source that verifies that. It's also possible that it was another Digital Eclipse, and not the one that focuses on emulation. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the official website of Digital Eclipse. They're responsible for the Megaman Legacy Collection and Disney Afternoon Collection. http://www.digitaleclipse.com/. This is a currently active company, and the website seems to label Backbone Entertainment as a separate company. Here's a separate article about Digital Eclipse resurfacing. There's no mention of a merger that occurred. https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/245465/Digital_Eclipse_is_back_with_a_new_mission_preserve_classic_games.php Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The article also claimed that the digitaleclipse.com website redirected to Backbone's, which isn't true (as of today at least). I'd just remove all of the unsourced merger info. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You undid my edit to the A Hat in Time wiki with the comment: "while true, retail publishers are preferred for this section. self-publishing on Steam is the norm. if this has to be noted, place it in prose instead". A Hat in Time does not have a retail release (digital download only), so there is no retail publisher. I spoke with the developers via their official Discord server, and they confirmed that they self-published everything with the exception of the PS4 and Xbox One release - both of which arrived later than the self-published release by Gears for Breakfast. I think my edit should be re-applied, but I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia, so let me know if it's a bad idea to re-apply it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sancrepl (talk • contribs) 01:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sancrepl: In that case, it should probably be noted in the infobox then. I had just assumed it had a physical retail release, but I should have known that a Kickstarter-funded game would most likely lack the funds for that. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

A bit of context, I'm playing through the games on various "best video games" lists in order of release. I originally used the (much messier) Wikipedia article prior to your big edits around Oct 2017. I've read through the talk page, and I think the new methodology is way better.

However, the original list was only 100 titles long while the new list is almost 200 titles long. I think the list is great as is, but would it be worth adding a column showing how many times the video game was mentioned (the raw data from your spreadsheet), with a narrow title like "# mentions". The two advantages would be 1) users can rank by # mentions and see the "best" rated games on the list and 2) users could pick the games that had, for example, 5 mentions rather than the current 4 if they wanted to see fewer games. Of course the downside is it adds bloat so I understand if you disagree. I can access the raw data spreadsheet so I can do option 2) myself for gaming purposes!

Cheers. KingHelps (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @KingHelps: It wasn't kept for a reason, stuff like that is mainly WP:INDISCRIMINATE information that only serves a trivial purpose. But like you said, it's documented on the spreadsheet (not mine BTW) in cases for when it's needed. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the rationale.

• Clear and direct writing should be our goal. There is no need to refer to a spade as anything other than a spade. We don't need to call a spade a tool, utility, earth-shifting device, etc. A spade is a spade and a game is a game.

• "Title" is industry jargon. It comes from press releases and trade journals. No normal human being says "I bought a title yesterday." See also WP:JARGON.

• "Title" also has another meaning, of course. Why throw that ambiguity in there?

• Finally: problems of repetition arise when prose is repetitive, not from word choice. If you think "game" is appearing too frequently, the solution isn't to replace some of them with "title" or "entertainment product" or "digital entertainment" or whatever. That's elegant variation. Rewrite the sentence so they're not necessary in the first place. Or just use "it" or "they". Popcornduff (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Popcornduff: I agree with the last part as your recent edits on the Breath of the Wild article were an overall improvement, but your second point doesn't really follow what MOS:JARGON says (technical words that the average reader might not understand; it's more of a COMMONNAME issue, if that changes anything). We also see something similar with "sales units" being preferred instead of "copies", so should that also be changed? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always in favour of the most neutral and least bullshitty word. "Title" isn't a technical term, but it's still marketing language. I'd wager this also falls under WP:EUPHEMISM. I'd definitely write "copies" instead of "sales units" for the same reason. Popcornduff (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a video from the english version with Xigbar which shows him combining his two guns into a sniper rifle unlike the original english release: [2]. Besides that I doubt there will be any news articles that can be of help in this. 2601:1C2:4E00:BB1:E886:B07C:70EA:5D90 (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @2601:1C2:4E00:BB1:E886:B07C:70EA:5D90: Normally if no articles report on it, it can't be verified and therefore shouldn't be included. However, games can act as their own source for gameplay related content, so this should be fine. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dissident93! I wanted to talk a bit about the Super Sonic DLC edits. First off, thank you for bringing it to my attention about not putting prices in pages about games, I am relatively new, so any help is much appreciated. I was wondering, would it be okay to talk about how Super Sonic was at, one point, going to be paid DLC? I do think the fact that Super Sonic was going to be paid DLC, but Sonic Team changed their minds, would fall under a noteworthy category. I would be willing to rewrite it without specifically mentioning the exact price and a more reliable source. If you think that would be inappropriate then that's fine with me. Thank you! Thetetrisguy (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Thetetrisguy: It can probably be added into another sentence, but would need reliable third-party sourcing mentioning it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I worked it into the sentence about DLC, and put a more reliable source. Thanks again! Thetetrisguy (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Thetetrisguy: Better, however the announcement date of the news doesn't matter. Ask yourself would anybody care about it in 10 years? Or even in a month? If the answer isn't obviously yes, then normally it should be omitted. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, gotcha. I have a bad habit of writing irrelevant facts nobody really cares about, so thanks! Thetetrisguy (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Dissident93:, not to be a burden, but while you were removing and changing the page similar to how the Nintendo Switch page has done, with removing eShop cells and whatnot, I believe you might want to fix up the dates and separate them from the publisher's tab or something along that. I've been trying to help fix that, but it's going to take me days or even weeks to fix and put back in order because of my busy schedule of other things. I hope you don't mind fixing this. Thank you!! Zacharyalejandro (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Zacharyalejandro: I don't believe the VisualEditor supports this. However, it can be done by third-party tools, if imported as CSV. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've actually decided to fix it manually myself. So its fine. It'll just take a few days. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I saw you changed all the NFL teams linked and made Philadelphia Eagles etc. Are we not allowed to do that? A lot of other player pages have the exact team season linked and if its not against a rule then I think its a better option to have the exact season so readers can quickly see who the player played or any other information. If it changes nothing and doesn't break any rules then why not? Toeknee44 (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Toeknee44: It's technically an WP:EASTEREGG link so it shouldn't be done. I don't know who started this format, but I've always changed them back when noticed. If the year must be mentioned (most of the times it shouldn't), then it should be something like "Philadelphia Eagles in 2015" instead. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understood the easter egg one I was referring to using Philadelphia Eagles when referencing a defeat over the Eagles. Toeknee44 (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what to do about this one. Seems to me that "Microsoft Windows" is not the common name. In a computing context, everyone knows what "Windows" means, and hardly anyone ever writes "Microsoft Windows".

The article itself obviously has to be titled Microsoft Windows for the purposes of disambiguation from ordinary windows. The alternative would be to title it "Windows (operating system)" which isn't an improvement. Does that then mean we are doomed to refer to it as "Microsoft Windows" in full in other articles for the rest of time? I hope not. Popcornduff (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, the article probably isn't titled that for the purposes of disambiguation. No, on examining the Talk page archives for the Windows page, it definitely is. I might raise this at the talk page there. Popcornduff (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep hassling you. I've started a discussion about renaming the Windows article here. Feel free to comment or ignore.

In the meantime, I'm convinced that "Windows" is the common name, not "Microsoft Windows", and that it should be referred to just as Windows in Sonic Mania and other articles for that reason. (You're right about linking to the redirect instead of piping, btw.) Popcornduff (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that Talk page discussion got interesting fast. Popcornduff (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you want to see the real drama you may have missed, check out Lisa's talk page history. Popcornduff (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've fixed my branding things, but some other Bandai Namco titles still have "Namco" or "Bandai" listed as the publisher. I do it because some titles do use ether brand or the Bandai Namco Games logo (or for Afro Samurai, Surge). Luigitehplumber (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @LTPofficial: Even if that is the brand name they used in a certain region (which you didn't give any references for), the majority of sources, if not all of them, do not considered the publisher of the game as just "Bandai" or "Namco". That is misleading, if not outright false. We've had this discussion before with the RollerCoaster Tycoon series, so this shouldn't be a new concept to you. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. You should give that advice to the GameFAQ's staff who claim that Atari published certain titles that Infogrames really published. Luigitehplumber (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @LTPofficial: Not sure what GameFAQs has to do with anything, the issue is you changing publishers based on logos on the game's box art in different regions without any sources agreeing with you. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The thing for these titles is that I check for the publisher on the back of the box, not the logo in this case. Like Enter the Matrix has the Atari logo on the front cover, but Infogrames really published it as it went gold before the rebrand in May of 2003 and the back cover says so. Luigitehplumber (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @LTPofficial: Well it still matters what sources consider the publisher, you doing all of this is pretty much WP:OR, even if it's true. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand about what you say, but why do you only change the Dark Souls titles when the other Bandai Namco titles that were branded with just "Namco" or Bandai" can stay untouched? (also, Namco Bandai did use their own branding on games as well as using "Namco" or "Bandai" until 2014). Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @LTPofficial: Because I don't actively watch their articles. Give me a list of them and I'll fix it. And again, not saying that it's wrong, it just creates unnecessary confusion and information bloat for no real reason. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check my Contributions. I've changed many of the articles I previous changed a few months ago back to "Namco Bandai Games" or "Bandai Namco Games". Luigitehplumber (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @LTPofficial: If reliable sources do remark on it, then it's fine to place it in the release section, but not the lead/infobox, as those should be simplified/summarized without introducing bloated, confusing information. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So considering there isn't any reliable sources for Bandai, the publisher must be left as Namco Bandai Games on the Dark Souls game, dispute what the logo the front cover has even if it's a note or not. Luigitehplumber (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed that you wanted to simplify the list table when denoting exclusive titles. This is probably something that should have broader discussion leading to agreement. For example, what happens in future to examples like Rise of the Tomb Raider, where a game has a stipulated "timed" exclusivity period, after which it will release on additional platforms? Or how about Helldivers which was published by Sony on both PS4 and PC? The game is a "console" exclusive by true definition.

I have a request to make. You are not obligated to agree. I would like to participate further in discourse but I'm about to visit hospital for a transplant. Would you kindly hold fire for a period of one month before revisiting the topic? This would give me time to recover and participate in the ensuing discussion. — Niche-gamer 15:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Niche-gamer: There is no time limit for discussions, but I fail to see why we need multiple tags (including two timed ones) when a simple yes or no would be much simpler. There have even been discussion on the Switch game page about just removing the entire exclusivity column. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably kick off this discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games in order to attract broad feedback. My own personal opinion is that tags like "Timed" are handy for games like RotTR and the rumoured Spiro Trilogy Remake so people can make informed decisions as to what system they need to own if they want to play those games early. — Niche-gamer 14:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Niche-gamer: Fine with me, although we shouldn't be writing these lists as shopping guides, that line of thinking is how they just become bloated and trivialized (number of players, trophy support, digital download, etc). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel so angry and frustrated! Why do you keep creating redirects on articles like Persona 5? You keep changing the link from Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences to D.I.C.E. Awards, but when I click on the D.I.C.E. Awards link, it ALWAYS redirects to the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences article, and it's so annoying! I hate it when you keep creating redirects when I try to fix them! Why?! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Angeldeb82: You clearly haven't read WP:NOPIPE, which I link every time I make the edit... ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But you clearly haven't read Wikipedia:Redirect, which you seem to ignore when you create an article redirect in the Persona 5 article. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) You do realize that WP:NOPIPE is a guide to how to handle WP:NOTBROKEN, a part of WP:REDIRECT, right? Quoting WP:REDIRECT: There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. However, changing to a piped link is beneficial only in a few cases. Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]. -- ferret (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:WNTRMT, there is an ongoing discussion and the problem is not solved yet. Rupert Loup (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I fail to see the problem, per the talk page. If it's such an issue, then why can't you add the information yourself? I've always hated these drive-by tags, in which the original editor does nothing but expects others to do their work for them. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About those sources, they both hold info that currently isn't availalbe elsewhere. This link is for a tech event, and one of the events listed is a talk by the Okinawa-based Summer Time Studio and Square Enix, the co-developers of Pocket Edition. The second is a post by Summer Time Studio concerning the talk, where they mention the game's producer (Kosei Ito) and director whose name I can't currently translate. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @ProtoDrake: Thanks. I'll see if I can add them in later. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an email (and may have sent it twice by accident). Lizard (talk) 10:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lizard the Wizard: Read it by the way, just chose not to respond as the issue seemed to have be fixed. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are overwhelmingly - and unusually - sensible. I know we often have our differences, but working them out with you always feels constructive. So thanks, and keep up the good work. Popcornduff (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Popcornduff: No problem, as long as an article is improved, it's mostly worth it. I don't take anything personal here and am willing to accept my own edits being wrong/worse if they can be pointed out as such. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Popcornduff: By the way, what exactly do you mean by "overwhelmingly - and unusually - sensible"? That bit has me curious about my own editing style. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, just an obtuse way of saying "your edits are good, and better than most other editors'". Popcornduff (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, this article sorely needs an english translation of the YM3438 application manual, or better yet an english YM2612 manual. That would certainly clear up a lot of issues; unfortunately most of the information regarding the TDM DAC was gleaned from reverse-engineering logs produced by other folks, so until some kind soul publishes that information proper (meaning they move it off their forums!) I won't be able to get a good citing on it. However, it IS true to the best of my knowledge and understanding.

I ascertained that the YM2612 has no real direct provision for DX/TX patch compatibility, and I'm fairly positive it was based on the YM2203C, not the YM2608 as many assume, going by what little I can understand of the Japanese YM3438 document. (If it were based on the YM2608, one would think the document would simply say so.)

All that said, what else needs to be done to prevent it from being considered AfD in your view? I agree the layout could use some rework, but I'm not 100% sure how to go about it. (Likewise, I feel it might be necessary to implement similar changes to the YMF262 page, just to keep some level of commonality.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.143.1 (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@108.73.143.1: That was more of a hypothetical suggestion. Taking this to AfD would drag all other YM chip articles in with it, as they all mostly have the same issues, with that being their over reliance on first-party technical documentation, which passes WP:VERIFY but not WP:NOTE. Also, the articles would also feature less technobabble ideally, making them more like the page on the SID chip. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am 100% in favor of a layout rework actually, as I feel the 'technical details' should happen later in the documents, not so close to the beginning. These chips are a bit difficult to describe without relying on datasheets and first-party technical documentation. That said, I might be able to rework some parts of the YM2612 page to remove some technobabble at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.143.1 (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @108.73.143.1: Right, but that's exactly the problem with these YM chip articles (well, all of them outside of the SID chip really). The only real third-party sources I've really seen on them are simply passing mentions when discussing soundtracks that they helped produce on the platforms they were apart of. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 07:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you reverted my edit on Ann's name being romanized as "Anne" in the Japanese version. While one letter difference doesn't seem like much to you, the spelling and romanization of names still count and do warrant some significance. Ann's name has been written as "Anne" in all Japanese promotional material while the English releases spell it differently. It's as significant as noting the difference between "Aegis" and "Aigis" in Aigis (Persona) and is not just a "translation error." lullabying (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lullabying: Fair enough. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed the categories for two reasons: To mirror the naming of the film scoring categories, and to be more correct. One wouldn't say "The Last Jedi was composed by John Williams"; one would say that the score was composed by Williams, or that the film was scored by Williams. Trivialist (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Trivialist: Fair enough, I wasn't aware that's how films are worded (I don't edit film-related articles). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

You seem like an editor who is significantly more experienced than me. I was wondering if you could spare a moment on this.

Thanks, --E to the Pi times i (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]