User talk:Yodonothav

Date formats

Hi, I noticed that you've been changing the date formats for certain video game articles from mdy to dmy. While in some cases (like Symphonic Legends – Music from Nintendo), this is appropriate since the concert took place in Germany which primarily uses dmy format. However, I've reverted you on other cases, like The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D because there is no consensus to use dmy for that article. If you would like to propose a change, I encourage you to open a discussion at Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D to get a wider opinion and build a consensus. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why should mdy be used in the first place? As of e.g. Date format by country it's nearly only the USA with a mdy system and e.g. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D (TLoZ:OoT3D resp. OoT3DS) was not only released in the USA, does not come from the USA and is not an USA centric topic (like e.g. US-American history, politics and persons might be). Though, imho it would be okay to use the date formats accourding to the specific regions, e.g. using mdy for US-American release dates and dmy for Europe etc., even if it might look wired at the beginning. Furthermore it was not only a changing of date formats but also an addition of information with sources given. -Yodonothav (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not the person to champion one date format over another. However, the observed consensus for video game articles is to use mdy and has been for a long time. If you would like to propose a change to this overarching style guideline, I recommend you post a new thread at WT:VG to get a broader opinion on the matter. In the meantime, I suggest that you self-revert to the established mdy conventions until a new consensus is in place. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries

Hello, would you mind writing out your actual changes in your edit summaries rather than URLs to external websites? URLs don't provide any information about the edit other than "this site justifies this change." Thanks! --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Please stop changing the title at Fire Emblem Awakening. Please see the talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fire_Emblem_Awakening#Requested_move) where there is currently both consensus and evidence against that titling. You're free to start up further discussion if you disagree, but as of right now, that edit is not warranted. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 12:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Many of the oppose comments on that talk page are invalid or outdated.

Nintendo clearly writes it with ":", see: 1, 2 (and same in other European languages like German, Spanish, Italian, French). As far as I saw, on those Nintendo pages it's only with ":" and not with both variants as NOA does.
"Bill Trinen, Nintendo's head of localization and marketing" - accourding to wikipedia, it looks like he is just some NOA (Nintendo of America) guy, so most likely just NOA's head of localization and marketing and not Nintendo's head of localization and marketing. Furthermore, why should one follow his POV as it is against WP:NPOV?

2. Even though the Western title might be controversial and reverting that might be justified, reverting the rest isn't (as sources where given).
3. On the talk page was just a moving discussion. Thus the article may stay at Fire Emblem Awakening, but as of WP:NPOV and 1. both Variants (FEA and FE:A) should be mentioned.
-Yodonothav (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you disagree, start up a new discussion on the article's talk page. But, per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, the changes aren't made until/unless a new consensus is found. ie, again, stop making that change, as it is not warranted yet. Re-adding without consensus is considered disruptive, and could get you blocked if you continue to do so. So please, stop re-adding it, and discuss on the talk page. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 13:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you've added the ":" back to the article, which is against current talk page consensus. Final Warning. Stop this or you will be blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 20:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add it back, I simply reverted your reverting, as sources for ratings etc. were given, and removed the second title in the infobox. Maybe I wasn't carefully enough and removed the wrong one. -Yodonothav (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did. Please check your edit. You definitely add the title with colons on it. I don't care if you put the ratings in, but please remove any instances of the titles with colons. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 00:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hey there. We can't use Wikia's as sources on Wikipedia because they violate WP:SPS - basically, anyone can change/alter them at any time, so you can't really verify its correct. This is why your edit was reverted - you indicated in your edit summary that it was based off of a Wikia.

At any rate, a simple Google search showed that a reliable source, IGN, says that the initial date was correct, so it's solved now. (See here.) Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 15:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know that wikias (as wikis in general) are no reliable sources, and I didn't use it as a source (but more like a comparison/possibility). So:

The bold date in Wikipedia is the first release date world wide, so not just the first release in North America, right?
- If not, is it at least the first English release date, so not necessarily the first North American release date?
  - If so, then replace "first world wide relase" with "first English release" in the following single points, and keep in mind, that there are English speaking regions in Europe.
  - If not, then it is the first North American or even US-American release? If so, then you're right. And this text is unnecessary.
If the first release in Europe was on some (unknown) day in November and the first release in North America was on 30 November, it is unclear (or unknown) what the first release date is.
If the game was first released in North America, then the game was first released on 30 November and then the European release has to be 30 November too (as there are no more days in November).
If the first release was in Europa and the date is unknown, then it could have been on 30 November but on any other day in November as well.
So, is it at least known that the game was first released in North America? If not, then the first release date of the game is unclear/unknown/uncertain as the European release date is unclear. Putting the first world wide release date as 30 November - which in this case implies that the European release was 30 November too -, is WP:OR.
IGN to Zelda: Ocarina of Time states "Release Date: November 23, 1998 / MSRP: 49.99 USD". That date and that price is for the first US-American release which is something different than the first world wide release date. Similiar with Sonic 3D at IGN.
Furthermore: The IGN to Sonic 3D link is about the Sega Saturn (SS) version. The Sega Mega Drive (SMD) version was most likely released earlier, as the SMD was released before the SS, and accourding to wikipedia the SMD version was released before the SS version in most regions.

-Yodonothav (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link was to IGN, not IGN UK, so I'm guessing its the US release. I'm not sure why you're trying to bring "bias" into this, you removed a release date, and I re-added with a reliable source. If you have some concerns, try doing some basic Google searches for this kind of stuff, its usually not hard to find, rather than resorting to whatever a Wikia says, which isn't usable. Sergecross73 msg me 19:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]