User talk:CoolingGibbon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Edit summaries[edit]

Hello.... thanks for your recent edits. It'll help a lot if you fill out the "Edit summary" field for every edit you make -- please see Help:Edit summary for reasons as to why this is important. Thanks. Warren -talk- 13:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Live forum?.[edit]

Do you have a account on the official GFW Live forum?.--SkyWalker (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

licence for the noun[edit]

Hi. On free software licence, I restored the original spelling of the noun "licence". You replaced this with the spelling "license", but there was no reason to do so. The spelling with an "s" for the noun is only used in the dialect of English spoken in the USA and in the Philippines (because that is the only colony they took after they changed their spelling).

In the rest of the English speaking world, "licence" is the noun and "license" is the verb. "The software was licensed to be when the author granted me a licence". Gronky (talk) 09:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Software[edit]

WikiProject Software Hello CoolingGibbon. You have been invited to join WikiProject Software, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the Software-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits relating to or within the scope of the project. If you would like to join or just help out a bit, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of project members. You may also wish to add {{User WikiProject Software}} to your userpage and == WikiProject Software Centralized Announcement System ==

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Announcement-u}}

to the top of your talk page.

If you know someone who might be interested, please pass this message onto others by pasting this code into their talk page:

== [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Software|WikiProject Software]] Invite == {{subst:Software invite|~~~~}}

Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 23:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Software IRC[edit]

For better and faster discussion between WikiProject Software Members a IRC channel has been created: irc:// For instant access click here: Please use your Wikipedia nickname. You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Software or one of its departments. - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Linux distributions article[edit]

Hi. Thankyou for your comments. I have replied on my page so as to keep the discussion in one place. -- simxp (talk)


Hi CoolingGibbon, I've opened a move discussion at the Zenwalk Linux talk page. I've also copied your rationale from the RfD page there. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Please update your status with WP:VG[edit]

Dear WikiProject Video games member,

You are receiving this message because you have either Category:WikiProject Video games members or {{User WPVG}} somewhere in your userspace and you have edited Wikipedia in the recent months.

The Video games project has created a member list to provide a clearer picture of its active membership.

All members have currently been placed in the "Inactive" section by default. Please remove your username from the "Inactive" listing and place it under the "Active" listing if you plan on regularly:

Ideally, members are encouraged to do both, but either one meets our criteria of inclusion. Members still listed inactive at the beginning of November 2009 may be removed. You may re-add yourself to the active list at any time. Thank you for your help, and we look forward to working with you.

WikiProject Video games (delivery by xenobot 03:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-atomical edits[edit]

Hi, although doing several edits on a single page can help others verify your changes progressively, you need to save changes atomically. For example, if you're moving a sentence, it is wrong to save after the removal and a second time after restoring the word at its new location. Although this is less good for your edit counter, this makes reviews possible, avoiding your edits to be considered as vandalism :) --Chealer (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


Nemu64 the emulator was put through AfD. It seems no one from the video game community was informed of the AfD including me (the creator of the article). Your input would be greatly appreciated (for or against). The discussions is currently at WP:DRV. Thank you. Valoem talk 20:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: List of video games in development[edit]

Hey, I have this done this because firstly "Red Links" are not to be added in "2010 in video gaming", secondly some of the titles have doubtful releases such has Starcraft 2 for examples and many others and some of the titles are scheduled to be released on 2011 which sadly is in 2010 and lastly for: List of video games in development in order to avoid having third afd iam trying to add more titles which have has not been announced. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I see. Thanks then. Cheers.--CoolingGibbon (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Another gentle ping from WP:VG[edit]

Dear CoolingGibbon,

You are receiving this message because either [[Category:WikiProject Video games members]] or {{User WPVG}} is somewhere in your userspace, and you are currently listed in the "Unknown" section on the project's member list.

The member list is meant to provide a clearer picture of active membership. It is recommended that you update your status if you plan to regularly:

Members listed in the "Unknown" section will be removed from the membership list and category at the end of January 2010. You may re-add yourself to the active list at any time. Thank you for your help, and we look forward to working with you.

Sincerely, the Video Games WikiProject (delivery by xenobot 21:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi. Fair enough about the PSP remasters, I had not realised it was a redirect page. However, List of PlayStation Store games is just a list of pages that are currently also shown on the template under "Downloadable". Given that, the link is pointless as all it can achieve for the user is a small amount of wasted time. The link implies that there is a list of all downloadable PlayStation games, which simply isn't the case, so if they click the link, all they get is the same options they had before.

If you still wish to change the word "Downloadable" to "PlayStation Store games" (without the link), then that is less of an issue, but it may be ambiguous to users unfamiliar with the PSN.

Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Invite to WikiConference India 2011[edit]

WCI banner.png

Hi CoolingGibbon,

The First WikiConference India is being organized in Mumbai and will take place on 18-20 November 2011.
You can see our Official website, the Facebook event and our Scholarship form.

But the activities start now with the 100 day long WikiOutreach.

As you are part of WikiProject India community we invite you to be there for conference and share your experience. Thank you for your contributions.

We look forward to see you at Mumbai on 18-20 November 2011

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In List of Steam games, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Running With Scissors (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

"only" video game categories[edit]

Hello, I noticed you that you have moved a number of video game articles from their parent category when they have also appeared in a "(game system)-only" category. The "-only" sub-category is a "Non-diffusing subcategory" and is only there to highlight games that are exclusive to that system. The video games should be in both categories at the same time as per WP:DUPCAT. - X201 (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for clarifying regarding the game system exclusive categories. However, is it the same for the "Upcoming video games" category as well? I have removed articles from that category when they are already present in a child category (i.e. by year) because the parent category required diffusion. CoolingGibbon (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, The upcoming video games category is the same (see the end of the paragraph at WP:VG/DATE). Its not your fault, the categories should have been better labelled. I was going to offer to do the 3DS categories with AWB, rather than you doing them manually. I'll do that later. - X201 (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Additional:Although after having a look at the Upcoming VG category, I think it may benefit from a change. I might start a discussion about it and see what others think. - X201 (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, it's much appreciated. :) --CoolingGibbon (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited List of games using Steam authentication, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Homefront (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Assassin's Creed II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pouch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

DirectX: An API or developer's tool[edit]


I just wanted to drop you a note about BRD reverting one of your edits. I thought you might want to open a discussion thread about this or call an RFC right here.

You see, I do not think that DirectX is a developer tool at all. Putting metonymy and colloquial speak aside, DirectX exposes an API, but is not API itself. (The difference is minute but easy to detect: API is not tangible since it is a documented method, but a library or software platform that exposes an API is tangible.) Still, if you wish to use metonymy and call it an API, that's okay. That said, a software library or platform (and by the virtue of metonymy, an API) is not a developer tool because consumers install and use it, not developers. What developers use is DirectX SDK. A developer never uses DirectX in development process, even indirectly.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct, I believe I should have used the term "Software library". However, that still doesn't make DirectX a "Gaming platform" in my opinion. Games are made "using" DirectX, not "for" DirectX. Xbox 360 and Microsoft Windows can be regarded as gaming platforms, however in my humble opinion DirectX is a developer tool because developers use it to make games. The fact that consumers install the runtime is merely a consequence of the games being developed with DirectX, just like having VC++ redistributable installed. From that perspective I do not believe DirectX is a gaming platform aimed at consumers. Please let me know what you think. Regards. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 06:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Actually, I think it is. You see the point of platform metaphor? It is like a literal platform on which people or buildings stand; software are built upon a platform, e.g. games are built upon DirectX but using DirectX SDK. Computing technology (like shared library) commonly used as a software infrastructure is called a platform.
Another point that I think is worth mentioning is that Games for Windows runtime is similar to DirectX: it is a software library based on which games connect to Games for Windows web service. But it is still classified as a platform. (Not that I complain...)
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I really don't think games are necessarily built "upon" DirectX per se. Lots of cross-platform games use DirectX on the Windows version only, and use OpenGL for other versions. In that sense, DirectX is still a Windows-only development tool that extends the capability of the base code to function in a Windows environment. If games were to be built "upon" DirectX, it would be impossible to port them to other platforms such as the PlayStation 3. Now coming to what I mean by "platform" - by platform I refer to the hardware/software that the end-user is dealing with and which directly interfaces the user with the game. The end user plays games on the Xbox 360 or a Windows PC, both of which use DirectX. The end user may also play games on OS X or PS3, which don't support DirectX. Thus, from the end user's perspective, the platforms would be Xbox 360, Windows, OS X and PS3 because those are what the end user is essentially dealing with. DirectX itself may be regarded as a platform only from the developer's perspective, just like .NET or Java Platform (EDIT: That is, a software framework).
Now coming to Games for Windows, what you are referring to is the Games for Windows Live runtime in particular. However, Games for Windows is a broader concept that also includes retail packaging as well as certain conditions required to ease the gameplay and installation experience on Windows PCs. From that perspective, Games for Windows is a gaming platform that the end user deals with directly, whereas Games for Windows Live is a subset of it. Rather, Games for Windows Live is the technology that powers "some" Games for Windows branded titles, which is somewhat similar to the way DirectX is used.
I hope I've been able to present my thoughts well. Regards. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You have been able to present your thoughts well, all right. But you just nitpicked a metaphor! Using the phrase "to build upon a platform" is purely a linguistic matter but porting one game to another operating system is a purely technical software development matter. The difficulty of porting one game from one OS to another does not damage the metaphorical merit of a metaphor. When it happens, we say "The Windows version of Game X is built upon DirectX... the game was later ported to Linux... the Linux version is built upon [insert your library here]" although those of us who know programming still know what a bitch of a porting it was.
So, although you have been able to present your thoughts well, I think you should compartmentalize them.
Now, what we should do is to think of what to do next. If you are still not convinced, WP:3O and WP:RFC can both take us out of this.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I do get what you're saying, but my disagreement stems for the idea that there are no such things as "games for DirectX", like there are for Xbox 360 and Windows. Nevertheless, I'm in favor of a RFC as well if you're willing. Regards. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I must say I did not see that coming because my disagreement stems from the fact that laypeople whom I known look at Developer Tools category last, when they look for a link to DirectX. They regard it something consumer and, as I explained, I think they are right. But RFC is inbound. Expect a bot edit. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure that DirectX is a "Gaming" anything, any more than Windows is. It's a group of technologies exposed through APIs that are used to perform multimedia operations and are frequently taken advantage of by game developers to improve performance/simplify development of games, but that doesn't mean either that it was written exclusively for or used exclusively by games.
-- (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello. A gaming thing or not, we are including a link to its article in Template:Microsoft video gaming, so this line of discussion is entirely futile. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Torment: Tides of Numenera[edit]

Hi! Could you, as a member of WikiProject Video games who has recently edited the article, re-assess its quality? I feel that it's a solid B-class now, but I need someone else to take a look and see if I missed something. --illythr (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I just had a look at the article and I think it fulfills B-class criteria now. I'm not too sure if illustrations (concept art etc.) can be made available at this point as per B-class regulations, but other than that, it looks good to go. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 10:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I added another image. It seems to be the only one so far that is directly relevant to the game (all the others are just landscapes). I asked the developers to publish a couple of concept art images under the CC-BY-SA license, but I'm not holding my breath there. Otherwise, I fear we may be pushing the fair use rationale too far (Planescape: Torment, a featured article, has exactly two non-free images). If you think it's okay for B-class, can you make the change to the template? I guess I have a conflict of interest of sorts, otherwise I'd do it myself. --illythr (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Done! Thanks for adding the images. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Why create a redirect page[edit]

For NHL 14. The new NHL page is usually made by someone by now, but it's not. You should have either created the article or left it alone. Now NHL 14 doesn't have red ink on pages that redirect to it. Telling users it's made. Red Ink serves a purpose to tell other editors that the page needs to be created Wikipedia:Red link. Creating a redirect hinders that message and the page is less likely to be created.

I came on today fully expecting the article to be created and the 'new features' of the game. Please don't create redirects for pages articles that their own pages. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for taking the time to comment. I'm afraid I really don't understand the reasoning behind not creating redirect pages. Redirects are there so regular people can find what they're looking for, even if they don't happen to know the exact article name. Redirect pages are not a tool for editors who want to know which pages need to be created. Furthermore, once the reader (or more particularly, an editor) has been redirected to a related page, he or she is always free to create a new article (and it is expected as such) out of the redirect page. It must be kept in mind that the needs of "laymen" need to be prioritized above that of editors in the case of discrepancy. And a redirect page is more helpful than an uninformative redlink in my opinion. Hope that helps. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I never said redirects were a tool "for editors who want to know which pages need to be created". I said Red Ink was that, so I'm not sure if you're comment was a typo. Read Wikipedia:Red link. That's the purpose of Red Inking it's to say this article needs to be created or I'm creating in later. You do this by saying this subject is notable. You don't redirect notable articles if they aren't created. You create them or leave them alone. You are misusing the redirect.
Read Wikipedia:Redirect. No where does it say notable articles should be redirected unless for naming conventions or something like that. The only thing that qualifies besides that is "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.)". If you were redirecting to NHL video game series, where is the section on NHL 14? You should have written it. But you didn't. If you did you would have released this warrant's it's own article. Not a single section on the NHL series is for NHL 14. You just redirected it. You didn't even add the release date for NHL 14 which was release a week before you created the redirect. I mean this isn't helping wikipedia. People searching NHL 14 are looking for info about it and nothing was provided on the redirect. This is why Red Inking was made. To tell editors this needs to be created. By you redirecting it, and making things worse by not adding a single line about NHL 14, you negated the purposes of Red Inking.
By, wikipedia guildlines, the only case you have for redirecting NHL 14 is you are making a case that it isn't notable as a stand alone. Which clearly isn't that case. So, please don't redirect notable articles that haven't been created. It stops users from creating articles by saying this article isn't notable or removing the red ink that tells editors this needs creation. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
In that case let me elaborate. I've been waiting (just like you) for that article to be created (since I maintain the 2013 in video gaming article) and that red link was sticking out like a sore thumb. Even after weeks, the article didn't get created. I wasn't knowledgeable on NHL 14 and hence created a redirect as a stop-gap solution because I knew the article would get created eventually. Now I don't mean to sound rude, but if you are so concerned about the NHL 14 article, maybe you should have handled it yourself by creating it instead of coming on today "fully expecting the article to be created" or having others (such as myself) do sloppy job of it? Regards. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
You see that you aren't helping by doing that. Red Ink is there for a reason. You are not using redirects properly. Redirects are not for 'stop-gap' solutions. Wikipedia is made by multiple editors. Even if the beginning was slopping other editors would improve.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
"Not to sound rude?" Too late you already did by throwing it on me and not admitting you did something that hinders wikipedia (which I believe you didn't realize) and say 'sorry I didn't know'. PS I don't have the time right now to create the article. If I did I would. Even if I did, I'd still be right here telling you what you did wrong. I'm just trying to prevent mistakes like these.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd also like to add that it'll be an experienced editor that makes the NHL 14 page not a 'new' editor because of the redirect. That's precisely why I like to point out these things. Wikipedia has been losing editors and we need new ones and these kinds of things chase new editors away.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, sounding a little rude was indeed my intention in case you failed to pick up the hint. On a more serious note... you say that "I don't have the time right now to create the article. If I did I would." --- But you have enough time to criticize and correct others? You somehow expect some magical fairy to do the work by waving a wand so that you would come on today and think "voila"? Your words would have bore more weight had you got back to me AFTER doing the hard work of creating the article, or at least having bothered to ask for help (even from me) instead of coming across as retaliatory. So unfortunately no, you're not getting any sort of "I'm sorry" drama from me anytime soon because the NHL 14 article still doesn't exist. And the reason Wikipedia is losing editors is precisely because things like this (miscommunication I mean) put new editors off, and not because of redirecting red links. Now please, if you really wanna help Wikipedia, create the article (I can help if needed) instead of trying to be a condescending legal scribe. Keep it impersonal. Regards. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I never thought this would take more than one comment. You obviously don't follow wikipedia guidelines, if you intended to be rude. You broke another one by making this personal. Thank you for making it clear that you are that kind of editor. The one that won't follow guideline. You violated wikipedia guidelines. There's no debating that. I don't need you to admit it. I expected you to learn and follow wikipedia guideline, but you clearly don't want to, but instead you want to make this personal. I have yet to make one personal comment to you yet you continue to do it to me. BTW, most of my edits are anti-vandalism, so I'm used to being attacked personally and won't attack another editor and be drawn into that. That's how I make wikipedia better. The guildlines are there for a reason. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, removing red ink does hinder new editors. When they get a redirect they either don't know how to change it or don't bother editing. But if they click the red ink and see 'create this article' they might do that. You removed that by redirecting. This is why the guideline is there (To Red Ink only notable articles). It feels like I've said that for the millionth time today. I patrol new pages and I always see find an editor that created a new page then months later they are a regular.
This is my last comment to you (I won't be monitoring your talk page). BTW, I will make NHL 14 when I get the time or make it better as it comes along. BTW I created NHL 12. You've wasted my time long enough.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem following guidelines and learning new things , as long as I'm not being confronted in a retaliatory manner. And believe me, so far I've kept it impersonal from my side, at least till you went off on a diatribe against me for creating the redirect. Anyway, since you don't wish to pursue this matter further, I'll let it slide. As long as you're being productive creating the NHL 14 article (which has nothing to do with NHL 12 by the way) instead of wasting valuable time arguing protocol with me, all is well. Regards. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

TemplateData is here[edit]

Hey CoolingGibbon

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'll definitely check it out and leave feedback if I can. Thanks for all the hard work! --CoolingGibbon (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't rename any plot sections into "synopsis"[edit]

--Niemti (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for posting. If you check the general format for VG articles, Synopsis consists of characters, setting and plot. The "story" is the plot with reference to a video game. If you need further clarification about the changes made, I'll be glad to discuss them. Regards. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Synopsis is a brief summary of the major points of a written work, either as prose or as a table; an abridgment or condensation of a work. (PROTIP: Click written work.) --Niemti (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and that's exactly what "Setting", "Plot" and "Characters" signify. And like I previously mentioned, a "story" w.r.t. a game is a "Plot". Furthermore, the majority of recent VG articles use the convention. For more information see Plot (narrative) and other VG articles like Sleeping Dogs (video game), Grand Theft Auto IV etc. One can get rid of the overarching "Synopsis" header, but "Plot" must remain intact, not "Story". --CoolingGibbon (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Video game =/= written work. PROTIP: Don't ignore a PROTIP when people give you one. --Niemti (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Alright if I understand you correctly, "plot" only applies to "written work", and not media with narratives in general? Is that what you're saying? Coz then you might need to re-write the whole wiki article on "plot" as well as change the multitude of VG articles already using this convention. Would you be willing to do that? Because if you are, I can most certainly take this discussion further and request third-party opinion if you're not satisfied. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"Plot" applies to everything that has a plot. Not "plot summary". Not "plot overview". Not "synopsis". "Plot". --Niemti (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "plot" applies to everything that has a plot, including video games. A video game has a plot written by the game's writer, not a "story". Synopsis consists of setting, characters and plot. Hence the flow should be Synopsis--->Setting, Characters, Plot. Not Plot--->Setting, Characters, Story as proposed by you. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm reverting the headers for now, since this discussion has been in limbo for more than a week. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

And "I'm reverting the headers for now" too. Uh-oh. And it's not "proposed by me", it's like that for years, in countless GA/FAs (and yes, it's also a GA). --Niemti (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah well in that case we have a lot of work to do, don't we? Because there are also quite a few GA/FAs that use the format I'm referring to. However, there's no point in reverting your edit because we haven't come to a conclusion yet (and because that would be rude, wouldn't it?). So as a gentleman should, what I'm gonna do is, I'll start a new discussion over at the article page linking to this discussion and solicit third-party opinion. From that we can move on to a proper RfC if necessary. Regards. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 07:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guns and Robots, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. cut/ paste move are not OK. I moved it there to differentiate from the ATI R200 series. please start an RM if you disagree. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 18:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't realize a discussion was already underway regarding the page title. Doing a CP move was probably a bad idea; thanks a lot for letting me know. Regards. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 06:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
not so much a discussion as an explanation. I was somewhat indecisive at first, as to what the title should be, but then I settled on the current one. it differentiates from the ATi radeon R200 series. if it is to be changed again, i think there needs to be discussion, so we can get the right damned title once and for all. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 13:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Graphics processing units[edit]

Hi, I've noticed you've move many articles into the category Graphics processing units. However, most of the devices discussed in those articles are not Graphics processing units at all, they are simple graphics chips. For example all of the MOS Technology devices. I would suggest to completely revert to the situation as it was. Ronaldvd (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but don't the graphics chips contain the GPUs, which are of more importance than the chips themselves? And from my understanding, when one usually refers to a "graphics chip", he or she is actually referring to the GPU, since the chip would be non-functional without it. However, I feel there's a lot of gray area here, and with your consent, a detailed discussion would be more appropriate. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Many of the graphics chips in the old category date from a time when GPUs did not even exist, instead the main processor took care of drawing the graphics. In the 1980s and 1990s (home)-computers contained very simply graphics chips without any integrated processing capabilities. Yes, I think it would be useful to have a more detailed discussion about this issue. Ronaldvd (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, CoolingGibbon. You have new messages at Codename Lisa's talk page.
Message added 13:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Consensus on how to split article Senran Kagura[edit]

Hello, you're invited to express your views about this topic on the discussion topic. Jotamide (talk) 04:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Consensus on "Suggestion to split Guilty Gear XX/X2 updates into different articles"[edit]

Hello, you're invited to vote and express your views about this on the discussion topic. Jotamide (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Microsoft Windows family‎‎ [edit]


I'm in a rush right now, so sorry for the curtness:

  1. "Early" ≠ "Unsupported", hence "Early version" ≠ "Unsupported versions" When Windows 2000 was put into "Early versions" category, it was still supported. (April 2010)
  2. The current layout of navbox is based on a discussion in Template talk:Microsoft Windows family‎‎ § Recent geeky edits. So, I am afraid your edit was against consensus. That said, even when there is no established consensus, there is no second R in WP:BRD either.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, no issues. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

JoJo pages[edit]

Please do not undo all of the fixes I make just because I don't explain them. The section header you keep editing at JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders is hidden on that page and instead transcluded onto List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure episodes where it needs to be a level 4 header. The hyphens don't make sense and are nver used in the titles. Also, the first JoJo fighter (there was another older Famicom game that we don't seem to have an article for though) is called "Heritage for the Future" by nearly everyone.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, an explanation for reverts is always welcome, and quite often necessary. It's hard to understand why an edit was reverted without edit summaries, especially for someone who doesn't monitor the pages on a regular basis. I'd urge you to kindly take the pains of typing in an edit summary while undoing any changes so as to help other editors henceforth. Regards. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)