Jump to content

User talk:Sergecross73

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Feinmotoriker (talk | contribs) at 14:58, 12 December 2012 (→‎Generations Of Chaos: Pandora's Reflection). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Video games articles

WP:GAMECRUFT - That's the term to remember.

32 Leaves

I don't know how to respond so I'll post this here. You can delete if when you've read it. The lead singer is in a band called Codec (Facebook search: Codec Band) and their bio states they broke up in 2010 I think it was. I messaged them a while back and they said via MySpace message that they'd broken up.

This time, I come in peace :D

Arkhandar has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Sonic Jump

Good job with the Sonic Jump article Serge. ;) ~Tailsman67~ 98.71.52.142 (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing. I hadn't even added it to my list of created articles yet. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh by the way

Sonic CD wasn't Sonic 2; it was really meant to be more of a CD version of the original Sonic. I can't help but wonder, therefore, if we had more fun making CD than they did making Sonic 2 [because we didn't have the pressure of making a "numbered sequel"].

— Naoto Ohshima, Director of Sonic the Hedgehog CD[1]

you think this mite say Sonic CD came before Sonic 2?98.71.52.142 (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting quote that I hadn't read before. And Gamasutra is a reliable source too, so it's useable in a general sense if you trace it back to it's gamasutra's original link. However, in regards to what you just said:
Man,I had my hopes high on that source,well I'll keep look to prove Sonic CD took place after Sonic 1 but Before Sonic 2,well I found two levels from 2011 Sonic CD that were scraped,I think it should be mention,Desert theme and a final theme level.98.71.52.142 (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC) ~Tailsman67~[reply]
Why is it you struggle so hard to find continuity between games that have virtually no story in them? I mean, the Genesis Sonic's are basically: Sonic good. Robotnik bad. Sonic beats Robotnik. The End.. There's no in-game story, and he randomly traverses between green hills, chemical plants, casino's, etc, without any sort of explanation or transition. Why do you think there's a story there? Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I read alot of the Jap manual everyday trying to find more story(which has really help me understand more),If people take there time to understand they would see how he gets from green hills, chemical plants, casino's, etc(Sonic 3 & K showed more example),I know out there is one time in history they must have said something about it I just have to find it.98.71.52.142 (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that really covers why you care, but none the less, best of luck searching... Sergecross73 msg me 18:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[[2]]heres the interview.98.71.52.142 (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE:AFD

Here are some links for the article.

www.ign.com/games/ni-oh/ps3-711566

www.gamespot.com/ni-oh

ps3.gamespy.com/playstation-3/oni

www.1up.com/games/ps3/ni-oh

ca.ign.com/images/games/ni-oh-ps3-711566

98.71.52.142 (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting closer. See my comments at the AFD or your talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tails and what not

I'm trying to find reviews for Tails Adventure and Tails' Sky patrol.

Does this count[[3]]

98.71.52.142 (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | _____ _____ _ _ _____ _____ _____ _ _ _____ | |/ ___|| _ | \ | |_ _/ __ \ |_ _| | | || ___| | |\ `--. | | | | \| | | | | / \/ | | | |_| || |__ | | `--. \| | | | . ` | | | | | | | | _ || __| | |/\__/ /\ \_/ / |\ |_| |_| \__/\ | | | | | || |___ | |\____/ \___/\_| \_/\___/ \____/ \_/ \_| |_/\____/ | | |[reply]


| _ _ ___________ _____ _____ _ _ _____ _____ | || | | || ___| _ \ __ \| ___| | | | _ | __ \ | || |_| || |__ | | | | | \/| |__ | |_| | | | | | \/ | || _ || __|| | | | | __ | __|| _ | | | | | __ | || | | || |___| |/ /| |_\ \| |___| | | \ \_/ / |_\ \ | |\_| |_/\____/|___/ \____/\____/\_| |_/\___/ \____/ | |

No, Gamefaqs reviews violate WP:SPS - anyone can write them. You'll need reviews that are written by actual video game journalists or editors. Like IGN or GameSpot. I had intended on cleaning up a number of those old Sonic video games, but it can be pretty hard to find reliable sources writing about them if they're from the 90's or older, since there wasn't much in the way of video game websites when those games first came out. Your best bet is to see if they received any reviews when they were re-released digitally or on a compilation (like Sonic Gems Collection), or look it up at websites like "Sonic Retro", which sometimes has scans of old magazines like Electronic Gaming Monthly that would contain Previews/Reviews. (Just about any printed magazine is considered a reliable source.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Characters of Chrono Cross, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Third person (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) 10:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Sonic

I see You created Sister Sonic a page,I remember telling you about it with this ip,User talk:98.71.51.113.:P98.71.52.142 (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after you brought that up, I did some research and saw there was quite the story behind that game. I saw Electronic Gaming Monthly covered it multiple times as well, not to mention other sources, so I figured it would probably pass the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 14:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I have ta thank you for that,lol,thanks.:P 98.71.52.142 (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=99.237.80.89%2C+142.1.214.212%2C+142.1.218.225

I already showed this information (about the disruptive IPs) to Sjones23. I think you may find it interesting, too.

-017Bluefield (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a college kid from Canada isn't a fan of OpRa. Oh well, while they're in the wrong, they're not very active about it at least, and one of us always restores the info almost immediately as well. (Even if we didn't, I think Clue Bot would probably get it, as it's almost always a giant section's removal.
Anyways, thanks for the info, and I'll continue to keep the related articles on my watchlist. Sergecross73 msg me 23:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roger that. -017Bluefield (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Music is S3&k

Check it

[[4]]

[[5]]

[[6]]

74.178.172.143 (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is...there anything in particular I'm supposed to be looking for or observing? Sergecross73 msg me 17:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking it would be nice to mention in the Sonic 3 article.74.178.172.143 (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of it already is though:

Chris Volz

This is a heads up that I reverted the redirect to Flaw as he has released a solo album and has another band (Five.bolt.man). If you still feel that he should be redirected to Flaw, you can start a redirect for discussion for Chris Volz. I have no problem if you want that.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have independent notability though. Flaw being notable and Five.bolt.main being marginally notable doesn't make him notable. Yes, he did have a solo album, but it sold a meager 700 copies and failed to chart on any official charts. It seemed pretty clear-cut, so I figured my edit summary sufficed, but I'll go and start that discussion then...Sergecross73 msg me 15:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed it on requested moves. I wasn't to sure when you titles it 'delete or merge. I assume the move part because if not you'd list it under afd.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delist the article. It needs to be listed there for requested page moves. I didn't change anything you said. I just changed the title so the bot can list it under requested moves. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


It's frowned upon to alter other's edits. Please don't do that, that's not what I wanted to do. I've undone what you changed my edit to. That doesn't belong at Requested Moves. Flaw already has it's own page, so we don't want to move it to that article. See WP:RM, it specifically says not to go there for mergers. If you're contesting it being a redirect, then we just need to have a discussion on the talk page and find a consensus on what to do. If we can't come to a conclusion, then I guess I'd probably bring it to AFD, but it really seems to be a rather straightforward case here... Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it doesn't make sense to list it at RM. We don't want to retitle the article. Also, it's just a random discussion I started. You can propose whatever you want in a discussion page, there's no limits to what you want to discuss. Where are you getting this stuff from? Sergecross73 msg me 21:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've found some sources, so I won't push for the redirect anymore. You still shouldn't alter other's edits though, there was no reason it needed to be at Requested Moves. All you had to do is list off those sources on the talk page. The move had already been done by you!) Sergecross73 msg me 21:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hint

Once you've made your case on a noticeboard, such as WP:AN, it's usually best to just let it develop rather than make frequent replies to points other editors say. You've obviously put a lot of effort into documenting the issues with the RFC/U, just give it time. I know it's frustrating but there's just not a great consensus on how to apply the civility pillar. It's unlikely that any who's evaluated the situation and posted a support or oppose comment is going to change their mind, so we're just going to have to wait and see how it turns out. It may take awhile as AN activity is using lower on weekends. Nobody Ent 14:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry about that. Didn't realize - the only other ban I actively pushed for was for someone who refused to really even participate, so it went very differently. This is easily fixed. Thanks for the advice. Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not uncouth, just not the most effective approach. At some point an administrator is going to have to review the entire thread to determine consensus, and a lot of back and forth doesn't make there job any easier. Nobody Ent 15:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic the Hedgehog: The Movie

I took it upon myself to create Sonic the Hedgehog: The Movie a Reception,wanna help? ~Tailsman67~ 74.178.177.227 (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not especially familiar with the movie, or writing movie articles, but I know Sonic in general, so I can help you some if you would like. The article is in pretty bad shape, so there's plenty for you to concentrate your efforts on there. Sergecross73 msg me 18:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool,I'm start look.19:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.177.227 (talk)

Characters of Chrono Cross

Hey, just wanted to give you some approbation for working on Characters of Chrono Cross over the past month or so; that's a massive undertaking and it's really awesome that someone's finally trying to put in the effort to cleaning it all up. --PresN 21:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing! Yeah, I love the series, but just about everything else in the Chrono series is like GA/FA status, so there's never been much of an opportunity for me to contribute much there. Once I noticed how rough the character article was, I thought I'd give it a shot. I figure I'm in a rare position, having played the game through so many times (It's my favorite, hence the name.) and also being pretty up on Wikipedia policy and guidelines and whatnot. It really has been a massive undertaking, but entertaining too -- I'll try to keep at it. Makes me happy to see someone noticed; it's been rough for so long I was starting to wonder if it was because no one reads it in the first place... Sergecross73 msg me 21:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's because they're so difficult to write, really- I've only done one, Characters of Final Fantasy XII, and it convinced me to not do another for a long time. Wikipedia:WikiProject Square Enix/Popular pages has Characters of CC as the third-most popular non-FL list by reader views in the entire Square Enix project (and three times as popular as the list I'm doing, List of Dragon Quest media), and ahead of three of our FLs as well. Lots of people read them, it's just... well. In pretty much every case in WP:SE except for FF8 and FF12, character articles/lists are significantly worse in quality than the game/series article they're attached to. If nothing else, finding people who can write character articles is rare- prior to Niemti's recent spree, there wasn't a consistent VG character article writer of any sort since User:Kung Fu Man, who was mainly active in 2009-10, and even he wasn't really into doing lists. There's always plenty of people willing to argue over the blood type of Street Fighter characters, but very few who want to scour Google for a real reception section. Again, props to you for going for it! --PresN 22:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. I always find those "Most popular pages" lists fascinating, I need to remember to look for those. And yeah, it's true, it has been quite difficult to write. I've had to take a lot of notes on how other similar articles have been written. Good ones seem to be few and far between. Many are full of play-by-play plot summaries or trivial details. Even the talk page for the CC list article was filled with arguments over trivial details like "element color". I've been using the Characters of FF8 as a reference point, but your FF12 looks good too. Thanks, I'll use that as another reference point if need be. I'm not sure I'd have the motivation to do it if I didn't already know so much about the game, it helps that I know much of the information, I just need to find the refs to support it.
Anyways though, thanks again for saying something. It's nice having a positive conversation like this once in a while. It seems like these days so many of my discussions just boil down to people complaining to me that I'm enforcing policy/guidelines they don't like, or me telling people to stop bickering over trivial details. Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE

What,NO I would never,not again!74.178.177.227 (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. On one hand, you seem to be trying harder to contribute. On the other hand, it looks like you're creeping towards WP:NOTAFORUM issues again. (What makes you think Wikipedia is the place to ask for advice on what you should write a personal letter about?) Not to mention, you're still IP hopping all the time. The only reason you've ever given the past for not making an actual account, is because you've believed it kept you immune from being permanently blocked. (AKA you wanted to cause trouble.) So, now that you are being a good editor, in theory, that shouldn't be a concern anymore. And yet, you still haven't made an account. And that's fine, no one can force you to. It's not a requirement. But it kind of says something about your intentions. Sergecross73 msg me 15:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of,I'm sorry about the letter thing I didn't know,second,I can't CONTROL HOW WHEN OR WHERE MY IPS GOING TO CHANGE,I told you guys that and I DON'T WANT TO CAUSE TROUBLE,So your telling me that an acount will make it clear of what I'm here to do?74.178.177.227 (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You making an account would make it easier for me, and probably others, to believe that you have better intentions now. Sergecross73 msg me 16:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chrono Cross

Hi Serge,

Thank you for contacting me on this issue. While not written in a policy or guideline, there are two standard naming formats for lists of characters depending on type. If the article is list-class, its title should take the form "List of x characters". If the article is article-class, its title should take the form "Characters of x". All of the lists of characters that are featured follow this convention; there are five lists of characters that are Featured Lists (List of human Sesame Street characters, List of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow characters, List of Uncharted characters, List of Naruto characters, and List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters) and there are two lists of characters that are Featured Articles (Characters of Carnivàle and Characters of Final Fantasy VIII). I noticed that the Chrono Cross list was declared list-class on its talk page, so I altered the title to match the appropriate naming convention. Are you looking to submit the list for featured list candidacy or featured article candidacy?

Neelix (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on remodeling many articles in the past, but this is the first I've ever worked on an article regarding a set of characters like this. Even with your examples, I'm rather confused. I don't see the difference between, the Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and List of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow characters. I don't really see how they came to these different names unless each had different sets of people coming to different local consensuses or something. Or am I missing something?
It's not like an issue or anything, it was more just that I had been trying to model it after the various "Characters of Final Fantansy", articles, just because the subject, content, and medium of "Final Fantasy" and "Chrono Cross" are pretty similar. I've looked through the article's history, and it looks like it's pretty much been in awful shape since it's conception years ago, so I didn't really pay any mind to anything that had been established prior to me starting work on it around a month ago.
Anyways, your thoughts are welcome. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 17:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Serge,
To be honest, I don't see much of a difference between Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and List of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow characters either, but the fact that these two articles follow different title formats is only an indicator of a much more important distinction between how the two articles are treated differently; one is able to become (and has become) a featured article, while the other is able to become (and has become) a featured list. If the lack of difference between these two articles is to be addressed, it should be addressed at that level rather than at the level of title format. I would be glad to see a discussion form about transferring either the FA character lists to FL status, transferring the FL character lists to FA status, or more clearly defining what the difference is between FA character lists and FL character lists. Either way, a clearer distinction between article-class and list-class articles should be made so that it is easier to determine which articles are potential candidates for FA and which are potential candidates for FL. Would you be interested in participating in such a discussion?
Neelix (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do find this interesting, and would like to know the answer myself. (and/or to define it more clearly if it's not already.) However, I don't think I can fully commit to directing the conversation in the next week or two. If you want to initiate it, I would definitely contribute, but if you don't feel strongly enough to initiate the discussion, then I'll do it, but probably not right away. (The article is still a long ways from being complete, so I don't need my answer right away anyways.) Thanks Neelix! Sergecross73 msg me 21:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Serge,
If you are willing to initiate the discussion, I'd be grateful. I'm pretty busy with other discussions right now, including an FAC for an article I created, so waiting a couple of weeks works well for me. I look forward to sorting this through with you then.
Neelix (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'm glad we're on the same page here. I'll be sure to notify you when I start this up in a couple of weeks or so. Thanks Neelix! Sergecross73 msg me 17:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFA nomination

Please remember to opt in to the extra edit counting tools following the instructions shown here. -- Dianna (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the nomination! I will do my part in a few hours, later in the day, when I can fully focus on it. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it, Serge! Best of luck in RfA! --McDoobAU93 20:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supervote

Kudos for not taking the bait for a supervote in Q15 on your RFA. Consider that in some cases you might have a greater impact as an editor who !votes in those cases instead of being an admin who waits to close it ... assuming you trust another admin to do the right thing :-) Best of luck.—Bagumba (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, here and at the RFA. (And regarding your "bonus points" part, for what it's worth, it did cross my mind at one point to mention the possibility of joining the AFD as a normal participant instead of an Admin, but was afraid that may elicit "Well, you don't need to be an Admin to act like that" type responses, so I didn't include it in the final version of my post.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pick your poison :-) —Bagumba (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Q17

Hi there Sergecross. As you may have seen, one of my comments in your RfA has proven to be a bit controversial with another editor, and they've based an RfA question on it. It's being discussed both in the "general comments" section of the RfA, and on my talk page, so just be aware of that. You may want to hold off on the question pending the result of these discussions, but how you handle it is ultimately up to you of course. Anyway, best of luck! Swarm X 22:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Swarm. Thanks for the heads up. I've actually been monitoring the conversation from my smartphone, but since it's kind of difficult to type much with it, I had been merely using it to read, as I usually do. Now that I'm back on a computer, I feel that, while I don't like the question, it could turn out to be more detrimental to ignore, so I'll probably at least comment a little on it. I still appreciate the comment on the talk page though, thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 00:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously my above comment was moot, as Townlake declined to alter the question, but more importantly, your answer was excellent. Just forgetting that it involved me at all, it was a tricky question and I'm thoroughly impressed by your clear and level-headed response. My concern was clearly unwarranted. Well done. Swarm X 06:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

I'm sorry.... 75.147.56.74 (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, it's not a real big deal. Thanks for cooperating. Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DM Ashura

He is also an avid Sonic fan [[7]],and goes to GMC[[8]].~Tailsman67~ 98.71.52.245 (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot something,[[9]],[[10]].03:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Tailsman67~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.16.121 (talk)
So it looks like you've provided me with some information, without asking me a question. What sort of feedback would you like on all of this? Sergecross73 msg me 16:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can we use this in anyway on his page.74.163.16.121 (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. It looks like most of this is regarding the fact that he's a fan of the series, and makes unofficial fangames. That's not terribly important, (It's somewhat WP:TRIVIA, which is to be avoided.) I'm also unaware of the reliablility of some of those sources. (Sonic Retro, for example, is a WP:FANSITE, so you typically want to avoid that as well.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

I am going to jump the gun by three hours and say that there aren't going to be 23 new opposes without any additional supports by then. Congratulations on adminship. Go Phightins! 23:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I've seen many of them go rather brutally, so I'm really happy/relieved/honored mine went so well. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 23:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You rock...now can I get you to block ..... LOL jokes - good job and good luck.Moxy (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, good luck with your new duties! The RFA is at its endpoint and it looks like you've passed very well. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both! Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Impressive RfA. There are strictly zero Oppose rationales. Only one rationale-less Oppose and one "leaning Neutral". As close to 100% as it gets! I must say your answer to the incredibly loaded Q17 was also a high point of this RfA. Salvidrim! 01:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! Yeah, I'm glad I ended up answering #17, I almost didn't, in fear it'd have the opposite effect of turning everyone off. But in the end a lot of people complimented that one. Also, thanks for your "Strong Support" and kind words, Salvidrim! Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

I've closed your RfA as successful, and apologize for the delay. Congratulations, and good luck with your new tools! Maxim(talk) 12:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your new uniform. Wear it with pride!

Sorry

In regards to my edit adding 'near-universal' to Skyward Sword, my apologies for not realising such a consensus had been reached.

From User:DarkToonLink —Preceding undated comment added 11:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Thanks for being understanding about it yourself too. Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank-you!

Mass title changes

Hi there,

Sorry about the mass title change. I wasn't aware that there had been any real thought or reasoning put into the titles of the video game articles, and so I thought it would be a fairly minor thing to re-title them.

My reasoning is well-meaning: Most information on any product or other item have a main article describing the thing itself, and as a sub-set of that, the article has a history section. If the history section is particularly large, then the article is split into two: A main article describing the product or other item, and a history article, describing its history. The point is that there is normally only a history article for something in addition to a main article for it, not instead of it.

When looking up the article for "First generation video game console" / "Video game console (first generation)", I noticed that it didn't exist, and instead redirected to a history article. Furthermore, the "history" article contained many sections that didn't describe the history of first generation video game consoles, but rather described features of the consoles, or lists of the various brands of game consoles.

It made logical sense to re-title the articles, and to add a "history" section to them (as half of the information in the article wasn't "history" information). The logical alternative is to simply create another separate article for the non-history-related information, and leave the "history" articles as they are. What do you think? I'd love your advice, as you seem to have a lot to do with video game articles!

InternetMeme (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a pretty high-tech and cool means of doing things : ) Also, looking at the articles again, it occurs to me that the reason they're all titled as "history of x" articles is that they probably began their existence as one large article called "the history of video game consoles", which was at some point split into the articles we see today. However, in their new form, and as they have developed, they are no longer structured as "history" articles, which is why I think their titles are now somewhat incongruent and obsolete. What do you think? Also, do you think it makes sense to re-name the articles, and to add a history sub-section to them? InternetMeme (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't want to voice an opinion either way before having had time to fully analyze the situation, but when I'm home tonight I'll be happy to check it out, and even start the RM using your rationale above if it hasn't been done by then. :) Salvidrim! 21:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying you're right or wrong, I was just saying that it should be discussed. I've tried to change various things in the past too, it's been impossible because to change much about the history of video game articles because no one ever agrees on anything. As such, I'm thinking if you bring it up at WT:VG, they'll have reasons as to why it's named the way it does. Similar to what Salvidrim is saying, I'd want to reserve judgement until then, because there's probably much I'm not thinking of at the moment. Sergecross73 msg me 01:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's okay too. If there's a reason for them to be named the way they are, that means they're outside the scope of what I want to do, and I can simply create separate articles for each of the video game console generations that cover the non-historical aspects of them. InternetMeme (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you'd probably want to discuss doing that too, or others may decide to merge it into the existing articles. (That'll probably be my advice to you if/when you plan on working on such a mainstream, popular, and far-reaching topics such as this. Sergecross73 msg me 04:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The things I'm wanting to write about are all the non-history related aspects of the consoles, such as a list of the main systems, specifications, the most popular games, etc. All stuff that it wouldn't make sense to merge into a history article. Also, each generation of consoles are pretty significant, so it seems odd that they don't have their own articles already. I'm pretty sure this is because people have just been putting all the information into the history articles instead, because there's currently nowhere else to put it.
Here is a good example of what I'm getting at:
  1. The article on Steam engines
  2. The article on the history of the steam engine
The stuff I'm interested in is in the category of the first article.
InternetMeme (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to believe that, as popular of a topic as this is, that this isn't already covered either in the history of video games articles or elsewhere though. I mean, there's the generations articles, the articles for the specific articles for the systems and games themselves, and articles like the List of best-selling video games. I don't know what you'd write that isn't in those articles, or wouldn't be best done by improving the existing articles instead. But again, by all means, propose your thoughts to WP:VG and see what they have to say too. Sergecross73 msg me 19:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to say whether or not the information has been covered. I'm more sort of getting at the fact that the standard way to do things is that you start with an article about "Subject x", and if it gets too big, you eventually split it into two articles, one called "Subject x" and another called "History of subject x". So it is never the case that you would have an article called "History of subject x" without first having a parent article called "Subject x".
Somehow though, due to the convoluted evolution of the video game articles, we've got a situation where we have an article called "History of video game consoles (first generation)" without a parent article called "Video game consoles (first generation)".
Do you see how that's odd?
InternetMeme (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I don't feel like one is a requirement of the other. Sergecross73 msg me 01:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'll try putting it another way: Have you ever before seen a Wikipedia "History of subject x" article that doesn't have a respective main parent article "Subject x"? I don't think it's ever happened. InternetMeme (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is really the only type of "History of" article that I actively work on, so I'm not aware of any precedents one way or another on this. It's okay though, you don't especially need to convince me of this, I, like Salvidrim, are kind of neutral on it, until we get some more feedback on this. That's why I keep on suggesting starting up a discussion on WP:VG. I noticed you still haven't done this. Are you opposed to this? Or would you like some assistance with it? I can get it started, link you to where that is, and then you can describe what you're proposing to do. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 14:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. Actually, I'd be very grateful if you'd help start a discussion. I don't know where the main project page is, and user Salvidrim suggested submitting an RM, which I don't really understand. My three main reasons are:
  1. I don't think there are any other "History of subject x" articles that don't have a parent "Subject x" article.
  2. There is quite a lot of information in the article that doesn't fit into a history section, such as lists of consoles and specifications. This kind of information would fit into a "List of subject x" article or article section, not a "History of subject x" section.
  3. The names of the articles are very long: "History of video game consoles (first generation)" is a lot longer and more awkward than "Video game console (first generation)". An article with the second name could simply have a "History" subsection, and have the applicable information moved into it, which would fit very well with the Wikipedia standard layout (a parent article with a history section). Obviously, if the section grew large enough, it might eventually be split off into its own article with the current article title, just as we might create a "List of video game consoles (first generation)" if there were a large enough number of consoles in that generation.
Thank you very much for taking the time to listen to my ideas and help me understand things!
InternetMeme (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at Wikiproject Video Games at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Renaming_the_.22History_of_video_game_consoles_.28eighth_generation.29.22_articles - I'll let you describe what you want to do, so I don't misconstrue your viewpoint. Sergecross73 msg me 14:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it's been about 48 hours now, and it seems you haven't presented any sort of case yet. Have you had a change of heart? Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

To show my respect for your contributions DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 12:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Sergecross73 msg me 13:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lol,you got to be over 23 to drink,need to see some user id please.74.163.16.121 (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Over 23? Where is that the standard? Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
21,your good my man,drink up.;)74.163.16.121 (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Sergecross73. You have new messages at Basalisk's talk page.
Message added 21:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 21:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Off TV Play DYK Nomination

Hi. I hope you don't mind, but I have nominated the recent article you created, Off TV Play, for a DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Off TV Play. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't mind at all! A week ago I was contemplating if I could even make a reasonable article about it, so I'm glad it can be used for something like this. I haven't dabbled much in these DYKs yet though - is there anything I need to do on my end? Sergecross73 msg me 14:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you are interested in participating in the DYK project go to WP:DYK. There's a bit of reading, but the project is always in need of new reviewers. For this particular DYK, I've already done the nomination, so there is nothing more we'd need to do at this point until someone reviews it. If the reviewer notes any problems, you or I would need to correct them, but if there aren't any then it will get approved and show up on the front page at some point. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! I'll keep an eye on it too. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

REnaming

  • I have seen many articles that have phrases like that in then.
  • True.
  • Not true, alot of my edits are things that involve Jason Griffith,anything that is anime or manga,things to do with computers,and this thing rite here
  1. Yes I still don't have an account and I don't care about banned/block,for that isn't the reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.16.121 (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter if you've "seen phrases like that in other articles" - all that means is that it should be deleted there too. You've been instructed before not to put stuff like that in Sonic articles.
  • What is your reason for not having an account then? Half the time you sign your name as "Tailsman", so it's not like you're trying to be anonymous... Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure there was a source on Sonic Retro for the phrase.
  • Sonic Retro isn't a reliable source, they're just a Sonic fansite. So even if they did say that, which you don't seem to know, it's not really useable. You need something more reliable,
  • Regarding getting an account, from my memory, you've been here over a year posting as various IPs, and been saying that you "won't be here for long" for months as well, and yet still somehow here, so I really don't believe the sentiment of "I won't be here for long." Additionally, an account costs nothing, takes very little time to set up, and could very well be used for this supposed short amount of time you claim to be here, and then never used again, if you're as busy as you claim you're going to be. Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm saying Retro is where I got the phrase.
  • This month is the last month,if ya hear me after that I'm alive,what's the point in getting an account when at the end of the month you won't need it? Listen the only reason I came back was to make peace with my banners.~TradeMark67~ 74.178.177.48 (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no excuses my dear friend.74.178.177.48 (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "it's a waste of time" or "I won't be here for long" isn't an excuse?. Look, if your comments are just going to degrade into nonsense again, we're done here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

image

[[11]] there,the discussion, anything you wanna add? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.177.48 (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded there. I'd advise you do to the same, since you haven't even given a fully thought out reason for the change other than your extremely subjective "it's better". You haven't even said why it's better... Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Review

Hey Sergecross73, Congrats on the successful RFA. I see you have came a long way since I last saw you after the Minetest AfD. Anyway, I am wondering if you would be willing to review me at my newly opened Editor review request at Wikipedia:Editor review/John F. Lewis. If you could throw in your opinion and maybe look at my deleted contributions with your administrator abilities that would be great. Regards, John F. Lewis (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I don't really have the time at this exact moment, but I'll definitely help out soon. Sergecross73 msg me 02:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I answered your question at the ER. John F. Lewis (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generations Of Chaos: Pandora's Reflection

Hey, I am really disappointed that you completely reverted my changes on this article without discussion, mentioning this in the comments or openly doing a complete undo. I added valid, correct information, based on hours of on hands experience with the game and I corrected the "look and feel" entry according to the references and my experience with the game itself. It has been plain wrong cited before, stating falsely it "controls" like KitN", while it clearly says "it looks and feels like KitN" in the referenced article. You relisted the article as an orphan, but failed to acknowledge that I have linked it at the Sting Entertainment wiki page. I will undo your changes, please start a discussion before reverting correct entries next time.Feinmotoriker (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edits seemed pretty uncontroversial, and didn't really seem to need discussion beyond what I left in my detailed edit summary I left. My actions were not wrong, they fall well within WP:BRD, it was merely one simple revert. The only part I really objected was the "look and feel" part, which seemed like original research, I just removed the rest because you made a number of changes in one simple edit. I'm find with you reinstating most of the other changes. Other thoughts:
  1. You are correct, the orphan tag didn't need to be there. I'm fine with removing that.
  2. This edit you keep on making here and here doesn't make any sense. No "quote" or mark is necessary there, that originates in a typo I made in mine when I originally made the article. Please stop re-adding that.
  3. You need not try to add your signature to your edit summaries, as you keep on making in edit summaries like this one. You don't sign edit summaries with the~~~~ marks, only do that on talk pages.
Let me know if you have any other concerns, though again, I don't believe your level of "disappointment" is warranted here. These were very minor edits/changes. Sergecross73 msg me 00:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your attempt to explain your edit, but you failed to convince, it still feels like an inconsiderate revert, hidden as an edit. You could have checked how much I changed and could have changed just the one expression which you objected in one simple edit, but you didn't, you removed all changes I made, even the good ones, bit by bit.
  1. The removal of its orphan tag is only subject to the article's orphan status, not anyone's personal approval.
  2. I am not re-adding nonsense quotation marks.
  3. Thanks for the signature advice, I'll keep that in mind.Feinmotoriker (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergecross73&oldid=527707513"