User talk:Dissident93/Archive 9

PQ2

I merely put Sega, as they did the Dancing games and Atlus got rid of Deep Silver (Which was listed on P3/5D before I took a screen shot of my games to show SEGA). So P3/5D had unsourced Deep Silver until release date. I suppose it could be seen as bad to do the same with SEGA, but with no Atlus EU branch, and Deep Silver being "fired" as publishers, it means Sega are doing all future Atlus games. I'll put it back when I get the game if that's better. In fact, someone emailed SEGA yesterday (this was shown on the P5 Sub) asking about if PQ2 would have the limited edition version in the EU, and they said they will announce the details of that soon.Muur (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Help improving a page.

Hello Dissident93. I plan to expaned this page by translating the contents from the Japanese Wikipedia page. I have already translate some of them but since I am not very good with English, I need someone who is a native English speaker to help me rearrange the sentences and help fixing the grammar etc. I was hoping that you agree to do this but if not then no problem but if you are i will sent you the translation file that i have made and you can work from there, I will give you the credits for helping me with the translation once it is finish and ready to upload. Thank you. -- Aerkdude (talk) 06:34, 9 Febuary 2019 (UTC)

• @Aerkdude: I'll help, it shouldn't be a problem. But is there any specific reason you are asking me and not another user? Not that I mind of course, but I'm curious. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Dissident93: Since you have experienced in editing various pages about Japanese video games and music composers or releated personal and also you are a native English speaker, I figured i could ask for your help. Although i really would like someone who participates in WikiProject Anime and Manga but i don't know anyone. Thanks again for agreeing tho help me as soon as i finish i send you the file. How should i send you the file, i can't put the whole translation here, can I? -- Aerkdude (talk) 07:11, 9 Febuary 2019 (UTC)

• @Dissident93: I have finished the translation the only thing left now is to fix the grammar and the sentences. Please reply to me when you have time so i can send you the translation that i have put in a notepad. -- Aerkdude (talk) 11:13 AM, 9 Febuary 2019 (UTC)is

• @Aerkdude: Ok, that makes sense. You can paste it on pastebin.com and just send me the link and I'll get to it soon. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Dissident93: Here you go, Link. -- Aerkdude (talk) 1:27 , 10 Febuary 2019 (UTC)

• @Aerkdude: Thanks, I'll get to it eventually in the next day or so if I don't forget. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Dissident93: Hi there, I hope you haven't forgot about me, The document on pastebin is about to expired in a few days. -- Aerkdude (talk) 5:54 AM, 13 Febuary 2019 (UTC)

• @Aerkdude: I haven't, I've just been busy. I'll get to it later tonight. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Dissident93: Thank you for helping me out, i really appreciate it -- Aerkdude (talk) 10:21 AM, 15 Febuary 2019 (UTC)

• @Aerkdude: You still need to add citations to many of the claims though, that's on you. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Apologies

Hello. I'm here to remind you that I'm very sorry that I got involved in the edit wars over the Artifact (video game) article. I only wanted to make things right, and I didn't mean to be so disruptive. I hope you will forgive me for all that I've done. I only wanted to fix everything that was broken. I just didn't know that you were the one watching over the article all this time. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Angeldeb82: It's not a problem, I just thought that some of the edits you did on the formatting (like changing first1 to just first) were a waste of time as they didn't improve anything at all. Instead, that time could have been spent on improving the prose or adding more citations. Honestly, I should have been less hostile in my reverts because it seemed like you were being intentionally disruptive at the time, which was not the case. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Italic

Hi, Can you explain to me what's "wrong" and "not wrong" ? it seems you feel you are the one determining things here. you just give links to MOS:ITALICS and MOS:VG, I took a quick look and can't see such a rule about "always italicizing" the Game names anywhere in the article, care to show me the line about that? Mohsen1248 (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Mohsen1248: Yes sorry, it's actually under another link that explains it. Per MOS:ITALICTITLE, video games constitute as a "major work", and thus should always be italicized with no real exceptions. WP:VG/STYLE also refers back to this as well. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • OK now I see that, (even though personally I don't agree with that but that's my problem) but does it also say you have to link them "always" ? I would like to not link them in this section, something like the edit I already did to make them at least as similar as possible to the other sports. Mohsen1248 (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Mohsen1248: It says nothing about when to link them, but I don't see any real reason not too. WP:OVERLINK would be the only thing that covers that, and it doesn't violate it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Also not having them doesn't violate anything, and I don't see any real reason for that either. It's just matter of opinions in this case. my reason is I just want this page looks as similar as possible to other pages in this category or any other Asian Games pages, sorry but I think you are just trying to be stubborn about something you probably don't care normally. for what ? just to piss me off ? you don't even know me. I say that because I can see you edited a page very similar to this one without linking the Game names in the medal section. I accepted the italicization because that was somehow in the guidelines and I was wrong about that but this one is not. so I hope you reconsider your opinion here. Mohsen1248 (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
        • @Mohsen1248: They should be linked because they might be the first time people see them in the article. And even if that was not the case, most entries in tables are still linked as long as they don't violate WP:OVERLINK, which this obviously doesn't. They should be linked in the examples you keep bringing up too, so WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument here. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
          • That's funny you bring up these guidelines when you don't even believe in them, and why you didn't link them here yourself, I see you are the last person editing the page and that was just a month ago. double standards, any special reason ? you don't have to answer me actually, I know the reason I had that before. just because someone undo your edit you just feel you have to prove you are the boss. btw you don't need to ping me I know how to follow a discussion I started. Mohsen1248 (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
            • @Mohsen1248: I don't even know what you are talking about? Check the edit summary to see me correcting you multiple times. If you are going to be immature and uncivil about the whole thing, the maybe you should be editing elsewhere. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Another Eden EN.png

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment SE franchises

You should not have removed sales data. You should have asked for a "Request for comment" request and see what the consensus is. Keep the status quo then discuss. Now I hope you understand there was no consensus for your move and I have asked for a "request for comment". Wait to see what the consensus view is please before making any further edits, there is no need for us to engage in an edit war. You had it your way the first time, now lets do it the formal way. Thank you--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Misconceptions2: WP:BEBOLD, nobody opposed it for months until you did yesterday. If you want to hold a larger discussion on it, then make a post on WT:VG. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism of Sega Sammy Holdings and related pages

Hello, I know you are not an Admin but I saw you made some edits to the Sega Sammy Holdings page and was wondering if you might be able to help as I am not an extensive user of Wikipedia.

I have noticed a recurring problem with someone adding very extensive misinformation to pages relating to Sega Sammy Holdings. I have reverted a number of these edits but noticed they are all coming from IP Users. After doing an IP lookup on these users I noticed they are all coming from the same city in Vietnam and I suspect it's the same person or the same group of people. One IP I know was already banned once but I don't know for what reason.

Here are the IP's if you wish to look them up:

27.70.161.212

171.227.169.25

117.2.18.51

117.2.18.159

I was wondering if you might know what the next best course of action is or if you could point me in the direction of someone who can help because I don't want to end up in an edit war over this. If they are the same person is there a way to ban them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.224.53 (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I’ve protected the page from anonymous editing. Sergecross73 msg me 21:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

SomaFM changes

Hello Dissident93. I find it troubling that you would so easily revert benign and easily verifiable changes that seek to document the history of a relatively unique internet radio site that is under increasing threat. Perhaps I am new to Wikipedia, but my humble overall impression of it and many of its editors so far is of immaturity and unprofessionalism, and that these qualities in fact form a part of the threats against the future of the site as an open, stable platform, beyond the financial and legal strain. Of course, I am sure my views will fall on deaf ears, but anyway.

First, the old http://soma.fm link still redirects to the current domain and was the original address when the site was founded, before the switch to somafm.com, and it would seem of historic interest to include this in some way.

Second, the change in description of Illinois Street Lounge's genre to document the fact that the music played on the channel is mostly music released between the 50s and 70s, with a style that peaked in popularity in the 60s, again seems benign. Simply describing the genre as lounge seems vague at best.

Third, I will reference the partial list of former channels exhaustively if you insist, but since the current channel list is not really sourced either, I find it a bit strange.

Finally, removing admittedly self-claimed references that support the argument that the site is listener-funded seems strange again. Why even have any description about the site at all if any self-made claims are not permissible? They, after all, are not sourced either. Despite the claim being self-made, the reference seems justifiable in that there are few other sources available, and, if anything, it at least supports the claim that the site itself makes the claim that they are listener-supported, which would seem like a somewhat valuable reference from a historical point of view at least.

Somafmlistener (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Somafmlistener: You are right, the list of current stations could be removed for the same reasons, I just kept them (for now) since they are all easily verifiable via the website. And since the article lacks secondary sourcing, if somebody were to nominated it at WP:AFD it could be deleted as a result. Are you familiar with the WP:MOS, specifically WP:N? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Dissident93: As I said, I am going to try to cite exhaustively to document the history of former channels. Ultimately, whether you are following Wikipedia guidelines or not seems irrelevant to me. Instead of simply removing edits which people may well have put some work and time into, it might be more constructive to try to encourage instead of simply reacting with bot-like removals. These kind of removals would perhaps be justifiable when the topic is highly controversial, or when edits are clearly provable to be vandalism, but otherwise I would say that, especially when the burden is put completely on the original poster to defend and battle to get edits back, you end up with a situation where people, most of whom are likely to have limited time and resources, become less and less willing to participate. If this kind of reaction were to accelerate significantly, Wikipedia's accuracy, relevance, open nature, and sustainability would likely suffer considerably. In fact some other information on the SomaFM page (and imho this is often the case with many other more esoteric pages on Wikipedia) is easily provable to be incorrect. Sadly in these cases, it often seems those with the knowledge either do not have the time, willingness, or energy to battle the bureaucracy, and so the knowledge ends up remaining among those whom actually have to rely on it, and never gets disseminated further. ~ Somafmlistener ^(talk) 00:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Somafmlistener: Well if you are clearly going to ignore Wikipedia guidelines then you should probably not edit here. They exist for a reason. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

According to Whois, Soma.FM came a year later: Soma.FM registered 2001-11-06T23:59:59.0Z SomaFM.com registered 2000-02-08T08:35:07Z 104.193.168.88 (talk) 12:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

• It seems so. But the article should not have really had all that information anyway; just a link to the current URL is all that's needed. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Dragalia Lost Release Date

Please elaborate how the old citation is not valid. It is dated 26th February and says Dragalia Lost is released 'today'. Surely 'Janurary' was just a typo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benten10X (talk • contribs) 22:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Benten10X: If the article states a typo that isn't clear enough for readers to realize was a typo, then it should be replaced just to avoid confusion. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit summary for removal of Citation Needed template on Landon Collins

Hi Dissident93, you remove the Citation Needed tag at Landon Collins with the edit summary cited by many sources; this is the wrong use of the template. At the time that I added the tag, there was no source given anywhere in the article so this was a proper use of the tag. Thanks for adding a source afterwards though. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• @MarkH21: I understood the intent, but common sense should have dictated to simply cite the claim yourself as it was pretty newsworthy and thus not hard to find articles about. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Bringing back Ryo Nagamatsu article?

Hello, I noticed in August 2018 the article for Ryo Nagamatsu was removed/changed to a redirect to the Nintendo article. In the edit summary you said that "this artist isn't really independently notable anyway". I'm not sure what you meant by that exactly. I believe Ryo Nagamatsu is pretty notable, as he was the main composer for Mario Kart 8, which is considered by many to be one of Nintendo's more impressive soundtracks. You also mentioned that the sources are unreliable. These sources are most likely correct and I finding more reliable sources should be easy. Would it be acceptable to bring back the article with more reliable sources? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraftydinosaur (talk • contribs) 18:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Kraftydinosaur: By not notable I mean that he fails the WP:GNG. If you can find a few good sources (there were none when I redirected the article), then sure. But just a passing mention of his name in a Mario Kart 8 article is not enough, they have to actually focus on him. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Post expand limit?

Okay. Personally I'd like to tell you (once again) about the post expand limit. It WAS going to be at the point where it would reach the limit of what, 2M mark and when removing all the stuff that typically doesn't need to be there in the first place, hence why it takes at least 5-7 seconds to load the page, and not oddly having a black screen, which I believe shouldn't be just me having a black screen when posting or showing changes. I guess you do care about owning the list, so I'll take my leave for a few months, I won't edit, but I'll have a close eye on it if any changes occur. I know that whatever the hell I'm doing is making you guys extremely furious, but just know, adding games tend to (still) be an extreme hassle with you admins trying to work out and revert anything that's unworthy to the page. I'm also starting to get the fact that after 5 years of being here, you guys seem to not like me or my edits when you don't want it the way you want it to go. As I said plenty of times, I don't really care. I've had quite enough of you guys bossing in anybody else's business. I'm done with all this...so if you or Serge, or ferret want to block me again, go ahead. I won't stop you from doing so. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Also leaving this here, just so you guys need to be aware. The bytes on that page currently sits at:

1,859,375/2,097,152 bytes

Zacharyalejandro (talk) 05:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The Wind Waker HD

Hello.

I posted a problem. The main article The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker says the games was released September 20, 2013, bundled with the Wii U console. And de dedicated page The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker HD anounces the release date is the October 4, 2013.

I wrote you this beacause i saw you in the hystory page [1]... and i recently saw you working on another Elda page [2]

Regards, from french Wiki. --Archimëa (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Archimëa: Appears to be a simple region-based error, as both dates are not incorrect (depending on region). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

  Hello. sorry, i was not clear, my bad. The mistake is on the The wind Waker HD page for North america release, september 20 in the infobox template, and October 4 in the text. --Archimëa (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Archimëa: OK I found the issue. The September date was for an early eShop version in North America, while the retail disc was released in October. The infobox is correct as we list the first date in a region regardless of medium. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk)

  Ok, thanks for your help. I just found a better reference, explaining more clearly the release [3]. It seems to be a pre-access for owners of the bundle of the Wii U + TWW HD, and you're right, the game is a digital downloadable version... Regards and thanks for all.--Archimëa (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Archimëa: No problem, glad I could help. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Update to DotA screenshot

Hey, there. I'm just letting you know that I've tweaked the description of File:Dota allstars game.jpg, to reflect on the Library of Congress' filing for the Dota copyright. According to the copyright, the final version - 6.83 - is co-claimed by both Blizzard and Valve, so I included Valve, as well. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 20:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Esports

Hello. I see that last year you moved Category:2017 in eSports to Category:2017 in esports with the comment "per RFC". The only relevant discussion I've been able to find is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_10#eSports, which reached the opposite conclusion. Can you please give me a link to the more recent discussion that you're relying on? Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 08:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@R'n'B: MOS:VG, stemming from Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Video_games/Archive_4#RFC:_Standardization_of_"eSports"/"esports"/"e-sports" -- ferret (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes sorry, I should have linked to this in the summary. BTW, there are still tons of categories that need to be moved but are currently moved protected from that previous discussion. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Bang Dream

The page states "or certain aspects of him". the characters have persona 5 costumes, and the main girl is wearing Joker's. so its the same thing as Sonic Forces.Muur (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I put that because he doesn't show in his regular appearance in some games, such as Sonic Forces. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Right, so just like Sonic Forces, only his costume appears - meaning this is as valid to list as Sonic Forces.Muur (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Muur: What exactly are you trying to say? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

"Add-on content" to lists?

Do we neccesarily need add-on content/DLC included in every list of games? Earlier on, I removed the Shovel Knight downloadable content from the Switch page just to not exceed the page's limit and because, well, we don't include downloadable content, even if they receive a physical release in the future. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Zacharyalejandro: No, unless it has a standalone release and can be played without the base game, do not add any sort of DLC/expansions to game lists. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

Your recent editing history at List of highest-grossing films shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Betty Logan (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Wayward Tide listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wayward Tide. Since you had some involvement with the Wayward Tide redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

“...who is a free agent”

So if that’s the case, then why does literally every free agent still say that? I’m not doubting the discussion has taken place because I don’t check the project talk page as often as I probably should considering like 95% of edits are NFL related, I just have a hard time believing that with thousands of free agents having their opening like that, that it’s a consensus to not include that. I’m not trying to violate WP:OTHER but that primarily only applies to inconsistencies, which this is not. Help me understand how something is supposedly a consensus when articles are consistently the exact opposite of what is being claimed to be a consensus.--Rockchalk717 16:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Further comment, I’ve found several discussions, none of which give what you’re claiming is a consensus, in fact this one: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 10#editing pages of players entering free agency says the consensus is “who is currently a free agent”, though using currently actually technically violates the MOS. So it appears that is your preference so if you would like to try again, it appears it would be you that would need to post on the project talk page .--Rockchalk717 16:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• • @Rockchalk717: I never claimed there was a consensus, I said we had prior discussions about it. I don't care enough to edit war over it, so if you want to go around and remove all these "is currently a free agent" from player articles months/years after their playing career ended, then go ahead. Otherwise, it should be common sense by not putting in any unnecessary info that would become irrelevant after a period of time in order to prevent this sort of future work from happening in the first place. And technically, there is no consensus for it either, we've just gotten so used to seeing it that it was adopted as a standard. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Imperator: Rome reviews

In what way are citing reviews disallowed, and for what conceivable reason? If a game inspires a strong collective opinion from its playerbase, particularly upon release, then it should be noted. Wikipedia:VG/RS specifically states that "none of the following directions apply in every single instance so always use reason and common sense when citing sources." This is common sense.

• User reviews, such as Steam reviews, are not allowed per WP:VG/REC (see the last bullet). However, if a publication wrote an article about them, then you could cite that instead. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Apologies, but it seems like you missed something. Wikipedia:VG/RS specifically states that "none of the following directions apply in every single instance so always use reason and common sense when citing sources." This is common sense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:100:9ec9:b400:d21f:cbd4:bb4 (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2019 UTC (UTC)
    • MOS:VG is only one part of the picture. The primary policies at play here are WP:V and the guideline WP:RS. User ratings on store pages are inherently unreliable as user generated content and cannot be used. MOS:VG is just spelling this guidance out and offering the suggestion to look for reliable secondary coverage. If the reliable secondary coverage doesn't exist, it can't be added. -- ferret (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I'd argue that the Steam aggregate is a reliable secondary source. "Mostly negative" is a judgement made on thousands of reviews from thousands of people. I can understand one particular review being unreliable, even a small sample. This is well beyond that range.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:100:9ec9:351b:cb3c:8c03:cf1c (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Well, I'm not sure what else to tell you. No, the aggregate is not reliable. User reviews, and adding together the user reviews, is still unreliable user generated data. The preponderance of review bombing just makes the issue even worse. -- ferret (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
        • It's only notable if it was covered by secondary publications. Else, you could write a review yourself and then cite it as an example of negative reception. If you can't see the issue with this, then I'm not sure what else to say. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Ayla (Chrono Trigger)

I'm not sure why you reverted my edit. You claim that it seems to only touch upon her bisexuality, but that simply is not true. The coverage includes:

1. How her design changed (hair, outfit, and notation that her design changed the most of the cast besides Robo's)
2. Inspirations (based on Ouyang Fei Fei and her name on a character from the book "Clan of the Cave Bears" of the same name)
3. Her creator's feelings on her character
4. Her bisexuality and how it has changed in her localization
5. Her dialect and how it remains consistent in English and Japanese
6. Her merchandise
7. Discussion about how she defies gender norms by multiple authors
8. The significance of two particular scenes starring Ayla to gaming
9. How certain elements undermine her "gender defiance"
10. Discussion of how her theme music helps define her
11. Discussion of her sexual attractiveness

Bisexuality is like, one of nine different things at least that the article covers, and not even nearly a majority of the content has anything to do with it. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The Witcher

I think Polish and English voices are both relevant enough to include, since it's a Polish game and the Polish voice is the original one, while the English voice is relevant to English Wikipedia. The relevance of other language versions is lesser. Compare, for example, Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain which mentions the English and Japanese (original) cast. Ausir (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Ausir: I guess that's fair enough, even though I've only ever seen Japanese as a second language for voice acting in that format. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's also partly because often video game articles don't mention voice acting at all, and Japanese games tend to be the ones among games not developed originally in English with the biggest fandom. E.g. ideally I'd say that Metro 2033 (video game) should have Russian and English cast mentioned (it mentions neither currently). Ausir (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ausir: Well, as long as they aren't just listed in a table and are incorporated into prose, it should be fine. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It's Dotally time to talk to you

As a preface, I won't oppose you if Dota Underlords is formally announced and if you see fit, don't feel the mod page is warranted. Right now, Dota Auto Chess as a page faces an uphill battle against inexperienced and zealous editors who are treating it like a game guide. I may have done a lot today, but I didn't even scratch the surface about references, which I wager will not be in good order. Regardless, after Dota Underlords is announced, I feel we can take on different tasks; you can focus on the new game's page, while I begin construction of a central Dota franchise page, to cover the mod, the three games, as well as the cultural impact, esports, documentary, etc. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 19:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• @DarthBotto: I haven't thought about making a series page, but seeing how it's technically going on its 4th game now, it's allowable now. And of course I'd help with that once you get it started. Also, I think that by changing the overall scope of the main article to the Valve-made standalone game instead of the original Auto Chess mod is because it will eventually become overshadowed by the successors. I mean, it's not like it's been around long enough (like Dota 1 was) before they appeared and officially succeeded it. However, this fully depends on how much coverage the Valve standalone game gets, so I'll just wait until it's announced/released before I do anything more to the Auto Chess page besides general fixes. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you should restore the mentions of Artifact and Dota Underlords on the Defense of the Ancients page, as they are two installments in the franchise spawned from the original mod. Granted, it can be truncated further beyond what we had, with passing mentions of "followed by two spin-offs...", but they're a part of the IP, nonetheless. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 19:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: Well, have you decided against the creation of a Dota franchise page? Because that's where the information really belongs, not tacked onto a game that's only relevant to them for being the predecessor to the game (Dota 2) the mod was created first in. Also, I'm not sure if you have noticed or not, but I created a Dota Underlords page that would give more reason to create a franchise page. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I did notice Dota Underlords-- a wonderful contribution, thank you! I'll hopefully get started on the franchise page this weekend. I've been delayed with creating the franchise page, as I've been transitioning with jobs and have needed some focus in that sector of my life. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 00:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey, dude. I'm so sorry for the delay, but my company has been getting on its feet and I'm preparing for my wedding, so it's been a bit hectic. Rest assured, I'm now beginning work on the Dota franchise page. I'll keep you posted and will love your input as it comes together. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 18:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, take a look at this. I just kicked it off, with it constituting an infobox and lead. If you have suggestions or would like to dig into it, by all means. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 19:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: No rush, I'll get around it when I can too. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dissident93: I know it's been over a month and I apologize for the lack of progress with the Dota franchise article. Over the past couple weeks alone, I've been married, in a terrible car accident and laid off. Plus, I'm looking to find the best way to approach the subsections for the games portion of the article, starting with the original DotA. The information is there, but it's slightly more difficult than I anticipated and will likely require a full day off to set the format for proceeding. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 18:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: Wow, eventful few weeks huh? But back on topic, I actually completely forgot about this, but it's still something I plan on helping with. I also have a franchise navbox ready for when this goes live, which I'll just merge into the esports one (to keep history). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dissident93: I have some time off today, so I've made some adjustments to the navbox and accompanying articles. I don't believe linking in too tightly with HoN and LoL is strictly necessary, as those and the Dota 2 articles mention their shared inspiration with the MOBA genre explicitly. I'm now going to take some time to work on the Dota series article, beginning with an adequate subsection about DotA itself. Let's see how this goes! DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 18:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

DarthBotto, Good points, I was stretching with their inclusion anyway. And as always, I'm there to help. Maybe once we get the series page expanded, we can try again to get Dota 2 officially promoted to FA. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Dissident93 I've come to the unfortunate realization that I don't have time to really finish the task, which makes me far more disappointed in myself than you could possibly be in me. I am working as the narrative lead on an MMO, which has been a big time suck, in addition to freelance work. I have a few suggestions, though. I'd recommend filling in the subsections for Dota 2, Artifact and Dota Underlords with core info about the gameplay. For Dota 2, you could say the gameplay began as being impeccable to the original, while also mentioning additional features. Then, you can have a big section that describes the development for all the games, as it really is one congruent story. Then, a reception section would be a nice topper. I'd also remove the section about IceFrog, as it seems to stick out and just by having the page redirected to the franchise page, people will know that both he and the subject matter are synonymous. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 19:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

DarthBotto No worries. But I think the MOBA gameplay stuff could actually belong in the introduction paragraph, since the core gameplay of DotA and Dota 2 is identical and doesn't need to be repeated in both. The game sections should be summarizing their individual development and reception instead (Artifact and Underlords should have their gameplay mentioned since they are non-MOBA spinoffs; also I don't think having the development of all four games in a single section is ideal since it spans over 15 years with a decade between Dota 2 and Artifact). Also, I don't understand what you mean about IceFrog? His article wasn't notable enough to remain standalone, and I don't see where else a redirect could go. So unless you have any better ideas, he should probably remain here. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

IceFrog

Hi. I don't want to revert you again, but yes, if you could find a reference that contains everything it's supposed to support, I think that would be good. MOS (which you quote in your edit summary) isn't an issue, or even relevant, WP:Verifiability is the actual policy, which says (my bold): "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." and "Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy."

If I failed to easily verify it without needing to be pointed at the "link within a link" then other readers might easily do the same. I'm not sure why it's a big issue for you, though - I haven't entirely removed the name from the article in any of my edits, just the first mention of it - the second one still stands, regardless. -- Begoon 23:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Begoon: Your edit could have worked without opposition, but the way it was worded bothered me as I think that the official confirmation of his identity should have followed up to the original rumor, instead of having the first mention of Abdul at the end. Regardless, I found a more reliable source (per WP:VG/RS) about the blogpost that directly lists his name in its article, so it was worth it in the end. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I think that is much better now. Cheers. -- Begoon 03:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

List of Bandai Namco video game franchises

Thanks for archiving the URLs on that page. Truth be told I was in the midst of doing this myself but you beat me to the punch on that, ha ha. I appreciate it. Namcokid47 (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• No problem, but the IABot really did all of the work :) ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Let It Die music

re: weight, I agree about removing the heading, but I was at the time hoping someone with more experience could find a better format for mentioning the bands, since there isn't much 3rd party content (in my googling), unless we can really flesh out a few of mentioned artists in the MetalSucks article, where I had zero experience beyond "oh thats a music genre". I had no intention of listing all 100 bands on the page, since they are listed on the game's Music page. I was going to update the current with maybe a subheading under "Development" to add weight.

re:composer, not sure I agree with the removal. The published article claims Akira is the composer (which is probably wrong in the traditional sense), and though it may not be the traditional definition of a "composer" who originates all their music, the infobox videogame template lists "composer" as a contributor of music. Maybe it was for simplicity, so that multiple types of music sources could be classified under a single term. I suppose we could propose a "music director" field to differentiate within the template. (tl;dr, Published source is probably wrong, but even after 16 years of hit and run editing, I'm still wading thru policies) Any thoughts?

--Vorik111 (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Vorik111: A video game music director is not a common enough role to warrant a standalone parameter for it, so I oppose that. And as the published source is wrong, it should be replaced with a more accurate one due to that. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• So what about the definition that the template gives of "contributor"? Looks like wikidata (the P86 link) defines composer as originating music Template:Infobox_video_game - does the template description need to change to be consistent? I would say all games (with music) need to have some kind of music direction, whether it was the dev themselves, or outsourced. Composers don't inherently link a piece of music to an action within the game. The role is most definitely required in video games with music, though I'm not sure that an official title of "Music Director" is common or uncommon in published videogame credits. I'm not about to start changing templates, and I'm probably putting way too much effort in this for a one-line opinion from you. Even the Video_game_music#Composers Wikipedia article on Video Game Composers classifies it beyond the scope of "originating their own music". Sorry, I'm putting too much effort into this, and I need to step back. --Vorik111 (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Vorik111:It's fine. It can always be mentioned in prose, just not in the infobox. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Iwata Asks

I've undone your edit to Iwata Asks, because it made things less clear. The forthcoming book features more than just content from the Iwata Asks interviews. Cheers! —Flicky1984 (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your re-edit! —Flicky1984 (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Intelligent Systems employee count

Of course the link's reliable. many japanese devs use this site for their recruitment. it's linked directly on intelligent system's site and they've been using it for as long as i remember: https://intsys.co.jp/recruit/requirement/

I didn't incite or whatever cause I have no idea how to use wikipedia lol. that's why I left a comment about someone else updating. I just got tired of seeing the old outdated number and thought i'd fix it lol. my bad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:2E40:1D00:926:F015:4E8F:45BE (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• @2605:E000:2E40:1D00:926:F015:4E8F:45BE: If it's directly linked on their site, then yeah it's perfectly usable. And no worries, you just have to understand that a lot of other people have tried using a bad source (or none at all) for similar claims, so apologies if the revert felt hostile. 21:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Team websites

Sorry for all the reversions, I feel like the team websites have been getting worse and worse since they made the switch to an across-the-board NFL standard layout (which also stinks IMO). At this point, it seems like jersey numbers and official announcements are the only reliable things from the team sites. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, some players are currently on the season-long PUP or NFI lists (Kendrick Norton, Jalin Moore of the Jets, Charles Tapper, etc.) so the Active/PUP or Active/NFI needs to be shown to avoid confusion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Eagles247: Yeah, you're right on both accounts. For cases like Koda Martin's, it might be a good idea to add a hidden note saying that the official roster listing hasn't been updated yet or something. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

SMM2 composer issue(?)

Hey man, with all due respect I'm not really sure what your problem is. Nintendo themselves confirmed Koji Kondo wrote new music so there's your source. Also, having listened to a rather large number of video game soundtracks I noticed at least 75% sound directors compose something anyways... I know it's not a source but eh just speaking from experience. Tbh, I'm not even sure why that had to be discussed as you're seemingly the only one who wants to discredit his work. I mean if anything, Koji Kondo should be credited and the others be taken out as they are labelled under 'music', not 'composers'. 2001:8003:D01E:700:112E:CFF5:D96:2F57 (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm only going with what the game itself is stating, which should take precedence in the case of conflict, as we see here. Your argument of about sound directors doing music 75% of the time is pure WP:OR, and the thing about music vs. composer labeling makes no sense either since we only list composers who wrote original material for the game in the infobox, not sound/music directors. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Dynasty Warriors 9

Seems to me the characters should be included in Dynasty Warriors 9. In addition to the fact they are included in every other Dynasty Warriors page, the addition of new characters is probably the most significant aspect of each Dynasty Warriors game and the information that people visiting the page would most likely want to know.

Year articles

For births and deaths in recent year articles (since 1991), the person must be internationally notable. It's a higher standard than for an actual article.

I'm not convinced the football players you added deserve an article yet; being drafted in 2019 does not indicate notability, so they would have to be notable for their college careers. You certainly can try adding their births to 1997 in the United States#Births, if not already there, but you might get pushback there, as well. You won't get it from me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Arthur Rubin: While it's only the preseason, WP:NGRIDIRON states that simply appearing in a regular season game is enough for them to be notable (and thus have articles on them). I believe being drafted adds to their notability too, even if it's not directly stated in the MOS. But how does one judge if somebody is internationally notable? Harmon was born in Liberia, which makes him objectively more international than somebody like Ed Oliver from the same draft class who is listed right above him and was not removed for the same reasons you gave. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 14:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The NFL regular season hasn't started yet, so football players drafted or signed in 2019 do not meet WP:NGRIDIRON. That may not be adequate reason to propose deletion, but it certainly should keep them out of year articles until they meet actual notability standards. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: Technically yes, but this would almost be universally opposed if brought up to AfD, especially if WP:NFL members got involved. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit war on 1997

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on 1997 .

While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.

If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus.

If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.

Continued edit warring on 1997 or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice. Toddst1 (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Toddst1: Not really an edit war more than it is WP:BRD, especially since it's currently being discussed on talk pages. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

BRD has only one R. Glad you're sorting it out. Toddst1 (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Chargers roster template

Hey not sure why you removed Ben Johnson’s name, but the Chargers have reported the signing on their twitter and multiple sources have reported it as well.--Rockchalk717 22:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Rockchalk717: Mistake, I didn't see his name when looking for jersey numbers for the other newly signed players. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Looking to close Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 22 debates, input appreciated

I am looking to close CFDs for the 22nd of August, and note your comment stating that you support multiple nominations but didn't indicate which ones. Please indicate specifically which of the other nominations by Zxcvbnm you support, as some of them have different rationales. Thanks. MER-C 14:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• @MER-C: Literally every single ZXCVBNM nomination that is listed below the one I commented in, even if the rational is slightly different. I just didn't want to copy paste the same support comment for all of them. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • That's not necessarily true: for example, renaming Category:Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell games to Category:Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell is not a WP:C2D rationale like the majority of those nominations. Should I interpret your comment as supporting only the C2D nominations? MER-C 16:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @MER-C: That was nominated to remove the "games" from the title, which is basically what all of the other nominations were too. But in short, yes. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Masahiro Sakurai

Excuse me if I'm wrong but don’t all YouTube videos fall under fair use? Michael14375 (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Michael14375: Nope, not unless they explicitly state they are. I can't find any CC license on that video or on Nintendo's channels in general, and simply judging by their past history with copyright law, highly doubt they would ever do something like that anyway. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Bashing over stuff

I just want to get this straightened up, before you bash on me about my recent edits over on the Switch list, let me say, that people are going to keep piping links to that page. Seemingly enough, they do not care. My experience with this is exactly that, people don't care about rules both online and real life. And it also teaches me to not care about *explicit comment* here. I don't care if you don't edit and put games there yourself. Really not happy about this! And shows no interest in caring either. I just edit for the sake of it. I'm never in a good mood when talking you guys about this, but once again, I have my doubts about taking my way. People don't care, that is all. Have a good day. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• It's really not that big of a deal? Just fixing it once is enough, but if people continue to do it then other page watchers will usually intervene. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Jóhan Sundstein

Apologies for any inconvenience regarding this wikipedia page, I have now added an external link, to a Faroese news page mentioning him as Faroese. Hopefully this will suffice. Again, please accept my apology for any inconvenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faroeman92 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• You should have provided a source on the first time you added the claim, but it's better late than never of course. Also, since the Faroe Islands are a part of Denmark, it should probably be formatted another way. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Hello, I'm Tamravidhir. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Alex Smith, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Tamravidhir (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Tamravidhir: I'm not sure why you are calling this original research. I removed the "As a Chiefs, only Tom Brady and Russell Wilson won more games as a starting quarterback during that time" statement (not just the citation) because I do not believe this should even be in the lead due to the fact the NFL is a team sport, and it's not like Smith was the sole reason for that accomplishment. If you think it should be kept, then that is a completely different argument that has nothing to do with OR. Also, I did not add anything new to the lead, the rest of the edits were simply rearranging on what was already there. Even if I did, the removal of any possible content should not require a source (because then you'd simply be citing something that isn't there). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• Team sport or not, I don’t think the sentence belongs in the lead because it’s not covered in the body (as far as I can see). I don’t think it’s compatible with the spirit of WP:LEAD in that regard. As a separate grammar issue, we should not start a sentence with “As a Chief, Tom Brady and Russell Wilson...” unless Brady and Wilson were Chiefs. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

antonio brown

Should be "shortly thereafter", not shortly after. 74.105.155.6 (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Black QBs list

Hi Dissident93,

I saw that for the table for all black quarterbacks on the article List of black NFL quarterbacks that Levivich designed, quarterbacks are only included on the list if they have played if they had taken active snaps during NFL regular season or postseason games, hence why I took out Dwayne Haskins. Not to say anything was wrong with you putting Haskins back in or that I disagree with it, but I just wanted to open up a discussion with you, Levivich, and other editors on this matter. In my opinion, only having QBs who played active snaps would keep the table relatively organized, which is why I made the edit to keep with Levivich's original design.

Feel free to open up a discussion on the talk page for the Black NFL QBs article if you want to discuss this further.

Thanks --WuTang94 (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• If that's what counts, then that's fine. I just didn't directly see that in the article or talk page. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Apple Arcade games

A tag has been placed on Category:Apple Arcade games requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

List templates

Perhaps you could enlighten me: I can't find any threads at WP:VG relating to {{plainlist}} on mobile specifically. The only threads mentioning the template are this and this. The "gigantic gaps" a) relate to {{ubl}} not {{plainlist}}, b) are not specific to video game articles, and c) is in any case the same with {{plainlist}}, as they produce the same HTML markup. Hairy Dude (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Hairy Dude:I can't seem to find the original discussion either (it may have very well been an offhand comment in another place), but I'm pretty sure I was suggested to not use plainlists in infoboxes because they seemingly had more issues for mobile readers than UBL did. However, this was a few years ago, so the issue may not even exist anymore, but I don't think it hurts to be safe for now. If I find it, I'll let you know. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Added Doom(2016) with citations

Why was my edit undone? I am new to Wikipedia but I am sure I provided the correct citations. Can you please specify my mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlimShady32123 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• @SlimShady32123: Did you read the FAQ? Games on that list require six different reliable publications as citations, and you only added two. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your work on esports articles. I think esports will continue to grow and the outstanding coverage you provide here on Wikipedia is really great. Keep it up. TarkusABtalk/contrib 20:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

How to insert redirect into category?

Hi, can you give me an example how to insert redirect into category? I read wikipedia help page, there are mentioned some good examples of when to use it, but I didn't figure out all the steps how to do that.

You inserted Teamfight Tactics into "Auto battler" category, I found anchor|Teamfight Tactics in League of legends page (I guess it has something to do with it), but I can't find any "connection code" which will connect that section with some category - there is not category: Auto battler on League of legends page, and I have no idea where it is.

Can you help me? Thanks! EchoBlu (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• @EchoBlu: You have to go to the actual redirect page, which I usually do by typing in the exact term (Teamfight Tactics) into the search bar up top, which then redirects to the section on the LoL article. Then, if you scroll all the way back up, you will see a "(Redirected from Teamfight Tactics)" link at the very top of the article. Click this, and then you can add categories to it (and not LoL). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Dissident93: Thanks! EchoBlu (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

TY 4 RS

Thank You for this. Sincerely, 71.121.143.237 (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC), aka 71.121.143.99

Chesson

After the Casey Dunn stuff, you should know by now that the Redskins website is unreliable when it comes to transactions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Eagles247: It's actually the first time I can remember the Redskins doing this. Do you know when it was introduced league-wide and what purpose does it serve over the standard IR list? Not every team seems to do this, or at least that was the case in the past few seasons. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  Here's what the Redskins roster template looked like at the end of the 2008 season for your reference. As you can see, Johnny Baldwin was on the practice squad/injured list and this is how it's been done for at least 11 years (Here's the transaction for that move). Here's what the Redskins roster template looked like last year when Casey Dunn was on the practice squad/injured list. When a practice squad player suffers a season-ending injury, the team is given a practice squad exemption for that player so the team can have a 10th healthy practice squad player. The team could release the player with an injury settlement covering the time it will take to recover from the injury, or choose to place them on this list. The injured player is still entitled to his full practice squad salary but remains a practice squad member. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Eagles247: Got it, thanks. But shouldn't we list them as IR and not Inj? You say it's done for consistency with the other team navboxes, but it's ironically inconsistent since IR is already listed right above them. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  It's not IR though, it's a separate list entirely. Would you like PUP and NFI listed as IR as well? Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Eagles247: But the full name is still "Practice squad/Injured reserve", is it not? However, it's not really worth worrying about as long as people understand the differences. Maybe add a note to every instance of them to prevent editors like me from mistakenly thinking somebody forgot to move them? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  No, the full name is "Practice squad/injured". It is not a reserve list, more of an exemption list for the practice squad. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Changes to template rule to add Japan dates in infoboxes.

We should really start adding Japanese release dates for games that were released or in development for release in the region. I don't want to keep arguing with you guys about this, as I've done for years. I've also dealt and still dealing with stuff IRL as well, as soon as come on though, I've had talked with @Stefvanschie: about this and apparently it looks he didn't understand why I didn't provide a reference for it. However, he explained that the Terraria release didn't have a release date for Japan on the page. I guess he does not understand that we are a English Wikipedia. But I would assume adding Japanese dates in infobox or to the side in one of the paragraphs under Release would be acceptable. I want him to know that. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Zacharyalejandro: You need to start a new discussion on WT:VG, because we have a guideline (WP:VG/DATE) about only including the native+English regions. Terraria is not a Japanese developed game, so it doesn't need a Japanese release date. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

WoW

Sorry, but you can't write that 8 expacs have been released when the 8th hasn't been released yet ... Not trying to edit war :) Neil S. Walker (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Neil S Walker: I get what you mean, but it can simply be reworded to say developed/produced instead to fix that. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Overwatch: Related Media and Legacy?

You placed in legacy something that came before game is released? I understand that you want to organize content, but Related media is usually separated section, and not "legacy". Something that is developed parallel with video game or is released before game itself, can't be "legacy". Legacy are memes, overwatch porn, and generally games delivered from mods or completely new games inspired by some game (dota and hearthstone can be considered legacy of warcraft.) EchoBlu (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• @EchoBlu: Fair points, but at the very least the Overwatch 2 stuff belongs under legacy. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Dissident93: Can I move Related Media where it originally was, and keep Overwatch 2 under the Legacy? EchoBlu (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
    • @EchoBlu: Is there even a reason for the pre-release stuff to be separated from the Marketing section anyway? Any post-release stuff left in that section, which is more directly tied to the game's legacy, could go under the Legacy instead. Or maybe we could just rename the legacy section to be more encompassing, such as "Related media and legacy", if the issue is more of a grouping thing? But if not, then I'm fine with that suggestion for now. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
      • @Dissident93: I don't like the idea to separate official media, because sometimes is hard to tell where marketing ends and starts lore making. Media creates Overwatch universe, most people don't want to see it as a marketing tool. Also, I am against grouping "Related media and legacy", it will bring more confusion than help to make article more organized. People who want to read about media, they want to read about media of Overwatch. But, I can agree with you that Overwatch 2 can stay under Legacy section. EchoBlu (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
        • @EchoBlu: Well, I don't see how it's confusing, at least not any moreso than grouping media and merchandise together in a single section (which are related topics, but not exactly the same thing). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
          • @Dissident93: Ok, if you insist that Media and merchandise must be a subsection, then Marketing section fits better. Because, as I already said, something that came before game itself, can't be categorized as Legacy. On the other side, Media and Merchandise expand Overwatch universe, it is not just "marketing tool". Therefore, I think that "Media and Merchandise" should be separate section - but, if you insist to be subsection, Marketing section fits better. EchoBlu (talk) 12:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Since you asked

Strictly speaking, "free" (in the sense of no cost) is an adjective or adverb, but not a noun.

• He ate quickly.
• She painted beautifully.
• Players received the game free.

If you're going to use the preposition "for", then you need a noun.

• He did it for money.
• She bought it for $5.
• He got the game for nothing.

You get the picture. Since "free" is not a noun, it doesn't work with "for".

... Or at least that's the logic. "For free" is an idiomatic construction now so commonly used it would be insane to resist it. I wouldn't bother "correcting" it all but for the fact that we can write exactly the same thing with one fewer word - and, as you know, I love using fewer words.

• Players received the game for free.
• Players received the game free.

I'm surprised you say you've never seen free used in the way I describe, as I assumed it was at least as common as "for free", and as easily understood. Maybe it isn't commonly used in some English-speaking regions. I assumed it had no disadvantage. If large numbers of readers felt that the second example (sans "for") looked wrong or weird, then that would be enough for me to shrug and concede that this bit of the language has now more permanently shifted, and stop changing this.

Since you asked for sources from writing manuals etc, here are a few explaining the distinction:

Guardian style guide (under "for free") [4] [5]

Popcornduff (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and the Half-Life: Alyx page says "You'll get Half-Life: Alyx free". Popcornduff (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: I see, thanks for the links. By the way, wouldn't a commonly used, but "idiomatic" phrase became accepted over time regardless of its incorrect origins? After all, grammatical rules are an societal invention, with any new word or phrase probably being considered "wrong" for a time. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course. "For free" is probably already at that point. As I say, I usually change "for free" to free" purely because it's one word shorter, and (I believe) no less understandable. Popcornduff (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

About Blizzard licenced games

@Dissident93: Why do you think it is obvious? For the average wikipedia reader it adds unnecessary visual clutter. You can't compare it with PlatinumGames, where all their games are in the same row. There is no reason for all titles to be in the same row, if we can group them in logical groups. All Blizzard franchises are already separated from same reason, and I think that is much better organization then PlatinumGames.

One more thing. As someone who never played any of PlatinumGames video games, it is completely confusing for me to understand which are games from the same franchise, what is their intellectual property (at all), and what is only a licenced development. EchoBlu (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• @EchoBlu: ""For the average wikipedia reader it adds unnecessary visual clutter." is what I'd say about adding a subgroup for only 2 games. Is it really not that obvious that Blizzard is not the owner of the Superman and Justice League IPs? It's still a Blizzard made/produced game in the end; their IP ownership shouldn't matter for navbox purposes. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dissident93: You can say with the same argument that it's obvious that Diablo and Starcraft are not from the same franchise. PlatinumGames have all their games in the same row, and, as I said, it is completely confusing for me to understand what are their franchises, or anything else. Blizzard is developer of exclusively their own IPs, so it can be highly confusing to combine those two titles with other. Sometimes making things more simple adds more visual clutter, and good example is PlatinumGames - I can tell you, as someone who never played their games, it is completely hard to understand anything from that box. I want to avoid the same confusion.

""their IP ownership shouldn't matter for navbox purposes." It is very hard to agree with that part. But if we follow the same logic, after Overwatch 2 release, there will be only two games, and someone will probably create separate group for that universe. Why DC universe games should not be separated? EchoBlu (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• @EchoBlu: Because Overwatch would be considered a franchise they have made multiple (if only two thus far) games in. If they did 2 Superman games, then a Superman grouping could be done. I don't think I'd be opposed to a "DC universe" title group though, because at least that would be consistent with other navboxes. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Dissident93: DC universe is not Blizzard intellectual property, and we are still messing with consistence. If we need to create only two groups of games, that will be Blizzard IPs, and non blizzard IPs, we start from here. Why do you think that "absolute simple", such as PlatinumGames organization is the best organization? As I said, it is completely useless for understanding anything. I still don't understand why will anyone want to place Blizzard and non-Blizzard IP games together, when there are options to group in logical groups. Everyone who comes on wikipedia to learn even small things, can appreciate logical groups in navbox - it helps in understanding. If I wan't to understand PlatinumGames, I literally need to open every single game from navibox, or to read whole PlatinumGames article, to understand what are franchises at all, and not to mention, are those original IPs, or just licenced. EchoBlu (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
    • @EchoBlu: You're the only one arguing that IP ownership is important enough to cover in navboxes, even when it's (at least somewhat) obvious that it was licensed. I'm aware that it's not a Blizzard intellectual property, but I simply don't think we need to format it like this. If you want more opinions, you could ask on the navbox's talk page or at WT:VG. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

NFL playoffs

Hey I don't know if you remember about the conversation about the NFL playoff appearances like 2 months ago and Wild card berths and Division titles? Well I've looked and again I don't get it. Like when you said that both 3rd and 4th seeds both win the division and make a wild card berth. Well you can see last years standings like example the Philadelphia Eagles got the 4th seed last year I believe, but on their wiki page it only has 2018 as 'playoff appearance' it doesn't say division championship. If both 3rd and 4th seeds win the division also then how come it doesn't have '2018' as both 'playoff appearance and division title'? Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League/Archive_17#Playoff_appearances Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sports Fan 1997: The Eagles did not win their division last year, they were a 6th seed. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh. Well who was the top 4? Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Sports Fan 1997: In the NFC? The Cowboys, Bears, Saints, and Rams did. The remaining two playoff seeds (aka, the Wildcard) were the Eagles and Seahawks. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Indie Games: Examples in the lead?

Hello fellow editor, In regards to the page Indie GamesI saw you took the examples from the lead and moved them to the saturation section. I would (respectfully) disagree with that move and believe that they should be put back in the lead, as they provide good and helpful examples for indie games. While they are also important to history, they are defining titles for this particular "genre" (I will loosely refer to indie gaming as a genre), and thus I believe they deserve to go in the lead.

--MageNicho (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• @MageNicho: Well, at what point do we stop adding games in the future? WP:EXAMPLEFARM says to try and limit that, but I guess four examples (for now) doesn't hurt. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• @Dissident93: That's a valid concern, however I think these games are very notable for popularizing the genre and their success. Thanks for the understanding. Have a good day!

Resident Evil 3 Remake

I appreciate your help on the improvement of articles related to the RE series, however it certainly isn't "too early" for the remake to have its own article. The game is more than just "confirmed", it has a fixed release date and is already available for pre-orders on several websites. Jonipoon (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Jonipoon: And that's bascially everything we know about the game. Can a paragraph be done on its development yet? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • There's plenty of new information about the development presented in the "Developer Message" video [6] so I'm confident we can work something out if you want to cooperate. Based on what Masachika Kawata and Peter Fabiano is saying in that video, how about something like this for starters? It can be slightly rewritten of course so it doesn't look too much like the section from RE2 remake:

Development
The original Resident Evil 3: Nemesis was released for the PlayStation in 1999. Following the successful release of the 2019 remake of the second Resident Evil, Capcom producer Yoshiaki Hirabayashi said they were considering remaking Resident Evil 3 depending on fan reaction. In December 2019, the remake was confirmed to be in active development. Further details were released in a Special Developer Message from producers Masachika Kawata and Peter Fabiano on December 10, where Kawata confirmed that the strong fan reaction had convinced Capcom to move on with the remake. The producers also said that the team strived to honor the more action-oriented approach presented in the original game.

In line with the increased emphasis on action, the team decided to alter some character designs. For example, Jill Valentine wears a more practical outfit, and Carlos Oliveira was redesigned to look "more rough around the edges" according to Fabiano. Nemesis, one of the central aspects of the game, was also redesigned and given new ways to track down the protagonist compared to the Tyrant from Resident Evil 2.
Jonipoon (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

After the first line, it's also possible to include some additional history about Capcom remaking games in the Resident Evil series. Last but not least, a final paragraph about the development on Project Resistance can be added as well. Jonipoon (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jonipoon: This is fine, yes. I wouldn't oppose a stub article now that there is something more to the article than just it being announced. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Infamous Gaming

Hey, sorry if my response was a bit defensive and certainly reading into your edit history you are very familiar with competitive Dota haha. I think the most notable part of the group's standing is their continued relevance within the South American gaming community. Other than this, it appears that the team also gets a lot of press/attention for relatively dramatic line changes, but I don't know how to narrate this well to make it more interesting. That being said, I think its a valid page to have at the moment, but if I'm wrong and they do not continue to be a relevant team, then in the future I could see it being an article marked for cleanup. Anyways I do appreciate the feedback, even if I disagree on some points. Azurex120 (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes? It depends

...10 seconds before you read "Death Stranding received generally favorable reviews from critics", 10 seconds after you read "Despite the mixed reception": it can confuse who's reading. Normally the mixed reception is between 74 and 50, not 82. If with "mixed" you're referring to "its gameplay and story" then it should be clear that you're speaking about that.

But the game "generally", did not receive mixed reception. That's pretty much it. Lone Internaut (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Lone Internaut: You misunderstand, I'm not talking about Metacritic, I'm talking about the sentence saying "many were polarized" directly before that. Polarized means "divide or cause to divide into two sharply contrasting groups or sets of opinions or beliefs", thus making the critical opinion of the game mixed. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, fine. I understand better now. Being a non-native speaker, the whole thing sounds a bit different in my head, too. I'm not really good at it, sometimes. Anyway, I wish to ask you something about Kojima Productions article, a detail came to mind, watching one of the last Kojima's tweets. Lone Internaut (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Lone Internaut: Sorry, I shouldn't just assume everybody has fluent understanding of English here. Anyways, what's this detail? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's ok. 👍
So, by this tweet, the man really looks at KP (since 2015) as a whole new thing. A new identity, in a sense, a real new beginning. It's not the first time, actually.
I think the article being not-separated is starting to be... poor accurate, maybe? I seen by the discussion page the idea to split it came up already in December 2015. The rename was the problem. I was thinking about "Kojima Productions (2005-2015)" and "Kojima Productions (independent studio)" with a disambiguation on the top of both articles. So, I wanted to ask you: if the thing is worth doing, if you like the idea and if 2 users are enough to make it. Lone Internaut (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Lone Internaut: The issue with splitting them is the lack of content that would exist on the new KP (it would only include the Independent reformation section and Death Stranding info for now.) However, such a concept isn't foreign here, as we have two Telltale articles, Telltale Games and Telltale Games (2018–present). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about that but, in a future vision, it would eventually come to include more and more content. Searching more info could also enlarge the article to a more acceptable point. And "(2015)–present" sounds actually pretty good. I think it can be done, but I won't move if you think it's too soon or not doable. Lone Internaut (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Lone Internaut: Maybe, but this will be years from now, if ever. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, then. We'll see. Thank you. Lone Internaut (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to talk about the reverted edit, if that is okay with you.

Were you saying that it is not an okay edit or an edit that should be improved upon? If it was the latter then I fail to see why you didn't add the citations yourself (also I don't know how to add citations and I am sorry that I didn't add them because of that). If it was the former then I will say that I am sorry that I didn't contribute the correct way. I would also like to know how to add citations if that will help the edit stay alive, and I will also read more help pages since my failure to do so led to me messaging you and making everyone think I am stupid, which I am. I would like help, please, if that is fine with you.

Have a good night and day. :) FunnyWick (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• @FunnyWick: Sorry, but to what edit is this in response to? And as for adding citations, at the bare minimum you can simply add it via a ref tag (it should be below the editing box and looks like "ref /ref"), usually other editors who are watching the page will fill it rest of it out. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Changes on Old School RuneScape Page

Hey there!

I saw you reverted back some of the text I added on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_School_RuneScape. I saw you referred to WP:GAMECRUFT. I was wondering if you could enlighten me a bit regarding what it means and why the content I added was not in line for the Wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karsvi (talk • contribs) 08:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Karsvi: Listing all the trivial details about experience points and leveling is considered unencyclopedic (see WP:GAMECRUFT #3 and #5), as you wouldn't see this stuff included in a real, published encyclopedia. Also, never address readers using you and your, as that is also unencyclopedic (see WP:YOU). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 08:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Dissident93, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, JOEBRO64 18:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

• @TheJoebro64: And the same to you :) I know we have our differences in editing style/philosophy at times, but I do appreciate your contributions and hope we can continue to do the same into the 2020s. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding The Game Awards 2019

I wanted to address that it appears that the time it aired appears to stay the 6 days ago thing. It's supposed to be 11 days ago now. How do we fix that? Is there any fixing that? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Zacharyalejandro: Where exactly do you see this? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはDissident93たちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 02:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)