User talk:Martin IIIa

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

Neutral notice[edit]

A Request for Comment has been called at Talk:Watchmen. As a registered editor who has edited that page over the past year, you may wish to comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 6[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Rites of Passage (Roger Hodgson album): Difference between revisions[edit]

Hi. The Allmusic review may have had no text, but did have an editor's rating, which is better than nothing. Forgive me, but is there a policy that Allmusic editor's ratings are not to be listed without a text review? Thanks. Tinman44 (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is. In the first paragraph of the template documentation (see Template:Album ratings), it says 'The template is not to be a substitute for a section in paragraph form, since a review can not be accurately boiled down to a simple rating out of five stars, or a phrase like "unfavorable".' Basically, the album ratings box is supposed to merely summarize info which is stated in more detailed prose, much like the infobox. Hope that helps; it's always flattering when someone asks me a question on Wikipedia.--Martin IIIa (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

re: Jack Sebastian[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Martin IIIa. You have new messages at NukeofEarl's talk page.
Message added 15:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

September 2013[edit]

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Crime of the Century (album). Please use a source to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't know what Dan56 hopes to accomplish by posting accusations to my talk page. Anyone who checks the article history is going to see not only that the accusations are completely false, but also that Dan56 has been edit warring on the article and outright refusing to use the article's talk page.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Can you type up the section in the article you've cited at Sega Genesis about the CDX? The reason I ask is this: The article doesn't mention price drops or the price of either system at the time, so this would be contextually relevant information in the CDX section. As of right now, I believe it causes a little confusion, and it even lost me for a minute. I had not even heard that the Sega CD had ever been at $229; I knew of its launch price and had heard from an unreliable source of a cut to $150 in 1995, but never a $229 price point, and it's not cited in either article, either. I don't doubt that you have the correct information; Allgame backs up the source used as well. Thank you, Red Phoenix let's talk... 14:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

My info on pricing for the Genesis and Sega CD didn't come from the article; it came from retailer price listings elsewhere in the magazine. Sorry, I thought I had made that clear in my original edit summary, and rereading it now I see that I did not. Now, I realize that retailers don't always follow official price points, but there are listings for two different retailers and they both show $229 for the Sega CD, and their prices for the Genesis differ by only $5. In addition, one of them already lists the CDX for sale, and they use the official $399 price point. All that said, I realize that this is not the same as a reliable source stating that the Sega CD's price dropped to $229 in (say) November 1993, and in retrospect I was probably too hasty to change the statement to "(more than the individual Genesis and Sega CD units put together)". Maybe we should just delete the price comparison altogether until we get something rock solid on what the prices of the Genesis and Sega CD were at that point. I don't know if you've noticed, but I've been going through mid-1990s gaming magazines for info, so I'm bound to stumble on an actual news article on the Sega CD price drop at some point.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, there is WP:NOPRICE, but at the same time it appears that this seems to confirm it, and that article is used in the sourcing already, which makes me wonder how the old wording got there in the first place. I would be willing to bet it was less than the launch price of both, but I think having those price points would provide good context for that statement, which has some further backing. Perhaps it's something to keep our eyes peeled for; it would be good support if it can be found. Red Phoenix let's talk... 19:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I found it! The price drop was part of the repackaging with Sewer Shark. I'll add that info to the Sega CD article first, then take a shot at working it in to the Genesis article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Reception additions[edit]

Noticed that you've been mass-adding reception details to video game articles. This kind of work is incredibly valuable to WPVG, and I thought I'd let you know that someone appreciated it. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Filling in that info really is very satisfying, but it's hard work too, so it's great to know that it's appreciated.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
I happened upon your edits whereby you added a ton of reception information. I see that you are slaying some WP:OR and WP:FANCRUFT as a bonus. I see that someone else already noted this above, but I just had to say I'm impressed. And I'm just as impressed at the number of game magazines you apparently have. Where'd you get them? I do that kind of thing but probably not quite that much of it, so I know how in-depth it can be. Good jerb. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 04:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Meant to reply to this earlier... I already contacted you on your talk page, but thanks. Most of the game magazines I actually accessed through scans that folks have uploaded online, though I have my own hard copies of a few issues.--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Shock Wave[edit]

That was a RIDICULOUS merge. Particularly because the space shooter is far more famous than the puzzle. --Stormwatch (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you say, troll.--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The games are completely unrelated, and the shooter is far better known. Stop your nonsense! --Stormwatch (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Maximum Magazine[edit]

Hi Martin IIIa. Sorry about the slow response to your question at WP:VG/RS. I just replied there to say I think it's an RS. Oh and I reiterate what those above have said about adding sourced reception details to articles. Very good work! -Thibbs (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I actually wasn't holding out much hope for a response to that particular question, since it's a relatively obscure magazine and there's no website for people to check out, so any response is much appreciated.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Jurassic Park SNES[edit]

An anonymous user edited the page for Jurassic Park (SNES video game) [[1]] on February 5 and added the following to the reception area: The game is critisied for not having any save features. I was wondering if this is actually supported by the reference you provided on October 10, 2014. Thank you. 2602:306:80E5:6970:4560:FD3C:3E41:6E82 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly. One of their four reviewers says "It also needs a password feature or something." My practice is to disregard any opinions voiced by only one of EGM's reviewers, since unless we transcribe everything in gaming reviews (which would make the Reception section very bloated), that would be giving that opinion undue weight. Also, the edit's use of WP:Weasel words ("The game is criticized for") suggests to me that the editor wasn't actually trying to attribute that criticism to EGM; they just didn't realize they were putting their edit in front of a footnote. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

re: GamePro 1.0 review[edit]

I don't have that magazine any more, so I can't verify. I would imagine it meant Panic! one of only 12 games to get a 1.0 or lower in any category, but I don't know for sure. Feel free to change it --Surachit (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Shock Wave + Assault[edit]

I must insist, that's an absurd merge. Shock Wave Assault is just the expanded version of Shock Wave. Your move is like merging Street Fighter II into the page for Street Fighter II Turbo. Which is the opposite of what any reasonable person would do. --Stormwatch (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

You seem to lack knowledge of the guidelines which Wikipedia uses to determine which title an article appears at. Which title goes with the expanded version has nothing to do with the matter. In any case, the consensus was to move the article to Shockwave Assault.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
A total absence of replies does not make a "consensus". More likely no one even saw your demented proposal before you made the illogical move. --Stormwatch (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Not likely at all, given that I posted the appropriate tags on both pages and requested input from WikiProject Video Games.--Martin IIIa (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I was forced to report you again. Cease your tomfoolery! --Stormwatch (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Why can't you understand that you are doing the opposite of the logical move?! --Stormwatch (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

A barnstar for you![edit]

Citation Barnstar Hires.png The Citation Barnstar
Long overdue—thank you for your diligent addition of otherwise hard-to-find print sources for video games. I hope you know that you're doing excellent work, but here's a reminder anyway. – czar 06:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

SNK characters[edit]

Hello. I was wondering if in the reviews you have from Neo Geo there are comments about certain characters from Fatal Fury, Art of Fighting or The King of Fighters (For example, "This boss is too overpowered or this one is good to control"). It would really helpful to expand their reception. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply; I've been on a short Wikibreak. Unfortunately the reviews I've seen tend not to comment on specific characters much, but I do recall there being considerable commentary on Blue Mary and Bob Wilson when they were introduced. And of course Mai S. gets frequent mention. I'll have a quick look and see what I can dig up.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
No problem. Also, good work with Blue Mary.Tintor2 (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The kitten of DILIGENCE[edit]

Iris cat.jpg

Here is yet another award for those dang beautiful classic print citations. Every time I see your username on an edit summary, I get all excited -- but I quell it! Because I think "hey, this guy can't nail it every time....can he? Give the guy a break, OKAY?!!"

NOPE. CHUCK TESTA. Success kid. Nailed it.

It's usually a simple but well written statement like a sentence, but that citation is RS (rock solid) and perfectly formatted. Future generations can take that ball and run with it. Martin does it again.

Please let me know if I can help.

And please feed and care for and raise this virtual baby feline for all its days for some reason.

Smuckola(talk) 03:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


Heart of Darkness Reviews[edit]

You cut something on the page and said there needs to be a source for reviews. What kind of reviews will do? I have a list of pretty much every review the game has ever gotten but am still very new to how wikipedia works in regards to proper sources and relevant information. I assumed that showing the game ranking percentages at the 70-80 range would justify the term "mixed to positive" but would citing some other reviews like the IGN one for the Playstation version and the Just Adventure one for the PC version be better? Also, as I have taken interest on this page, is there anything else that could be improved on it that I could do? Luxguin (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources is a very good guide to determining notable/reliable review sources for video game articles. The section "Reliable sources" is especially helpful, as it contains a list of all the sources that the editors of WikiProject Video Games have determined by consensus to be reliable. Like the page says, "This list is neither complete nor can it be used as definitive proof regarding a listed source's reliability determination, but it provides a good rough guide on which to base the scrutiny of sources for reliability." And long-running printed review publications like GamePro can generally be assumed to be reliable.
There are a couple problems with making generalized statements based solely on score aggregates. One is that an aggregate is merely an average of scores, not a summary of the corresponding reviews. Reviews are often at odds with their accompanying scores, and averages don't give a breakdown; a game which received 5/10 from four publications and 9/10 from four publications would get the same aggregate score as a game which received 7/10 from eight publications. Also, aggregates assume that one publication's 6/10 is the same as another publication's 6/10, a third publication's 3 out of 5 stars, and a fourth's 60%, which is rarely the case. The second problem is that it's redundant; letting the aggregate score speak for itself and allowing the reader decide whether it means positive reviews or not is both more concise and more neutral than telling the reader what they should think of the aggregate score.
Adding info on the IGN and Just Adventure reviews would definitely improve the article, yes. Pilotwings 64, which has a Good Article rating, makes a nice guideline for what the "Reception" section for a video game article should look like. Info on Heart of Darkness's sales is much needed, too.
At a glance, the one other thing about the article that strikes me as needing improvement is that the plot summary could use trimming. It's recommended that video game plot summaries run no longer than 700 words, while the current plot summary for Heart of Darkness is nearly 900 words.
Also, though I know I've said a fair amount here, don't look to just me for advice. Try posting at places like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games.--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you for your help. I have been meaning to make altercations to the plot summary on the page by condensing it more. I do own multiple magazines and have access to archived website reviewers that I can source for reviews. You mention Gamepro which had a feature in a 98 edition of the magazine. There's not much information on the game's sales except what can be infered. For instance, in the UK it got a platinum release which means it sold more than a million copies. There was also an interview where one developer was asked if it sold poorly and he pretty much said "no because look at all the money we got." I haven't found anywhere that lists the actual statistics for how many copies sold. I can understand what you mean about the score summary thing now. It's added percentages, they can be added up from a variety of different ways. I'll definitely be looking into this further. Thank you for your help.Luxguin (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit summary[edit]

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing an article on Wikipedia, you will see a small field labeled "Edit summary" shown under the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

 

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! ...especially when removing over 500 bytes (as you did on The Incredible Hulk (1982 TV series)). --Musdan77 (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Most of the bytes I removed from the article were either unsourced and obviously trivial minutia or needless repetition of the same information. I used to put edit summaries on everything I did, but five years of Wikipedia editing taught me that putting edit summaries on edits whose purpose is self-evident tends to attract trolls, can needlessly inflame edit conflicts, and at best is a waste of time.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
How is it "self-evident"? When I look at my watchlist, two of the first things I look at are in red ("red flags"): red usernames and bold red numbers. Then if there's no edit summary, that's even more of a reason to look at to the diff. But, if you gave a reason (or reasons) for the edit, I wouldn't have had to click to see it. So, it's a waste of others time not to use one. As far as I see, providing an ES is much more helpful than it could be harmful. But, thanks for your response anyway. Oh, by the way, most editors no longer use the "talkback" (because that's a waste of time). Instead, we now use the [[User:|]] template in the reply, so we can go directly to the post. —Musdan77 (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Reading edit summaries and byte counts is not a substitute for checking the diff. Editors commonly try to hide controversial and/or nonconstructive edits by flat-out lying in the edit summaries. Even editors acting in good faith typically do not give comprehensive descriptions of their edits in the edit summary, especially not when performing a complete overhaul of an article. And the byte count is no indication of an edit's quality at all; replacing 10,000 bytes of fancruft and POV ranting with sourced material gives a byte count of about -9,000, while inserting the words "screw you" gives a byte count of +9.
I don't see how the user link template can possibly be used as a substitute for the talkback template, and upon looking in your user talk edits to see what exactly you were doing, I found that you yourself used the talkback template just a little over two weeks ago.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Martin, why do you think that the number of bytes over 500 are in bold? It's because it's a "red flag", and so it can be seen easily. An editor who may not have that many articles on their watchlist could check every change made, but a busy editor, like me, who has hundreds on his watchlist in a 24-hour period doesn't possibly have the time to do that, so I have to be selective. And I assume (good faith) that an editor who has been around for awhile and gives an ES, made an adequate edit. Please see WP:FIES, which says in part: "Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether it is worthwhile for them to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it. When a major edit (e.g. deletion of a substantial amount of text, a significant addition, or a substantial rewrite) doesn't have an edit summary, there are fewer reasons to assume good faith and busy editors may be more inclined to revert the change without checking it in detail." Also, major changes (say, over 2,000 bytes) really should usually be discussed on the article's talk page before making the changes.
The "user link template" is very helpful for the person you're replying to. They get a notification at the top of the page (the bell), they click on it and it takes them straight to the post. With the "talkback", the person has to go to their talk page and then to the reply. The only time I use TB now is when replying to an unregistered IP, because I don't think they get a notification (though I could be wrong about that), and I want to make sure they know that I replied. —Musdan77 (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
That Wikipedia "red flags" edits based solely on their net byte count doesn't mean that net byte count is a good indicator of an edit's quality (re-read my last post). If you don't have time to properly monitor your watchlist, I recommend not monitoring it at all. I stopped regularly monitoring my watchlist years ago, and ever since I've been a much more productive and far less stressed out editor. I can always review all the edits since my last visit whenever I go to an article (using the "cur" link). Among other benefits, this ensures I don't become a revert monster who looks with suspicion on every edit to an article while not making any constructive edits to it myself. Indeed, your claim that major edits must be discussed on the talk page first strongly suggests that you're suffering this same ailment. Discussion is for edits that are controversial, not for every edit that makes a significant change. You need to read about the WP: BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.
Do you have any proof that the user link template does what you think it does? The feature you're talking about is not mentioned in the template documentation, and I have never received a reply notification for anything that wasn't posted on my own talk page. I suspect you're simply trying to have some fun at my expense, but just in case, I'll throw the template up here: Musdan77 Now at least you'll know if the template does what you say it does.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what I can say that I haven't already. But to respond, I don't really get stressed out much, except maybe when an editor doesn't follow basic WP editing guidelines and then makes lame excuses why he doesn't.[sarcasm] Anyway, I did not say that major edits must be discussed. BRD (which isn't actually a WP guideline) is good most of the time, but an article talk page is not just to discuss changes that have already been made. An edit as big as -4,000 is in itself questionable, and the bigger the change, most likely the more explanation it needs, and the ES may not be enough space to explain it all, so it's a good idea to explain it fully on the talk page -- especially if you think it might be reverted (even just a part of it). And you seriously think that an editor that's much more experienced than you wouldn't have read WP:BRD? Please don't insult me like that.
Of course it works! I wouldn't have said so much about it if I didn't know if it works. Now if you want proof, I'll give a message to you on my talk page. See you there. —Musdan77 (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
If you insist on acknowledging only WP guidelines, try Wikipedia:Be bold. I referenced BRD only because it's a more detailed explanation of the fact that editing without discussing first works, and is much more efficient than making talk page posts that no one is likely to respond to in order to get permission for edits that wouldn't have been challenged anyway. I did not think my edit to the article might be reverted; I don't know where you got that idea. Boasting that you are "much more experienced than you" just comes off as silly, especially after you've spent much of this discussion touting the same ideas I had nearly ten years ago, before I learned how Wikipedia works.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────"I did not think my edit to the article might be reverted." I didn't say you did. I put an emphasis on "might" - in an incidental added comment. Ten years? I guess you're talking about that you edited years before you registered. You might want to say that on your user page. And in case you don't know, I replied on my talk page.

Musdan77, I'm not concerned with anyone knowing how long I've been editing. As heavily implied in my previous post, seniority gives no additional credibility on Wikipedia (and in general, seniority is meaningless unless you've learned from your experiences). Anyway, it's apparent by now that you're not giving due consideration to anything I'm saying, and I've spent an undue amount of time on this as it is. To resist my compulsive habit of replying to everything, I will leave any further posts on this thread unread.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, first of all, thanks for "pinging". And as for the rest, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I won't admonish you anymore. :) —Musdan77 (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Martin IIIa. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Review length and notability[edit]

All reviews, regardless of length, provide the same amount of sourced content: "[notable magazine] said [opinion] about [article subject]." Reviews in Maximum aren't three times as notable as reviews in Electronic Gaming Monthly just because they're three times as long.
— Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wing Nuts: Battle in the Sky

Moving this here since the AfD closed. This statement isn't true—reviews are also used to source the Gameplay section, as they are more pertinent than previews. If a game only has a few sentences in a single reviewer, there isn't enough to cover the Gameplay section in adequate depth. Also might be confusing notability and noteworthiness here. We talk about notability as whether a game has had significant coverage in enough sources such that we can write a complete article on the topic. Noteworthiness is the extent to which a source or a fact merits inclusion in an article. It might be that we only need a single idea from a reviewer in the Reception section prose (though I'd say this is rarely the case—it makes for bad writing), but having an in-depth review indicates that (1) the topic itself was notable enough to be covered in-depth by multiple sources, and (2) the points they chose to cover are noteworthy enough for inclusion in the article. So a review with three times the length gives us three times the noteworthy information about the topic. Without in-depth reviews, we end up going back to instruction manuals and unsourced sections for basic info on gameplay. By the same token, cursory three-sentence summaries of books in trade journals do not constitute "reviews" when we look at a book's notability, mainly because it indicates little distinction for the book and because it doesn't bring us any closer to writing a detailed article (unless there are many other sources that provide what it lacks). czar 17:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I've found that 1990s game reviews rarely provide information useful to the Gameplay section, regardless of how long they are. The idea that one must explain how to play a game before giving an opinion on it is a relatively new one. This is why I usually only edit the Reception section when adding a review source to an article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I've found the opposite—really depends on the magazine. For instance, even the main British mags covering the ZX Spectrum in the mid-80s would tell readers "what you could do" in half- and full-page game reviews, outlining the core gameplay and notable features. But something like Nintendo Power didn't settle into reviews for a while and when they did, especially in the 90s, they were short both in length and in criticism. At the same time, EGM would give much more pointed criticism from differing reviewer perspective and GameFan would have length similar to the British mags. However even when the American mags had short reviews, they also had lengthy preview sections as well as features on a new game's first few levels, going over the mechanics the same way the British mags did but with lots of photos and gloss. I don't put great stock in game reviewer opinions of the 80s/90s, or hell, even of today, but they do serve as noteworthy opinions and through their editorial process these magazines vet for us the information we should want to include in an article. Their coverage both inside and outside their sole "reviews" sections and its depth is how we determine whether we can source a full treatment of the topic for a WP article. I find that if a game only has several paragraph-length reviews, regardless of the decade, there is rarely hope that we can write a full article, and the contents are best off merged to the parent topic, where we can write something of appropriate weight—a few sentences. czar 15:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
At the risk of putting my foot in it, I have to ask why you're devoting so much interest to discussing a purely academic point on a personal talk page. Even if the AfD weren't already closed, you're talking "several paragraph-length reviews" when I was only able to dig up one. Any case for "keep" is tremendously weak if you have only one notable/reliable source, regardless of length. And it's hardly likely that this issue is going to come up again in the near future; I can't imagine that there even exists a game which got several paragraph-length reviews but no other significant coverage whatsoever. You must know that I am already well-aware of the need for sourcing in articles and the usefulness of game reviewers as sources, and I'm not vain enough to think you're compelled by my wiki-arguing abilities. This is just rather a baffling conversation to me.--Martin IIIa (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't imagine that there even exists a game which got several paragraph-length reviews but no other significant coverage whatsoever.

Happens all the time... As for the rest, we cross paths and I see AfDs like this often enough that I thought it was worth taking the time to get on the same page. If you were uninterested, you only had to say so. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 04:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I had only to ignore you, but you caught my curiosity. I'll take your word for it on the "AfDs like this" though that certainly doesn't match up with any of the AfDs I've ever seen, but as for us crossing paths, I'm wondering if you have me confused with someone else. Apart from the Wing Nuts AfD, I can only think of two instances where you and I have interacted, and neither of them fall within the past few weeks.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Championship_Rally_(Atari_Lynx) page[edit]

"The contesting editor subsequently added to the article's list of external links, but apart from the IGN review none of them seem to indicate notability"

There are other sites but where's threshold when it becomes notable? Information on this was also published in multiple magazines in 2000 (I believe EGM as well). Also if you search in Google for 'championship rally Atari lynx' then the top hit is the now defunct deleted Wikipedia article. After that you get at least 50+ articles. Last it's sold by Telegames.co.uk which isn't a homebrew company.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LucienK (talkcontribs) 01:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC) 
There's no specific threshold for notability; a lot of factors come into it like the significance of the subject to the cited article. However, you pretty much need mentions in at least three notable/reliable sources to be even considered as possibly meeting notability standards, and I have not been able to find that for Championship Rally. I've used search engines and turned up pretty much nothing apart from fansites and listings at sites which cover every video game ever released (e.g. GameFAQs, Mobygames, etc.). Which vendors sell the subject is not relevant to notability.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Very few games released in 2000 had a lot of online coverage obviously. Reviews for this game were published in magazines like EGM. I don't know if there are online scanned resources but regardless if you go through the list of Atari Lynx games, pretty much all will fail your criteria. And note that Songbird acquired legally several unpublished Atari Lynx games source code.

I'm not clear what makes a site trustworthy. I think videogamecritics, Atarigames.com, and several other reviews you find in google.com results (they are not all fan sites or just game databases), are just as trustworthy than a bigger site like ign.com. I hope that's not the criteria to give preferential treatment based on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucienK (talkcontribs) 00:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm well aware that coverage for games released in 2000 and earlier is mostly in print form; most of my editing on Wikipedia for the past year or so has been citing print coverage of 1990s games. However, with about 99% of notable games, you can easily find at least an indication that printed coverage exists. For example, Mobygames lists eight reviews for ElectroCop, a Lynx game released in 1989, when online gaming publications were nonexistent and even printed publications were few and far between. Mobygames lists zero reviews for Championship Rally.
I said "notable/reliable", not trustworthy. (Though as a former frequent reader of videogamecritic, I can tell you the site is neither notable/reliable nor trustworthy.) WP:Identifying reliable sources is a good guide to what makes a notable/reliable source. A key part is the need for editorial oversight, which is why videogamecritic is not considered a reliable source. Videogamecritic is the work of a single individual, with no one to check his facts. The problem with Atari Age is that it's a simple database entry on a site which catalogs every game ever released for an Atari platform, so it establishes nothing beyond the fact that Championship Rally exists. The same basic problem applies to The Atari Times, though it of course has more in-depth content than Atari Age.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

1989 was all magazine resources which is a different time than 2000 in middle of the transition. This applies to many games in that era. I might be able to dig up the magazines, but the bigger picture seems Wikipedia want's now no individual game pages unless they reach a certain quota of selected types of coverage. In this case it's 5 online reviews (gamefaq/ataritimes/atarihq/ign/videogamecritics) and apparently only 1 reaches that bar. I'm not familiar with Mobygames but I checked and I found it here but seems it's missing in their master list: http://www.mobygames.com/game/lynx/championship-rally_. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucienK (talkcontribs) 15:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Heimdall 2 proposed deletion[edit]

I removed you prod, note this page was nominated for proposed deletion before (there is old prod full template on the talkpage). I added reference to review in Amiga Format to establish notability. AMR shows dozens of reviews for the Amiga version alone, but feel free to start AfD... Pavlor (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

No, the article was never proposed for deletion before; the old prod full template was added by me. Thanks for adding the reference. I may take the article to AfD some time down the line but for now I'll give the benefit of the doubt that it can be improved.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Not so common use for old prod full template. As of AfD, well this would be entertaining... If you intend to improve that article, you may use reviews and previews available on the Amiga Magazine Rack (mostly scanned from magazines). Pavlor (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

thanks[edit]

for your comments at ivor cutler category deletion - I discovered the main library that is in the city I live in has none of his books! It is going to take a bit longer to create articles about his written works - thought - when I was creating the cat I had the delusion that I'd be able to access some of the oevre, not to be... JarrahTree 10:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For regularly applying {{Old prod full}} to the talk pages of articles you PROD, something which nowhere near enough editors do (myself included). It's a huge help as an admin in the event the article is de-prodded. Ks0stm (TCGE) 02:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Osu!! Karate Bu[edit]

Just wondering, why do you want to delete Osu!! Karate Bu? I don't understand your pattern, I saw that you "retouched" an article few days ago about a totally obscure game (note that the page has no info at all) without "proposing for deletion", however you did that for this article. You should be really careful while making these "irresponsible" proposals. I would suggest a redirect, instead of delete. You don't own Wikipedia, so stop "deleting" articles. --89.180.151.225 (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Um, actually, proposing articles for deletion is a prescribed Wikipedia practice. See WP: Proposed deletion.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Block.[edit]

"Indefinitely blocked for Wikipedia." - sorry but that's just childish... Go ahead and make the block requests you want, I will support you and the so-called administrators. The IPs are irrelevant... just like you (as a user). Bye. --89.180.144.183 (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but it'll take more than one last nonsense post on my talk page to justify wasting administrators' time on you.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Imagineer/Sunsoft[edit]

I'm having mixed feelings about you and one of my pet articles, Quest RPG - you AfD nom'ed the JP publisher Imagineer (Japanese company), but then argue to keep the NA publisher Sunsoft. ;)  · Salvidrim! ·  16:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand the point of your post. Surely you aren't saying that voting to delete one company's article and keep another company's article is contradictory if the two happen to have any overlap in the games they publish?--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure there was a point to my post! I just noticed this amusing coincidence and thought I'd share. :)  · Salvidrim! ·  18:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, okay then. :) --Martin IIIa (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Awwww, you guys are just too sweet. :) --Justice League Master (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Deprodding of Cosmo Gang the Puzzle[edit]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Cosmo Gang the Puzzle, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! (Note that I was not the one that removed the PROD, the IP 93.168.124.101 did). Thanks, DoABarrelRoll.dev(Constable of the WikiPolice)(Chat!) 18:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Edge magazine issue #209[edit]

Hey there! I wondered if you, by chance, had a print or digital (online?) copy of the Edge magazine issue #209 (from Q4 2009) lying around. According to an old copy of the MachineGames website, they had a two-page coverage over there, and I would like to use it to expand the article. Cheers! Lordtobi () 16:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lordtobi: - I'm afraid not. Sorry.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Bummer, but thanks for trying! Lordtobi () 20:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

NWC 1990 and 64DD[edit]

Hey there brother. I hope you notice me combing through article edit histories just to click 'thanks' on your excellent citations. I was wondering if you've ever seen any RS coverage of the Nintendo World Championships from 1990. I want something that defines that event as a groundbreaking phenomenon in video gaming, for what we now call esports, and for Nintendo. You see how I went to the lengths of cobbling together a Reception section, to show what people thought of the event itself as well as the players. What do you think? Should I post a request on WP:VGRS? I have another question that's probably best suited for a Japanese dead-tree historian; I wanna know the morbid history of the 64DD development. I want to know the exact internal reason for all the delays, and I want to know whether there was another manufacturer for the prototypes predating the contract and press release with Alps. Thanks man. — Smuckola(talk) 22:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

You know, it's odd. It never occurred to me until you brought it up, but I don't think I've ever come across a mention of the Nintendo World Championships in my researches. I don't have any magazines dating to before 1993, but you'd think I'd have seen some historical mention of it by now. All I can say is I'll keep an eye out. Nice work on that article so far, though. I've become interested in the 64DD delays, too. I'm working my way through my magazine collection in chronological order, and right now I'm in mid-1996, so I've been running into more and more 64DD content. With any luck I'll run into what we're looking for before too long.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Martin IIIa: Wow I really wish I had those magazines, or even just a photo of a relevant article. I know some of them are on archive.org or whatever, and others are available from various other archival sites but they're image downloads and not OCR-text-searchable. Anyway, I'd like to read a variety of feedback about 64DD. It would be good to know various key perceptions.
For example, last night I found and cited a Popular Science article about the 1995 Shoshinkai introduction of 64DD, that says that Nintendo hadn't released almost any technical specs such as storage capacity. So that's a tiny little nothing of a factoid on its own, but that's how it comes; they all trickle and then add up. Also last night, I found and haven't yet cited a comprehensive analysis of 1995 Ultra 64 previews, where people are underwhelmed by the disparity between Nintendo's early promises versus its actual demonstrations. So that's another example of how the rosy hindsight of historical victory overshadows the years and years of subtle facts, back when it wasn't a sure thing.
And then it's the opposite for the 64DD, where the optimism was staggering even as of 1996 and only started being questioned in 1997 but still it was the core focus of all of Nintendo's efforts--and then it was wiped off the earth upon launch. You wanna talk about delays, dude I want to know the details about how it created such a snarl that Nintendo *canceled* Shoshinkai 1998!!!!! All I know is IGN's summary statement of that fact, but few of the particles of the nuclear fallout cloud. Also about delays, I'm trying to learn how to make a vertical graph of the timeline, accentuating the delays. I've only been able to create a very loose annual outline of a 64DD timeline, man. Because I operate off of google. As a commercial failure, 64DD is too obscure to be in any books I've ever found. People don't care to track failures in such a cruelly strictly hit-driven industry.
It's not like Apple lore where there's a whole chapter dedicated just to codenames, and multiple chapters of multiple books dedicated to deathmarch projects, and multiple books published about the very worst deathmarches lol. Magazines are where it's at, for the ongoing dialog of current events. For computer stuff, Google Books is so sweet with InfoWorld, ComputerWorld, and Byte. By the way, I recently launch a massive campaign about dead computing platforms of the 90s, including Copland, Workplace OS, PowerPC, and Taligent. I already published a lot and still I have piles of notes and drafts and I've ordered more books.
So maybe you notice that last night I went berzerk and redid 64DD development and Nintendo 64 development, and synchronized everything into Nintendo Space World. The diffs are trashed lol so it's hard to follow. I finally began my plan I've had for three years, of introducing Reality Immersion Technology and Dream Team. I'd like to know some reception about the Dream Team, because those companies were a bunch of unknowns and noobs and not-obvious choices. And like the rest of the stupid industry that thought they wanted stupid cdroms for mass quantity at all costs, people questioned Nintendo for selecting only a few developers to nurture properly for quality.
I've already made the overwhelming case of why the cartridge was the painfully obviously necessary choice over CDROM, and the super floppy disk is the ingenious complement (as per traditional Nintendo storage strategy) as seen in 64DD and Nintendo 64 Game Pak. I've already quoted multiple bits of the awesome reception the Nintendo 64 got upon launch, who state why cartridges are not just a technology but a culture of quality over quantity. I'm going to nuke the abominations that are Nintendo_64#Game_Paks and Nintendo 64 programming characteristics, and probably rename or merge the latter to something not-stupid.
Okay so that's a snapshot of my overview. I never really told anybody; I've just been occasionally bursting out in this mostly thankless and solitary medium. Thank you so much for everything. :) Whatcha doin? :) — Smuckola(talk) 20:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
BTW, why are we doing this? We're building a Wikipedia time machine. We're making a clear overview of RSes for other people to make something else. We're probably inspiring the collector market. I've already seen one example where a YouTube producer made yet another Satellaview history video, but I recognized some unique facts among all Satellaview history videos and I made a comment and he said that yes he did source Wikipedia on some articles I'd worked a little bit on, into which I'd researched and cited some key facts. Interest in 64DD has spiked with the dumping and the American discovery, and it is ready to blow up a bit more, when someone starts making videos and streams of real tutorials about the games that have been recently dumped and translated to English. So that's one reason. :) I'm trying to heal the wounds of all the endless giant broken promises of the most optimistic outlook of the technology revolution of the 80s and 90s. All the millionaire developers moved on but we didn't! Maybe we can keep pushing people to bring it back, and deliver on their promises. — Smuckola(talk) 20:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't find it so surprising that people were optimistic about the 64DD in 1996/97. Late '96 was its original launch date, and delays of a year happen. The M2 also was delayed from 1996 to 1997, and would have made its new date if Panasonic hadn't decided to pull the plug entirely at the last minute. The N64 itself got pushed back over a year. The Neo Geo CD, bizarrely, came out on time in Japan and Europe but got delayed a whole year in North America. What I find it amazing is that Nintendo wasn't able to get it out earlier than they did, after all that prep, and given that it was just an add-on drive rather than a standalone console.
Yes, I certainly did notice your edits to 64DD and Nintendo 64. I didn't take the time to try and work out exactly what you changed, but the end product certainly looks good.
I don't understand what you mean by "I've already made the overwhelming case of why the cartridge was the painfully obviously necessary choice over CDROM, and the super floppy disk is the ingenious complement". It sounds awfully POV, but I know that's not the way you edit, and it's definitely not what I'm seeing at 64DD or Nintendo 64 Game Pak.
Right now I'm working on going through the last few pages of the September 1996 issue of Next Generation (which is the reviews section). I have the October and November issues as well, and expect to find some 64DD info in at least one of those.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
@Martin IIIa: Yeah that was the actual POV of a huge segment of the actual industry that I quoted and cited in those articles. :D Thanks so much for verifying that the prose doesn't sound like it's my POV. ;) I was just trying to tell the complete truth for once, past the cliched tropes of pop culture history. It's been extremely hard to find any specific account saying that industry members were so incredibly glad for the supposedly obvious necessity of the CD-ROM, except for Final Fantasy which I did also expand a bit, and even they are clearly stating that they were reluctantly forced onto the medium. When I originally got to them years ago, Nintendo 64, Nintendo 64 Game Pak, and especially the clunkily named Nintendo 64 programming characteristics were all of an overtly negative bias *against* the entire subject lol, when it comes to the storage and chip design strategies. Also E. T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600) for that matter lol. The way they were written, you'd think the Nintendo 64 was a commercial failure or was widely decried as being a technological failure of needless complexity that wasn't worth understanding, like the Atari Jaguar and Sega Saturn. And you'd think Nintendo was just the most incompetently and pathetically monopolistic company in the world. — Smuckola(talk) 22:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
All that recent work I did on Nintendo 64 and 64DD, which was then transplanted into Nintendo Space World and Rumble Pak, was about 10 hours solid until I couldn't see straight anymore lol. Here's us citation superfreaks while we're doing our thing: [2]Smuckola(talk) 06:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@Smuckola: I've seen quite a few mentions of developer dissatisfaction with the cartridge format. Granted, they're mostly individual cases, like a developer interview where the interviewer asked about the platforms they're making games for, and the answer includes something along the lines of "We're not making anything for the Nintendo 64 because cartridges are too costly, too risky, and/or don't have enough space for the games we're working on", but they're out there.
I keep meaning to mention, some time ago I read an interview with Trip Hawkins in which he accuses the Nintendo 64 / 64DD model of being "a Trojan horse". His theory was, Nintendo was only using the cartridge format because cartridge-based consoles are cheaper to manufacture, meaning they could more easily undercut the competition. Then, after the Nintendo 64 had been on the market just a few months, Nintendo would bring out the 64DD and from then on virtually all 64 software, both 1st party and 3rd party, would be for the 64DD. Thus, Nintendo would ultimately be charging more for their console than their competitors, while making it look to consumers like they were charging less. I didn't add this to any article because Hawkins, as the head of Nintendo's then-competitor the 3DO Company, is obviously biased, but his theory does fit with the known facts at the time (Nintendo was planning on launching the 64DD just a few months after the base system, Miyamoto and others were saying that Nintendo's software strategy revolves around the 64DD, and third party developers were reluctant to undertake the cost and risk of making cartridge games), so I'm wondering how many people believed it. If there were a lot who did, that might have even been a contributing factor to delaying the 64DD. Unlikely, but it's a thought.
Incidentally, does pinging work for you? It's never worked for me, or for a few others I've talked to.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@Martin IIIa: Hey buddy yeah pinging has always worked fine for me. This is the first I've heard of it not working.
Yeah there was some kind of talk about Nintendo supposedly using overbearing practices by controlling the entire supply chain of the medium, which is only possible with a proprietary medium like cartridges. I don't have any evidence of that, but I do have Howard Lincoln's rebuttal of it. And beside that, it's an indisputable objective fact that their game design and price point objectives were only possible with cartridges whereas CD-ROM was garbage. And I've cited quotes in 1993 and 1994 in 64DD and probably Nintendo 64 Game Pak where they were officially *expecting* to eventually use optical discs pending the arrival of specific characteristics of CD-ROM (cheaper drives and 8x speed), as they did in the following generation right on schedule.
There's a lot of bad blood and resentment of the top dog. People have described Apple as a monopoly ... just over their own products! Just because they only allow the App Store for iOS and iOS can only use the App Store! Just like every other vendor naturally must. It's a feature, not a bug. It's sour grapes nonsense.
So maybe Nintendo coincidentally occasionally leaned upon the business characteristics of cartridges in an abusive way, but that's not the point. And maybe life was sometimes hard for some people because of cartridges, but that's called a tradeoff. CD-ROM was still hard for some. "Howard Lincoln said, "[Genyo Takeda, the Nintendo engineer working with Silicon Graphics to design Project Reality] and those guys felt very strongly that it was absolutely essential to have it on a cartridge in order to do the kind of things that we wanted to do with Super Mario."" And then you see how Nintendo moved Zelda 64 from disk to cartridge because Link couldn't even move fast enough even in the middle of the development period. Still, if we had some kind of very strong and very unlikely evidence or even a notable pattern of reasonable belief, that might be worth citing. If a lot of highly notable people said the same thing for the same obvious reason like "I won't use cartridges because X" then we can cite a number of individual cases, but we already cite general magazines making general statements like "lots of developers won't use cartridge because X".
I did read that Nintendo was capable of just selectively providing one type of cartridge to one developer while hurtfully withholding it from another, as in the case of Enix when they left Nintendo in favor of Sony PlayStation. They weren't given enough space and another company was, with a new type of cartridge. But we don't know exactly *why* Nintendo did that. We don't know if it was a callous or hurtful intent, or whether it was a shortage or what. We have no statement from Nintendo about that and it's not an obvious situation. I think we probably do have various details, like the prices and the spurious availability, and the fact that Nintendo mandated a high volume minimum order. There was one article somewhere talking about how Nintendo *always* required a client to drastically overbuy cartridge quantities, all or nothing, which was very risky for any smaller company. I never heard of anybody going out of business from it, which I would want to cite. I've found several sources on the prices of cartridges versus CD-ROMs, but they vary wildly and they don't name *their* sources. They just say something like "cartridges cost $20 each and CDs cost $2 each". I don't know how they know these things, or at what quantities, or whatever. I don't So I only cited it to show "whatever, dude, cartridges cost a lot more time and money than CD-ROM and stuff".
I think Nintendo was dependent upon 64DD because it was absolutely the right thing to do, as stated in the 64Dream interviews in 64DD. Miyamoto cannot tell a lie! :D But yeah the hardware was absolutely that unique, a truly disruptive technology even more than the controller and Rumble Pak, which became totally standard on all platforms thenceforth. Maybe there's some optimism bias at most after 1997 but still they had to totally replicate and transplant the 64DD's core features like RTC and rewritable storage onto some cartridges. If Trip Hawkins thinks the entire 64DD platform was a Trojan Horse, then that's just daft. That's cheap paranoia lol. And it's coming from a guy whose garbage product and business model were practically trolling the entire industry, with no hope for success. Nintendo's reputation and business plans dipped hard because of 64DD, and the device was fully optional for most games. I would want to cite him as a notable counterpoint, but that's just such a stupid idea. — Smuckola(talk) 20:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
"I'd pay two hundred bucks for a nice pepperoni cheesecake right now." -- Luigi, on Super Mario Super Show (seen on youtube) — Smuckola(talk) 22:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Google apparently doesn't yield anything about "trip hawkins 64DD" :) Okay so yeah I do wish there was a mass market of cloned consoles like 3DO or Pippin, but not with hardware that sucks that bad, and the CD-ROM drive is such a gimmicky albatross around its neck, yuck. At least it has a big slow expensive drive to play its soundtrack from because it can't spare any processing power to render it. :/ I guess that niche is filled now by Android-powered system-on-a-chips like Amazon Fire TV Stick and Raspberry Pi lol. — Smuckola(talk) 08:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@Smuckola: The CD-ROM drives on both the 3DO and the Pippin are actually fine; the 3DO drive is a double-speed and the Bandai Pippin is actually 4x speed. It was the Neo Geo CD which had the lousy drive. (And the Sega CD, too, but in fairness at the time the Sega CD was introduced a single-speed drive was still respectable.) I wouldn't call it "expensive", either, because the Panasonic and Goldstar 3DOs were both down to $199 by the end of 1995, so essentially it had price parity with the N64.
It's not surprising that you haven't heard about anyone going out of business from Nintendo's cartridge practices, when you think about it. If a company went under because Nintendo made them buy more cartridges than they could sell, then the immediate cause of the company going out of business would still be that their game didn't sell well enough, and that's probably what the media would report as the cause. And if a company went under because they couldn't afford to buy lots of cartridges from Nintendo and instead put their game out on a console with a smaller installed base, then the connection would have been even less direct.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@Martin IIIa: Yeah but. They're only "fine" for the standards of those faux-3D systems with their junk games. :) They were at $199, where the CD drive is still about half of the cost, with almost nothing left for actual performance. Nintendo and Factor 5 said they'd need at least 8x to even start talking about Nintendo 64 performance, but CD drives wouldn't be at that level until about 1998. And is still a different set of performance tradeoffs versus the cartridge. You couldn't do your random-access streaming of assets from CD-ROM to RAM like Factor 5 did with a cartridge, because RAM size is still always the main limit. BTW I just tweaked back your recent contributions, which were not tidbids lol. I avoid parentheses everywhere possible though. And I recently expanded the development of Super Mario Bros. and the development philosophy of Shigeru Miyamoto with a really good source. Oh man we'd be in the dark ages without IGN. See also the awesome photo I shot at Crystal Pepsi lol. — Smuckola(talk) 02:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
@Smuckola: "Junk games"? Sez you. :) The 3DO's performance is great. The launch game, Crash 'n' Burn, is polygonal and not only looks better than anything else on consoles at the time, but better than anything that ever appeared on the 3DO's three contemporaries: the Jaguar, 32X, and Amiga CD32. Slayer, The Need for Speed, and Samurai Shodown are some other good demonstrations of what the 3DO could do. Obviously it doesn't hold up to later consoles of the generation, but that's true of all such mid-generation consoles; even the much-vaunted Dreamcast library looks undeniably second-rate compared to what the PS2, GameCube, and Xbox could do.
I wouldn't avoid parentheses; the literacy level of the general populace is not great, but there are few if any people who don't understand parentheses. By the way, that Next Generation article I added to the Nintendo 64 article a couple days ago also has another 64DD theory which I'm doubtful I can use, since the source chose to remain anonymous: "The DD64 is mainly necessary because Nintendo was let down by technology. It gambled in the design stages that the slow, high-density ROM needed for carts would be cheap enough by the time it launched. For various reasons the market didn't go as well as expected." The 64DD being essentially a big "Whoops, looks like cartridges aren't going to be terribly viable this generation" would explain why it took a while after the initial announcement for Nintendo to produce specs, even if it's a bit out-of-character for Nintendo to produce a platform as an emergency response. So that's something to keep an eye out for confirmation of.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Martin IIIa: Ahoy ahoy. Okay back when you wrote that message, I went and watched a gameplay video of your favorite 3DO games as you said, and yeah they're groaners alright. Wow. lol.  :) You mentioned Jaguar, 32X, and Amiga CD32 which are all super clunkers too. Wow you know how to pick em! Somehow you forgot that the SNES is a contemporary too, so that's what you're looking for with the games that don't suck. ;) Except for the Virtual Boy, Nintendo doesn't fall for that tweener tech. :)
I saw that you recently edited Tom Kalinske and I thought I'd point out that I am pretty sure that I kinda co-edited it with Tom a while back, by pure weird coincidence. Check the history down a bit where I said Tom has been editing it. lol. That's a California IP address with a lot of personally specific content. He recently had a stroke but I guess he's ok. I would like to contact him sometime but I never have.
When I mentioned my aversion to parentheses, I was talking mostly about tidbitting -- adding things suddenly as if they're out of place. Because either it's included or it isn't. And some people do that with entire sentences. But also I use commas unless parentheses are absolutely necessary. :)
Let me know if you come to IRC, irc.freenode.net #wikipedia-en coz I'm always there.
I would like to see a full copy of that article you mentioned about the DD64 quote. I referred to it as "DD64" in my own mind ALL THE TIME for the first ENTIRE YEAR of my modern Wikipedia research on the subject, even though all the sources call it 64DD (which it *is*, duh), because that's what people had called it in the 90s! We didn't know what the heck it was gonna be! — Smuckola(talk) 16:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Smuckola:No no, apart from Slayer those aren't my favorite 3DO games. In fact, I haven't even played The Need for Speed or Samurai Shodown. We were talking hardware, so I brought up some of the games that demonstrate the hardware. My favorite 3DO games actually include Flashback and Iron Angel of the Apocalypse, which are pretty much the last games I'd bring up to establish the system's upper limits. As for the consoles, again, talking hardware, so by "contemporaries" I meant consoles that launched around the same time. The best thing the SNES had in the way of polygons, Star Fox, required a special chip and is still left in the dust by Crash 'n' Burn, but that's not a big accomplishment for the 3DO; the SNES technology is three years older. So the Jaguar, 32X, Amiga CD32, and maybe the PC-FX are the only fair ones to compare it to.

Yeah, I did notice Kalinske on there. It's funny the people you can bump into on Wikipedia. Some months ago I had a little chat on here with a former employee of American Laser Games. He shared some info with me about their unfinished PlayStation game Shining Sword. Obviously we can't add any of it to WP, but it was interesting stuff.

Thanks for the IRC invite. I'll probably head on over there as soon as I figure out how IRC works.

The article's all about contemporary developments in memory technology. Here's a scan of the only page (I think) which talks about the 64DD.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The Great Videogame Swindle?[edit]

Hey, you just added a Next Generation source to a few articles, but only the ref itself- what does the actual article say that you are citing? Can you provide links/scans/photos? --PresN 01:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@PresN: Yeah, but it's kind of a long article (15 pages to be exact) and I've got stuff to do... Is there any particular part you wanted a scan of?--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Just occurred to me that there's an alternative. The article named in the heading is actually just an abridged version of the first four chapters of Steven L. Kent's book Electronic Nation. So if you've seen that book, you've essentially seen this article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, don't have access to that book either, though I'll keep my eye out for it. I guess I'm just curious because you added the reference to here and here, but added no text, and I'm wondering what exactly it was you were citing; if it's a summary of the start of Kent's book, I found a website with chapter 2 from that book, and that chapter seems to cover the period of those two articles; that said, there's nothing about those sentences in particular that seemed especially linked to it as opposed to any other sentence, so I really just wanted to know if it said anything unique. If not, then don't worry about it, I guess. --PresN 18:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@PresN: Here are the scans of the relevant pages for the two edits you linked to above: [3] [4] Hope they're of use.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! --PresN 16:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Martin, similarly, could you please share a scan of "NG Alphas: Killer Instinct Gold". Next Generation. No. 23. Imagine Media. November 1996. p. 130. ? czar 18:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: Sure. Here: [5] --Martin IIIa (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Dreamcast-"only"[edit]

This user is pushing the whole "Dreamcast-only" category thing again. I've reverted them again, but I'm pretty much done with this. Don't have the patience right now. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jtalledo: - Thanks for the heads up. The bright side is we can now point to the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 132, in case you'd forgotten. Sorry I didn't contribute to that discussion thread, by the way; I'd been neglecting to visit the project talk page for a while, so I didn't see it until after it was archived.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Martin IIIa. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The Video Game Critic[edit]

What makes you say The Video Game Critic isn't a reliable source? Hirameki (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hirameki Are you sure you don't have me confused with someone else? I haven't made any Video Game Critic-related edits in a long while. Anyway, to answer your question, five or six years ago I added a Video Game Critic citation to an article and was reverted by a more experienced editor (can't remember who) who said VGC is unreliable because it's a one-man operation with no editorial oversight. WikiProject Video Games hasn't yet made a firm consensus about VGC, but the discussions thus far (which are conveniently linked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources) have been leaning towards VGC being unreliable, and the aforementioned editor's reasoning made sense to me.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

And olive branch & holiday wishes![edit]

Olive branch drawing.svg
Martin IIIa, please accept these holiday wishes :)

I've caused this year to end on a chord of disappointment for many, but I hope that despite my mistakes and the differences in opinion and perspectives, and regardless of what the outcome is or in what capacity I can still contribute in the coming year, we can continue working together directly or indirectly on this encyclopedic project, whose ideals are surely carried by both of our hearts. I'm hoping I have not fallen in your esteem to the level where "no hard feelings" can no longer ring true, because I highly respect you and your dedication to Wikipedia, and I sincerely wish you and your loved ones all the best for 2018.

  • Ben · Salvidrim!  03:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC), humbled but optimistic about the upcoming year of renewal and growth!

Re:British Open Championship Golf[edit]

Many thanks! I remember that article being a struggle to source, so I'm glad it turned out in the end. And thanks again for all your hard work on sourcing VG articles—it's always great to see your additions pop up on my watchlist. Have a good 2018! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Finding sources for vintage video games[edit]

Hi there, I just responded to your deletion nomination for Cosmo Gang the Video.

When searching for sources in the future, I've found this guide to be super useful for finding references to vintage games that might not have a large internet presence. If you're not returning any search results for an older title, it might be worth it to sift through the Internet Archive for a couple minutes; that's how I found the sources I listed in my response. Thanks for bringing this article to my attention! FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@FlotillaFlotsam: Thanks! I actually discovered the Internet Archive a few months ago, but I'd been finding only minimal results for even high-profile English language releases, so I assumed I wouldn't find anything substantial on a Japan-only puzzle game like Cosmo Gang the Video. That guide is new to me, though, and should be handy. Thank you for taking the time to do the research on the game.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Art of Fighting games[edit]

Do you think it's possible to make separate articles for each of the three Art of Fighting games? Here I found some interviews: 1. AOF1 2. AOF2 3. In general Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tintor2: I'm not sure. I haven't stumbled across as many sources on the games as I expected. I'm still a bit incredulous that GamePro never reviewed Art of Fighting 3; I just now checked the issues in my collection to make sure I didn't overlook something, but all they have is a two-sentence blurb about the game's appearance at an arcade game expo. I haven't even looked into publications from the time of the original Art of Fighting's release. Looking on archive.org, it seems it got some coverage in EGM and DieHard GameFan at least.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Images for characters' infoboxes[edit]

I was curious since you have been editing video game articles for a long time, but what do you think it's the best use of image for characters' infoboxes? Use the most famous like Kyo Kusanagi's high school student or the latest ones like Kazuya Mishima's suit? I'm asking since I think Lars Alexandersson might be kind of pushing it with three images. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Honestly, I have no idea. I've done very little editing on character articles and absolutely none on their infobox images.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Govvy/NFL Football (1992 video game)[edit]

Hiya, I was working on NFL Football game that was released on the Atari Lynx in 1992 in my sandbox, I noticed you added a load of reception stuff to Lynx games and wondered if there was any for the NFL Football to help me on the article, cheers. Govvy (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: Actually, all I had was an article in STart, and that article was published long before NFL Football came out. The Retromags database says NFL Football was reviewed in the November 1992 issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly, though.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
@Martin IIIa: So what's the article in STart about then? lol. Is it just preannouncing the game? @Govvy:, I saw your post here so I gave a shot but I couldn't find anything else via google so I copy edited it a bit since it's important to you lol. The game sounds pretty rancid and buggy so I would be surprised if any more coverage exists in print. — Smuckola(talk) 19:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
@Smuckola: No, the article in STart is about other Lynx games. By the way, there's no need to ping people on their own personal talk page. :) --Martin IIIa
@Martin IIIa: ok but there's a need to manually format everything since we are forced to abuse a wiki into emulating a forum lol, such as indicating who among multiple people I am addressing :) — Smuckola(talk) 00:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk) 20:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a link to that for me? Cheers, Govvy (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
@Govvy: Yeah, here you go.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

STart magazine[edit]

On all of the reviews you added for the Lynx games, did they not offer any ratings? Scores out of 10 or 100? Govvy (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: Yeah, they weren't rated. It was a special feature on Lynx games, so it's possible STart does give ratings on their other reviews.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay, no problem, just wondered about that, cheers. Govvy (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

In regards to contemporary Fight for Life reviews[edit]

@Martin Illa: Hi! I saw your edit in regards to reviews of Fight for Life and you said you were searching for reviews from back in the day. Fortunately i've found 4-6 in regards to the title + which magazine said the TV comparasion against Tekken. Give me 1-2 days and i'll post them. Thanks and have a nice day! Oh and i've also found some reviews for Kasumi Ninja and Ultra Vortek from back in the day as well! KGRAMR (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@KGRAMR: Thanks! I was actually going to add the Next Generation review myself - it's the one contemporary review that I was able to find - but computer troubles delayed me. I'll put in the detailed info now.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@Martin Illa: You're welcome! I also plan to do the same thing with other Atari Jaguar games such as Super Burnout. Oh I forgot something! Here's link to old magazines containing info in regards to Fight For Life:
I hope it helps a lot! - KGRAMR (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

In regards to Atari Jaguar reviews[edit]

@Martin Illa: Hi, it's me again! Hey if you want help in searching reviews and review scores for Atari Jaguar games for their articles then feel free to talk to me and say "Hey KGRAMR, I need your help in searching for Atari Jaguar reviews". I can help as much as i can for the reviews you're looking for. List me the ones you need at the moment right now and i'll give you links to them :-) KGRAMR (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@KGRAMR: I'm actually not focusing on Jaguar content for the most part right now; I've been going through my magazine chronologically, and right now I'm up to early 1997. (As you can imagine, after March 1996, Jaguar coverage quickly dribbled down to the occasional letter from a reader who didn't yet realize the console had been discontinued.) However, one thing that's bugging me on the Checkered Flag (video game) article is the fate of the unreleased sequel. The screenshots in the magazine I've cited there look an awful lot like World Tour Racing, but I haven't yet come across a source which establishes that the game which was first announced as Checkered Flag 2 and later renamed Redline Racing eventually became World Tour Racing. It would be great if you had a good source for that, but just your personal confirmation of whether or not the games are the same would make me feel a little better, since you're clearly a Jaguar enthusiast.--Martin IIIa (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
@Martin Illa: World Tour Racing and Checkered Flag are completely separate games developed by 2 entirely different devs. While Checkered Flag was developed by Rebellion Developments, World Tour Racing was done by Teque London. Redline Racing was one of the early names given to Checkered Flag (and the Checkered Flag 2 name was given by some magazines to denote that it was sort of a sequel to the original on the Lynx). On the June 1994 issue of GameFan magazine, Checkered Flag was previewed under the name Redline Racing. World Tour Racing's earlier name was Teque's F1 Race IIRC and was shown at WCES 1995. Hope that helps. KGRAMR (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
@KGRAMR: Yeah, that is indeed most illuminating. It also checks out with the aforementioned article; I don't know why I didn't realize before that since the article was published over half a year before their review of Checkered Flag, it couldn't possibly have been discussing a sequel to the Jaguar game. I'll go fix that now. Many thanks!--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
@Martin Illa: You're welcome as always! KGRAMR (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Martin Illa: Hey man, i hope you're doing well! Look sorry if i'm bothering you right now and i know you're not focused at the moment on the Atari Jaguar, on top of the problems you're having with your computer but can you help me in expanding the reception section of these games for the system when you can? They're Cybermorph and Trevor McFur in the Crescent Galaxy. I've added pretty much all of the contemporary reviews that i could find about those two games. Thanks and have a good day buddy! KGRAMR (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@KGRAMR: The problems with my computer have been cleared up, actually. Some good finds on those reviews. I'll definitely get to work on Cybermorph soon, likely tomorrow, as I've always been curious about the contemporary reception for that game.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@Martin Illa: Awesome! It's also good to know you managed to resolve the issues you had with your PC :) BTW, i've managed to find almost all the reviews from back in the day for Iron Soldier :D Oh and let me know if you want to see contemporary reviews for Checkered Flag on the Jaguar. Now that i think about it, that version should have it's own article knowing that it's a completely different game from the Lynx version ;) Oh, speaking of that, Blue Lightning should be splitted into two different articles, as the're completely different games as well! KGRAMR (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@KGRAMR: Yeah, I couldn't find many contemporary reviews of Checkered Flag when I looked, which surprised me since it was such an important title for the Jaguar. I probably won't have time to do any more serious editing on that article within the next few days, but I'll get to it eventually (unless you or someone else does it first, natch!). I agree, the Jaguar and Lynx Checkered Flags should probably have separate articles.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Martin Illa: Pretty much yeah! I've been very lucky in finding stuff in regards to the Atari Jaguar in old magazine (especially GameFan, since pretty much all the issue of the magazine are now available on archive.org for now by the way :)) and even reviews for titles that would not be released until the 2000s such as Rebellion's Skyhammer. I like doing this thing of finding old reviews for video games a lot actually! KGRAMR (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Martin Illa: Hey man! I hope you're free 'cause I found almost every single contemporary review of Iron Soldier. So, if you're curious to see how people received, IMO, one of the best 3D games on the system then feel free to check them out!. Oh and i've also found out 2-3 contemporary reviews for Iron Soldier 2 that i plan to add as well :D KGRAMR (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@KGRAMR: Hey, sorry for the late reply! As you may have noticed from my contributions page, I've been on a bit of a wikibreak though I've occasionally done some light editing. That doesn't excuse my not responding to your post, but that's why I haven't gotten around to Iron Soldier yet. I have a few things I want to finish up first, but I do plan to help with the reception section there, assuming someone hasn't already beaten me to the punch.--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Martin IIIa: I was wondering what happened to you but good to know you're doing well! Take your time buddy. Do The Math (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Next Generation[edit]

Hi there! I have been working on the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Next Generation Magazine. The page has a lot more redlinks than I expected, although most of it is just because the page is probably overdue on maintenance. A lot of the redlinks had actual articles but were pointing at non-existent titles so I either made reasonable redirects or fixed the link on the reference page, and some were just typos, a few had been deleted, and some of the blue links were due to pointing at the wrong article or at disambiguation pages so I fixed those links as well. I actually created articles for all of the remaining redlinks, and I restored one of the deleted articles - Burning Soldier which had no sources on the article 10 years ago, but I found a few... the article needs massive cleanup though. I did not add the NG reviews to most of the articles though, but hopefully fixing up the links on the page will inspire someone to go through them. :) I have finished the issues #1 and #2 so far, and I started on issue #3. BOZ (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@BOZ: Wow, Burning Soldier! I really dig that game and was coincidentally just making a fresh attempt at completing it. And wow, is that article ever in bad shape! If that's the standard for articles on 1990s games then I guess I might as well put my draft for Three Dirty Dwarves into the main space just as it is. I don't have most of my editing resources with me now, so both that and fixing up Burning Soldier will have to wait, but I'll be back in a couple days.Martin IIIa (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
No problem, and no rush!  :) BOZ (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Good work - at least Burning Soldier is better now than it was. :) I have started (or restored) a number of other articles on games from the era using reviews from the (so far) first three issues of Next Generation as starting points - including Battlecorps, Doctor Hauzer, Shadow: War of Succession, Armored Fist, Family Feud, Motocross Championship, Zephyr, NHL All-Star Hockey '95, PGA Tour Golf III, The Shadow, and more! In cases where I found the games on pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/GameFan or Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Computer Gaming World, I made notes of this below the reception section, since I do not have access to the reviews myself. BOZ (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Credits and personnel[edit]

As I stated on the article, please take your concern about the heading to either the article talk page, or up at WikiProject Songs per WP:BRD because when your change(s) have been disagreed with, it is not best to reinstate them or edit war. If your concern is that I didn't cite a content guideline, that doesn't matter—it's preceedent. Most song articles use "credits and personnel" as the heading (hence MOS:ALBUM does not apply in this instance, as that is the standard for albums), and I don't see why we should differentiate from those. If your concern is over that heading, then it affects more than just this article. Thanks. Ss112 09:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

You're wound way too tight. Not every editing conflict needs to be addressed on a talk page after the first revert. Your argument about precedent is completely wrong; Wikipedia policy is quite explicit that not every article needs to use identical section headings. Also, I've been editing song articles for many years and can't recall any heading other than "personnel" being used outside this article. Saying that album and song articles should use different headings for the same thing is more than a bit counterintuitive. But you obviously intend to make this petty issue many times more trouble than it's worth, so I'm dropping it.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Then perhaps you need to look at more song articles, because as I said, plenty do. I've been editing song articles for many years too (and dare I say—though not a competition—probably more than you because I edit almost exclusively within music), and it's far more common on modern song articles to incorporate "Credits" into the heading. Just looking at featured song articles of a comparable caliber at WP:Featured articles provides: 4 Minutes, Hey Baby (No Doubt song), Diamonds (Rihanna song), Déjà Vu (Beyoncé song), Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song)... though, sure, you could probably find examples that use just "personnel" too, mostly for older songs. I didn't add it to this article, either, I just don't see why we need to alter it for this. Other Spice Girls song articles use the same heading. Finally, I didn't say this was based in policy; I said it's based on precedent. Why we'd be following an album guideline for songs I don't know. There are other specificities relating to albums we don't replicate on song articles. Ss112 23:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand. When I said "I'm dropping it", I meant I'm dropping it. Even on Wikipedia I have much better things to do with my time then debate whether or not an article should say "Personnel" or "Credits and personnel".--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Govvy/Sandbox[edit]

Hiya Martin, I have a list of Atari Lynx games in my sandbox I started on, I couldn't find a lot of the web to help them get to a good enough GNG level. I was wondering if you could have a look through them, edit them if you so wish. I was wondering if you know of any printed sources where there might be additional reviews for them. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: To be honest I haven't had a lot of luck finding sources for Lynx games, even though I'm sure they must be out there. But, I'll take a look at those when I get a moment.--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Double redirects[edit]

A bot automatically repairs these so you don't need to do them manually (unless you so choose) (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 00:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: Yeah, thanks, but I do know. I just find it oddly satisfying to do them myself, and usually in the process I find a few other problems with the links that need fixing.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Hope you're using AWB then, for your own sake! ;) czar 01:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Czar: I don't have AWB. You can only register for it if you have a specific use in mind, and on the few occasions when such a use has come up, I've never felt it worthwhile to delay the intended edits while I request registration, wait for admin approval, download the software, figure out how it works, etc. In this particular case, I suspect AWB wouldn't be any faster anyway, since you still need to enter in the names of the articles.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Haven't touched it in a bit, but I believe you can ingest all links from a page (say a list before it was reverted), then set to skip all articles that aren't the redirects you want, then auto-replace the text and simply prompt for your approval. It's just automation for the rote stuff. I'd wager that it's worth pursuing for next time, but depends on the length of the task czar 02:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Reviews and scores[edit]

From a percentage score perspective, how do you consider a positive, mixed, or negative review? 172.250.44.165 (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You can't assess reviews as positive, mixed, or negative based on their score. Different publications use different ratings scales, and even when the scales are the same, 70% in one publication doesn't always mean the same thing as 70% from another publication. Plus, reviewers don't always pick scores that accurately reflect their review. I've seen scores as low as 5.5/10 accompanying a review that had no complaints and lots of praise, and scores as high as 90% where the reviewer had nothing but bad things to say about the game. And then you have cases like Allgame, where the score was determined by a different critic than the one who wrote the review.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)