Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Hi. I've disambiguated his place of birth, which I've done with my new book. Thanks, -- Mattythewhite (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Not possible, I'm afraid. My reference only said "Maltby", without any mention of whether it was the one in North Yorkshire, the one in South Yorkshire or the one in Lincolnshire. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say it was probably the one in South Yorkshire, but I can't be sure. – PeeJay 08:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the disambig on RTL - was well beyond me! --AndrewHowse 14:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the gamepro link because it was added by a single purpose account who added gamepro to dozens of articles. I deleted the other one as it appeared the article was only maintaining official external links and this wasn't one and it was added by an IP only today. Who again seems to be marketing only gameanyone links to a few articles.[1]--Crossmr (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for using Wikipedia Cleaner.

• Recommendation 1: Just to be sure I understand, you mean being able to replace links to redirects by links to the final page, eventually with a button to replace all links in one action ? That should be easy, I can add it in a future release.
• Recommendation 2: I am already making a summary of changes here (very short and not always complete). On the 3 last versions, I really focused on performance, the last visible changes were in 0.49 but it was small (signature button for adding comments to talk pages) and in 0.47 (adding local comments associated with pages).

--NicoV (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

English version done for summary of changes. Feel free to fix my English ;) --NicoV (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Any games that I add to the list, I have either personally played or I found an article on IGN or GameSpot saying it has gamesharing. Of these three games, I have specific, personal knowledge verifying that they have gamesharing. As far as DTM Race Driver 3 Challenge is concerned, it is not the same game as TOCA. I have played it personally and can attest. It may have the exact same content as one of the other TOCA games but since it was released under a different name, I think it also belongs on the list. I can send you a screenshot of the game or something if you need more proof. Transce080 (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I'm thinking about the image: maybe only a single region of the game has gamesharing, like how Twisted Metal only has it in the European version? I assume the version my friend had was the USA version but I saw the gamesharing feature with my own two eyes. If we find out a specific version doesn't have gamesharing, we can always edit the entry later. The DTM game, I believe, was only released in Europe. It could be the case where the game has two different names depending on the region. However, I still think both names should be on the list. Screenshots: 1, 2. Transce080 (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Transce080 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay I think I have this figured out now. TOCA Race Driver 3 was released under 3 titles depending on region, the former title (USA), DTM Race Driver 3: Challenge (EUR), and V8 Supercars 3: Shootout (AUS). While these games all seem to share virtually the same content, they are still sold under 3 separate names so I still think they deserve 3 separate listings in the Gamesharing game list. I'm going to re-add V8 Supercars 3: Shootout to the list. --Transce080 (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

On the reformatting of the list, I like the new look of the table but I don't agree on the choice of columns. Please see the discussion page and let me know what you think on the subject. --Transce080 (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:SineBot#Opting out User:Krator (t c) 23:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

np. I did it a while ago myself after I became too annoyed :) User:Krator (t c) 23:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your changes to Template:Archive box as you altered the format of the box rather drastically. With the template being in wide use, I would recommend that you discuss any changes to the template on the Talk page to gain consensus before you make the change. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: No problem. I'm a bit surprised somebody hasn't come up with a solution yet. You might try asking over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates to see if somebody there has any ideas. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that, what was it then? That strikes me as a bit odd. Best, Keilana^talk 22:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Carry on. Ahem... --Moni3 (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't put one in so I am afraid I don't know if I can help you there. // F9T 20:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No, thats fine // F9T 20:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: width parameter. That's a good question! I have not even tried so I do not know if there is a satisfactory answer for you. I am at work now so don';t have the time to play with it and see what's what there. Will try later. -- Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 20:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not even know it was there! If there is anything I can help you with, feel free to contact me. Tiddly-Tom 07:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Howdy -- sorry to bother again, but I wonder if you have an opinion on Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken? The reason I ask is that on your recent edit to Cullinet you did fix an ambiguous link I'd marked recently (thanks!), but at the same time you also changed 10 other nonambiguous ones, by adding pipes to their (currently) canonical names). This seems to be a lot of work to no apparent benefit, and does seem to go against the above section.

On the bright side, your changes to the CICS link did alert me to an ill-advised rename by another editor...:-). But that actually points up one of the reason why adding pipes like this can often be a futile exercise, as articles are named and renamed and denamed... . Cheers,NapoliRoma (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not blank pages, as you did to User:Octoferret. It is considedrd vandalism. Thank you. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 19:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I'm a recent changes patroller, so I can't take any chances. Apology accepted, but remember to put in a summary next time. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 19:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you adjusted User talk:DMacks and User talk:DMacks/Archive 1 with this edit summary. What exactly is changing where? Especially on the latter page, the effect was to remove the list-of-archives box entirely. DMacks (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC) [will continue this on my talk page]. DMacks (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sure your efforts to mass-update archive box usages are with the best of intentions, but please do not do this in the User or User_talk namespace without the permission of the user first. Your change to my page not only eliminated the width parameter which I had explicitly used to make the box wide enough for one line, but it also for some reason changed by dates to read "November 21, '06" which is a very strange style. I saw your comment on your own archive template about why you believe the width parameter is useless, but I disagree -- not all widths are simply determined by content. When the box is meant to sit off to the side of the flow of a page, the layout designer may have a very good reason for setting a fixed width to the box. white-space:nowrap is not an alternative for this, because it still may be desirable for the content to wrap. -- Renesis (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please STOP now to explain your justification for altering the appearance of so many user pages. -- Renesis (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the explanation. I am just worried because (like mine) it seems a lot of users have intentionally made the box wide enough to fit date ranges on one line, which it is not wide enough for by default. Example: [2] -- Renesis (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It must be because I am on a Mac, or maybe because of my user stylesheet, but in that example that I showed you the year now wraps when it didn't before. The fonts on a Mac are by default a little wider. -- Renesis (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, thanks for changing my archive name spaces. I probably wouldn't have bothered with it, but it does look better! Amerique^dialectics 19:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I probably just copied and pasted the box into my talk page; if you have an improvement to the code that doesn't substantially alter the look and functionality of the box on my talk page, feel free to have at it, I guess. --Maxamegalon2000 19:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Like Renesis said, Im pretty sure you did change the archive boxes with the best of intentions. However, i also have to agree with [Collectonian] that i find this sudden chance without consensus intrusive, and to a degree, quite annoying. Correct me if i am wrong, but from the looks of it just two persons were involved into the entire process of editing and replacing the archive box code, with no input from any other person. Also, there was nigh chance someone could actually post any input, as the comments were posted on the template pages yesterday. How big is the chance someone reads the comments for a template every day to give feedback to a change? I estimate that chance to be near nill.

Seconds, i don't exactly agree with the sudden elimination of the Width parameter(And possibly other parameters). It was there some people could control how large or small their archivebox would be. Personally i set mine to create the smallest box as possible, but since it was eliminated the box is suddenly placing the different archives next to each other, which looks (In my opinion) quite ugly. I have force reverted it back, so if you want to see how it looked, you will have to go 1 version of my talk page back. As a little sidenote: Why did you just change this everywhere without asking? The people who set that parameter probally set it for a reason, and i tell you, the sudden change was not exactly a pleasant surprise.

Last, was this entire change actually needed? Sorry if i sound rude but... Standardizing an archive box doesn't actual strike me as being usefully. As long as you can see its an archive box, it should be one. After all, we have 10's of different shades of blue, and still call it blue. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to desist. It is by no means your decision to make a change to another's userpage, much less moving people's archives. seresin || wasn't he just...? 23:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Along with everyone else I notice you're changing a lot of archive boxes, usually eliminating the "small" parameter. That parameter makes the box tighter around the elements contained, makes the icon slightly smaller, and also makes the box orange, which for talk pages goes with other talk page banners, boxes, and notices. Basically it's a more efficient use of space and goes better visually with everything on talk pages. If you have some reason for doing this aside from your own personal preference please let me know, cause your edit summaries haven't said anything to that effect. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:25, 23 Jan 2008 (UTC)

PS: My comments are pertaining to article talk space. For userspace you really shouldn't be doing this at all, for any reason. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:45, 23 Jan 2008 (UTC)

As for the color, the contents box is not orange, and that does not seem to be a problem. So in your opinion it goes with the other boxes, but I think it looks best to stop the orange at the top of the TOC and be gray from there down. Also, I never realized that space use was a problem on talk pages, besides the fact that the box only becomes slightly longer. It also seems to me that it would be nice to actually be able to easily read what the text says. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Traditionally every notice on talk pages is orange, yes with the exception of the TOC. If you have a personal preference for it the other way, even if you want to contend that this is a matter of personal preference for me as well, a crusade through many articles switching all these boxes to your preference isn't really appropriate. If you think the "small" parameter makes the text unreadable, perhaps this is something to address at the template talk page. It's possible that at some resolutions the text becomes too small to read (although I doubt this as it's the standard size for "small" text). Equazcion •✗/C • 00:04, 24 Jan 2008 (UTC)

But I wouldn't consider the archive box to be a notice. Would you agree to having the orange color, but keeping everything else standard, i.e. sizes? And it's not that it is actually unreadable but space does not seem to be an issue, so why make it smaller? None of the other boxes have smaller text, normally. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• This post refers to the first comment in this section

Archive = User talk:Excirial/Archive %(counter)d

I guess you can see what this can cause, don't you? Your recent moves could, and im pretty sure, will have broken several peoples archiving bot setups. This means that their archives will get split between the format your moves made, and the formats the non updated bot lines still contain.

Anyway, this entire issue is getting to big for me to decide if this is a good move, or a Going-To-Be problem. I reported this to the Administrator Incident Noticeboard Direct link, which means the administrators will have a look at it. Maybe they will tell me i'm just one big complainer whining over nothing, and press some evidence under my nose that this was indeed a good move, but i rather have that happen, then seeing a whole lot of action that i don't really agree with.

One last this: This is by no means personal, so please don't feel insulted or angry by this report. Its just to get some clarity about this situation :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excirial (talk • contribs) 00:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I do look at all of the bots, and for the few archive pages i moved, either they were not being auto-archived, or I changed the bot code to correspond. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Sorry, I meant "generally all talk page boxes", even if you don't consider this one a "notice" per se. They're pretty much all orange (with the exception of {{calm talk}}, I can't think of any that aren't). I don't think any change is necessary because the archive box just isn't that important that it needs to be displayed so prominently. People can see it just fine this way. But discussing this here isn't really relevant -- this would need to be brought up at the template talk page, where more people than just you and I would need to agree that a change is warranted. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:18, 24 Jan 2008 (UTC)

The other two templates do not even have this parameter, and there are definitely more pages using those two combined than this one. And I posted a comment on all three archive box templates, and WikiProject Templates, but only one person answered about it. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I see AzaToth replied to you. He's right, the "small" parameter simply utilizes mediawiki's "small" class. To change it you'd have to change a major element of the wiki. Anyway this really isn't a big problem, if it is a problem at all. I've never seen anyone complain about visibility issues when the box is set to small. Regarding Excirial's comment above: Yes he is just a big complainer, if he took this to ANI rather than just talking to you. I'm sure you didn't mean to break anyone's settings. I hope you know now that you shouldn't tamper with people's user space settings that way, but I doubt any permanent harm was done. People will simply revert the changes. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:32, 24 Jan 2008 (UTC)

That is what I was assuming people would do, but I have gotten one thank you for changing it. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

*Nods* Then i'm just a big complainer :). But as i stated above, and stated in the ANI report, i rather have an admin tell me that everything is A-Ok, then wondering if something is not A-Ok. I have seem some quite varied comments regarding this, ranging from: Good work, Looks nice to: Why did you do ThisAndThat. Personally i think the easiest way to stop all this is by having some sort of official response.

Also, as far as i know, ANI is not meant for requesting some form of sanctions (That what my beloved WP:AIAV is for). At the very least i'm interpreting ANI as a place where you can report something to get assistance with it. And in this case my request is just the question: Was this massive update a good move, Yes or No. Again, this request was meant to be purely informal, and not as some sort of judgement. And also, @Equazcion" I know i suggested that i might be called "one big complainer", but did you really have to affirm that one? It was merely meant as a statement that i might be overreacting, not as something i was looking for to have confirmed. :)

Oh and last, don't think that this is some kind of "Huge Mistake". I agree with Equazcion on this one that you most likely didn't break anything, especially if you edited the bot code. Also, my apologies for my first few comments. They seem to suffer a bit from what i can call the "Excirial Syndrome". In short: When i write and re-read them they seem A-Ok, but when i re-read them say, a few hours later, they sound unnecessarily harsh, and sometimes quite rude. Please know that being "Rude" is almost never something i do intentionally, and certainly not on issues like this.

Kind regards,

--Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 01:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello MrKIA11. I've noticed that you've changed a number of video game ratings from the symbols to the expanded form of the rating (e.g. E > Everyone; T > Teen). I reverted some of your edits in order to keep the ratings in their symbolized forms. Within the context of video game articles, readers should already be familiar with their respective classification systems, however, if readers wish to learn more about the rating systems (such as ESRB, PEGI etc.) [and find out what the symbols stand for], they can just click on the link next to the rating for more detailed information. IMO, the only circumstances in which we should use words in favour of symbols is if a rating is not explicitly represented by a symbol (such as USK's "Unrestricted" rating). In this fashion, we can keep ratings consistent between articles and keep infoboxes tidy and free of omission (I don't understand why people feel the need to write ESRB's E10+ rating as "Everyone 10+". The symbol is self-explanatory :P). For an example of how numerous ratings can be neatly displayed, check out the Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories article. Cheers. Sillygostly (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. You can see all my edits were in good faith. Timneu22 (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Under no circumstances should you have gone through various articles and made the reverts you did. You're just flooding people's watchlists. Some of the "Archive banners" received positive feedback from page watchers, but I guess you find it important enough to eliminate ALL TRACES of a template that you did not design. I don't think you're a very good wikipedian. Timneu22 (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• FYI, see the comments on my talk page! Cheers. andy (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you seriously revert this change? I tried to make your template BETTER by lining up the equals signs. Are you just going to revert EVERY CHANGE I MAKE ON THIS WIKI? Timneu22 (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you revert my constructive edit to your proposed template? Timneu22 (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I was only trying to help by aligning equals signs, like all good templates. You don't have to be a jerk. Good day. Timneu22 (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Your response was curt, and thus rude, and thus you were being a jerk. Now you're calling me an ass. Grow up and leave me alone. (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hi. A word of friendly advice: don't get drawn into a slanging match! Timneu22 was rude to you first and I've warned him. If he carries on this way I or someone else will escalate the warnings until maybe he gets the message (or maybe not). I'd steer clear if I were you, but if you do have to talk to him stay cool. :) andy (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, no problem. That page was an old test page that hadn't been updated in ages. Monotonehell 06:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you notify me of the VP discussion and User:MrKIA11/Archive Box? As the principal author of {{Archive box collapsible}} I would have appreciated it. User:Dorftrottel 23:22, February 19, 2008

No harm done. I'm more angry at myself that I didn't notice. User:Dorftrottel 23:58, February 19, 2008

Ah, and I don't use the watchlist. I never really learned how to handle the damn thing. User:Dorftrottel 00:25, February 20, 2008

The worst part is: I know it is useful. It's just, pages seem to be added to my watchlist almost at random (I know that's not actually the case, but my pattern recognition somehow fails). Oh well, one of these days I'm going to figure it out. User:Dorftrottel 00:34, February 20, 2008

I've deactived all those options, but page moves etc are still added, as are user talk pages when I warn users with—..... Wait a minute. ... TWINKLE is the culprit! I'll see if I can do something about it. User:Dorftrottel 00:41, February 20, 2008

Hm. Found Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/Twinkle/doc#Configuration and adjusted my config accordingly. User:Dorftrottel 00:49, February 20, 2008

Huh? [3] seems a bit unusual; just checking that it did what you meant it to do. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks. (Lucky for me that I didn't just start mouthing off...) --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi again,

Thanks for updating the documentation. I have added a few things just now.

I just have a doubt concerning this chapter. You are saying that blue is used for links to redirect pages. Are you sure ? Because it shouldn't be that way : links to redirect pages should be treated as links to normal pages, displayed in red, and can be fixed with Wikipedia Cleaner. Blue should be used only for templates (and only when the link to a dab page is normal) : for example, in Watergate scandal, the {{redirect|Watergate}} should be displayed in blue because this link is normal (it's currently not highlighted at all, because I haven't added {{redirect}} in my list).

Could you provide me with an example where a link is shown in blue and shouldn't ?

--NicoV (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand why you are thinking redirect links are in blue, but in fact, all links that are not links to dab pages are shown in blue in the current version. When I add the function for fixing redirects, I will probably show links to redirects in an other color (orange ?).

I understand also why you removed the features that are not currently available for the English wikipedia, but I prefer to have them with a comment for at least two reasons :

• Currently, there's only partial documentation in French, English and Hebrew so the English documentation can also be used for other Wikipedia which do not have documentation (Catalan, Spanish, Dutch, ...)
• I see them as an incentive to provide me the information I need to activate those features :)

Thanks for the Page d template and the list of models, version 0.53 takes this into account.

For the column names, I have to find a way to make it understandable directly in the program, but I don't know how yet. The columns are :

• Page name
• Number of articles in the main namespace linking to this page (select some lines and click on Update Information to see something)
• Number of articles linking to this page
• Maximum number of articles in the main namespace that should link to this page (you can set it in the comments)
• Maximum number of articles that should link to this page
• Comment

I added all the columns because I find this handy to work with my list of watched pages (once in a while, I select them all, click on Update and then I can easily see which dab page has new links since the last time I fixed them)

--NicoV (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again,

I have started working on your suggestion for fixing redirect links. It's a preliminary work, but you can take a look at the Tools menu in the Analysis window to see the first result in 0.54.

--NicoV (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Version 0.55 is available. I think I have fixed the bugs you have seen and implemented your suggestions. I also added the Expand Templates window.

--NicoV (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. Couple of things:

• I think you should change the wording for the Tools→Fix Redirects to Link ... to ..., instead of Replace ... by ...
• When validate is clicked for a redirect page, the selection does not automatically move down to the next entry on the list
• The Expand Templates window would be great, if you could do anything with it. Am I missing something, or is something to be implemented later?

Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm off for holidays, will take a look at this when I am back home.

Expand templates is just here to saw the expanded text of a page, I'd be happy to do more with it but I don't know how.

--NicoV (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I will see if I can show a page preview (that would be great), but I have to find something to render HTML in a Java program (maybe Cobra) --NicoV (talk) 10:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

First tests with Cobra seem good. Page preview will be available in the next release (0.61) --NicoV (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's wrong, but version 0.61 is not downloading. I have restarted the program at least 5 times, but still nothing. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I know, I am on holidays and I don't have enough access to update it on my website, it will have to wait until the weekend. --NicoV (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I just assumed you had already since you updated the history of changes. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Version 0.61 is online, the preview is basic but can be helpful anyway I think. --NicoV (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I just updated the documentation. The only thing, is that only internal links have contextual menus, external links do not. This is not a problem, but according to the documentation, they should. I also have some recommendations for different wording in the program itself:

• In the analysis window > Tools menu > Fix redirects, "Link ... by ..." should be "Link ... to ...". I actually wonder whether "Fix redirects" should even be included in the tools menu anymore, as it is easier and better to do it directly in the main text.
• "Occurrence" is spelled with 2 rs, not 1

Still a great program MrKIA11 (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the documentation. I have added the features of v0.71 (not released yet) in the documentation, that's why some things doesn't seem to work (external links, different watched pages window, ...). I will fix the wording as you suggest and I will think about removing the Fix redirects menu. --NicoV (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed you editing several video game articles by replacing the vgrelease tags with flagicons instead. Under, WP:VG/DATE,

Within the infobox, release dates should be provided using the template. Even if this format is not used, do not use flag icons in the infobox, instead, state the region/country by name or by their 2 or 3-letter country codes.

Just thought you should know about that. Strongsauce (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what were those edits meant to accomplish? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox VG was recently overhauled, the template defaults to 264px now, and images have a maximum width of 252px. I checked, so that's why I hardcode the dimensions (It's a perfectionist thing for me). As for the other, I cap the first letter cause Wikipedia does (Again, perfectionist), however I did not know that Vgrelease could be stacked like that, I'll change it back. I also never liked filling templates with links either, but if you insist I suggest you use template Vgy for the year, so it links to that year in video gaming instead of general events. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going leave it cause I see what you changed. As far as the DDR series goes there are really weird release regions for some of the mixes. Universe was not released to New Zealand as the template's perimeters say that entry emcompasses. The English version of SuperNova 2 was released to North American and South America, which that style doesn't have an entry for, South Korea exclusives, the list goes on. So I think I'll keep doing it this way until they expand the template a little. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything still says 256 cause no one bothers to update the doc pages. It's not a browser thing, unless some browser have bigger pixels than others. There must be something in the code tree that's making it bigger, eyeballing it I see a white space of five on each side, plus the 1px border around the template. 6+6=12, 164-12=152 *shrugs*.

I would like to know where you heard that Vgy was being called into question. The only results I get on the site simply tell you how to use it and what it does. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I get it now, I didn't know that the Wiki code did that even. I still prefer not to link them at all under Vgrelease. :P --AeronPrometheus (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, take a look at this, I mentioned the NAA page there, perhaps you have some input. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2008-04-3 23:03

Hi, can you take another look at Pro Evolution Soccer 2008 (Wii version)? I'm pretty sure it's not a stub-class any more. :D --NSider (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up List of SingStar titles. The templates make the code look much cleaner. --Tntnnbltn (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Is "Template:Images needed" an appropriate template to use in article space? GregManninLB (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you changed the link for the RSS feed. What did you change exactly? Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2008-04-20 16:17

What would you say are the 5 best new VG articles created in April? Perhaps we could add something to the next newsletter. As you can see, I've already proposed that we add something like "In March, there were 57 new articles", but I was thinking it would be cool to put a spotlight on the best new articles. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2008-04-23 17:13

See my proposal for the newsletter here. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-23 22:52

Hi, MrKIA11. Thank you for cleaning up the shortcut box location on WT:WPDAB. --Gwguffey (talk) 04:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the new style was confusing some tools causing people to have duplicate listings. I'm not personally opposed to a change, but think it may need a little bit of advance notice, perhaps at WT:MFD. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 23:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for removing them. It's fine by me, thanks for lending a hand. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 14:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the other 10+ cats that end in pages should be listed as a group at WP:CFD, too. --Gwguffey (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A7 db bio is only for REAL people, for fictional characters it's necessary to use prod or afd. See WP:CSD. (or try a merge or a redirect) DGG (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you realize that changing the usage of the {{vgrelease}} template in some articles (such as Spyro 2: Ripto's Rage! and Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction) will rearrange the chronological release date order?

{{vgrelease|NA|[[January 1]] [[2008]]}} {{vgrelease|JP|[[January 2]] [[2008]]}} will appear as:

{{vgrelease|NA|[[January 1]] [[2008]]|JP|[[January 2]] [[2008]]}} will appear as:

--Silver Edge (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain if there is consensus on the release date order, but in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video_games/Archive 38#Alphabetical Ordering there was consensus that the platforms in the platform field of {{Infobox VG}} should be listed in chronological order and then alphabetical order if necessary, which lead me to add this to the article guidelines, so based on that, I'm assuming that the consensus is chronological order for release dates too. When changing the template to a single call, its order is Japan, North America, PAL region, Europe, Australasia, and then international version, so it is not in alphabetical order; I believe it is in that order because many games are released to those regions in that order. I suggest bringing this up at WT:WikiProject Video games before making any changes to {{Vgrelease}} or changing the template to a single call in every video game article. --Silver Edge (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the MfD to the list of VG deletions so quickly. Do you not sleep? :) Gazimoff ^Write_Read 23:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You're jumping the gun just a bit. Based on that Cfd, the consensus among 4 people was that those categories listed should match all the others, and it would probably be better if all the others were renamed to pages. There was no consensus to rename Category:Disambig-Class articles to Category:Disambig-Class pages, as that Cfd was not under discussion. The admin closing the discussion stated "I don't want to do a 357-category rename with no other input...Either way, please nominate the "articles" categories for renaming." The grading scheme template should reflect the organization of Category:Articles by quality. By making that one change, you are potentially breaking hundreds of links currently in use by the majority of projects.

The proper way to do this is seek further discussion and have a Cfd for Category:Disambig-Class articles and all of its sub-categories. Once there is consensus that Category:Disambig-Class articles should be renamed, along with all of the sun-categories, then the grading scheme template should be changed. So if you want to move ahead with renaming all of the categories to "pages," I'd start with making a Cfd for Category:Disambig-Class articles and its subcategories. Then, you need to publicize the Cfd in several places (at a minimum at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, and possibly on all of the effected project's talk pages).

Additionally, keep in mind that if the categories are changed, you will also need to change almost 400 templates that categorize the pages. And it won't be as easy as renaming of one word from "articles" to "pages." I would say that most templates put pages automatically in "class-Class project articles," where class is the specified parameter, and project is the project's name. It is much easier to code the templates with this generic article classification, than adding additional conditional statements for each classification.

By the way, my own opinion is that pages is a better and more descriptive name for the contents of the category. However, I would still prefer to use articles, since it means that there is a consistent nomenclature for all classifications: "class-Class project articles." And if you still want to attempt this huge undertaking (editing hundreds of custom-made templates), I'd recommend also creating Cfds to rename all of the non-article classification categories from "articles" to "pages" (NA, Category, Disambig, Image, Portal, Project, Redirect, and Template). --Scott Alter 02:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing that. What did you do, though? It looks like the only thing you did that I hadn't was add a "1=" How does that work? Rossami (talk) 01:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

...for moving the AFD discussion to the right date. Strange that. I actually used the link from the WP:AFD page as I had to refresh my memory on bundling nominations. (Note to self: Next time scroll down and notice that there are quite a lot of nominations for a day that is only 30 minutes old (Wikipedia time) :O)) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a friendly heads up. This edit messed up the deletion sorting scripts, because the name of the page no longer matched Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Compact. If you move another deletion sorting page, it would be really helpful if you updated the deletion sorting list, too. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but MFD is for userboxes. See the Introduction for details. bibliomaniac15 03:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the AfD stuff in my AfD thing-y. Now, how to use the AfD template in articles(That are nonimated for deletion)? --Fivexthethird (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've put the "hang on" tag on the article Pini Society. I came across an ad for the online game, which appears to be part of a large ad campaign on Slate and other sites. I created a stub as a placeholder to see if it caught on.

I have no problem deleting the article if it doesn't catch on - I'd just like to give it a short repireve before it goes away.

Thanks for the warning about the tag.

--KNHaw ^(talk) 23:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it really that difficult to click the edit at the top of the page instead of editing "discussions"? It only adds 6 more lines in the edit window. I'm going to revert your changes in 5 minutes if you don't respond. Thanks. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me! I think this deserves more attention, and WT:MFD is the perfect place for it. Your bold change was made, and now reverted. The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is certainly not a new concept, and it looks like we've made it to he 'discuss part of it. Nothing is to be lost in gaining further consensus, but I'd hate to waste both our times in a edit war over it. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflicted this one with your on my talk---see ya at WT:MFD. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Its not an exact reprint of a page which was deleted, i removed some stuff which mite be contrued as advertising and redid it. what is wrong with the article?

Sully89 (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just come across an edit to Chronological list of saints and blesseds: 11 of yours, back in February.

I don't think you should change a link Bishop of Como to "Bishop of Como" - I think it is clear that (especially on this page) the reader is more likely to want the bishop/diocese page than the city page. Also, I find the edit summary misleading, and the marking of the changes as "minor" to be quite inadequate. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see there was a round of removing = signs from headings and then now adding them on again. Why? It's not a complaint, i'm just curious. Ironholds 12:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems everyone's in consensus about TfD and CfD (if not the others). Any idea how to start implementing it? JohnnyMrNinja 15:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for assistance. I'm clueless. JohnnyMrNinja 16:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've also asked for assistance from Masem for the template. He hasn't responded yet, but I'd like his to do it as he's already worked on the template. If it goes on long enough, I'll ask an un-related sysop. JohnnyMrNinja 16:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And now I've asked Marasmusine. JohnnyMrNinja 08:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• gulp* I fear I have no idea what I'm doing, but as the consensus is clearly in favor, I've created Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Transclusion to begin the process. I'm really people more-experienced in WikiBureaucracy will swoop in and take over, though I fear this will not be the case. Oh dear... JohnnyMrNinja 10:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for the delay in having a look at the template. Looks pretty good, though I'm just wondering if it'd be possible to make the code kinda like
{{vgrelease|NA=2008}} rather than {{vgrelease|NA|2008}}, as this would fit in better with the current template. I've no idea about template code though, so it mightn't be possible at all. Thanks! Fin©™ 10:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean - what won't work with the current parameter form? Displaying the dates in no particular order? Fin©™ 10:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok. What'd be the impact of replacing the current template? Would all existing uses of the template have to be edited (as in, would it immediately break all infoboxes?), or could the two co-exist? Fin©™ 11:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you heard of User:AlexNewArtBot? It seems like we could use this for the new articles page. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-4 16:10

It looks good, but I don't understand how to set it up at all. And does it only check the name of the page, or also the page contents? MrKIA11 (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure at all how the bot works, I guess you need to ask User:Alex Bakharev who operates the bot. It's being used here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/New articles#New Articles found by AlexNewArtBot. P.S. I merged the section from my talk page, hope you don't mind. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-4 16:14

Actually I kind of figured it out, the bot has certain rules it searches for among new articles, for the football project these are the rules: User:AlexNewArtBot/AssociationFootball (these were set up by User:Qwghlm). JACOPLANE • 2008-07-4 16:18

I understand the rules, but is it the article that is checked, or just the title on the New Pages page? MrKIA11 (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I made a post on the bot's talk page asking about the rules. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Very cool, thanks for setting up the rules. I'll watch the pages you mentioned and I'll try and see if I can figure out if I can improve on the rules you've set up. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2008-07-10 10:14

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Atlantean Scion, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ~ Troy (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I spoke too soon. ~ Troy (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am confused as to why you changed the info about your comment at this page to make it appear as though a different user had written it? Addionne (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that you've changed the cateogry on some of the pages I was editing for the Video Game group to "List" class. I'm currently inquiring as to whether this is even an allowed class. The documentation on the project page is inconsistent. I switched some of these back to start class. If the ruling comes down that List is now a valid class, I'll gladly change them to List class myself. Dawynn (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You interested in being nominated? JACOPLANE • 2008-07-29 20:33

Thanks for the offer. I guess it wouldn't hurt; there are times I wish I was one. Would I have to do anything or change anything? Are there any requirements I need to meet? MrKIA11 (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No not really, have a look at Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. When would be a good time for you? Usually you want to be available to answer any questions that people might have. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-29 21:18

Well I'm on vacation until August 11, but I still try to check my watchlist at least once a day. So if you think answering within 2 days is fine, then now is good, otherwise, August 12 or later. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, get ready for it: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MrKIA11. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-29 23:10

Please accept the nomination and provide your answers to the questions, after that I'll add the nomination to RfA. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-29 23:16

• Have you considered seeking a co-nom? It might help. Also, Jaco, consider reading User:Balloonman/How to nominate somebody for RfA. Short and sweet doesn't always work very well. =) –xeno (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A co-nom would be welcome :) (hint) But in the case of MrKIA11, I felt that the candidate was so obviously qualified for the position that it would not be necessary. If you want to add to the RfA, please be my guest. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-29 23:34

Consider fleshing out your nom statement somewhat, per the link I put above. –xeno (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This whole process has left a rather bitter taste in my mouth; I'm sorry for making you go through it. I thought you were a shoe-in. Apparently my judgement of Wikipedians is not in line with the bureaucracy. I hope this doesn't diminish the fantastic enthusiasm and initiative you've demonstrated to date. I think that you should work on WikiProject Trains or something, so next time you're nominated we can focus on that and not mention that you work on Video game-related articles, since a bunch of people seem to have taken a blood-oath to oppose anything Video game-related on Wikipedia. JACOPLANE • 2008-08-4 18:56

• Rest assured, the problem isn't with your judgement. RfA is a very flawed process, there is no doubt. S. Dean Jameson 18:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but your Rfa is very unlikely to reach "passing" level, meaning "above 75% support". At some point in the near future, and notwithstanding a huge number of supporters, you should consider withdrawing your nomination. I only suggest this (as a supporter of yours) because I don't want you to feel unduly stressed by an arbitrary forum, known as RFA. You are an excellent editor, that excels in the venues that you choose to excel in. I am simply here because I don't want you to get too discouraged by the RFA process. RFA sucks. I'm going offline for a day or two, so if you choose to withdraw, simply state as much on the rfa itself, and someone will come along and close it for you. I wish it would've pased, and it shoudl pass, but it likely won't at this point. You of course have the right to let it drag out as long as you wish, I'm merely giving friendly advice to (hopefully) salvage your ego and keep you amongst our better Wikipedians. Whatever you decide, best of luck to you. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 22:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• I second this. We're now starting to pass the point of "learning" from the oppose/neutral comments, as that section seems to be turning into a bit of an echo chamber. Little more can be learned from this process, and if I were you, I'd simply keep my nose to the grindstone, do what I do, and perhaps come back in a few months to see if the "no specialists" mood at RfA currently changes. You're a good editor, and you do not need to change anything (except perhaps the edit summary thing) in my book to stay that way. Regards, S. Dean Jameson 23:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Just hang in there. You'll get there. Gears of War 2 21:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree too. You probably won't pass (damn!) but letting it run its course will maybe show you some more ins and outs of the gameshow process known as RfA. You might pick up a few more things to help you in your next attempt.  Channel ®   01:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing else for MrKIA11 to gain from this RFA. He knows that he needs to read up on policy, participate in XFDs, consistently use edit summaries, and re-apply in 3-6 months. I'm sure that he will pass next time. Axl (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel bad for you, when you got mixed messages coming from both parties regarding cool-down block (and the presence of Kurt Weber in an RfA spells drama) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA has been closed. Unfortunately it was unsuccessul. The final results are here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MrKIA11. I urge to work on the concerns the community raised and reapply at a future date. Thank you for your interest. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, I really cant wait to see you get the tools. Cheers. Gears of War 2 15:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This wasn't raised in the RfA, but usually it's expected that Administrators provide an e-mail adress so that blocked users can contact them that way. You should activate it in your preferences. I hope you're not pissed off or disillusioned about Wikipedia following your unsuccessful RfA. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2008-08-6 22:35

Hello. You forgot to remove the AfD tag from the article. Also, you should label non-admin closures as such; see WP:NAC.  Sandstein  21:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hiya. Nice work on the infoboxes (I do a lot of it myself), just to be wary of the template version you use - Test Drive Unlimited now displays the releases in an order that isn't chronological (for PC and PS2). You're probably already aware of this due to your discussions on the template talk. Anyway, thought I'd let you know! Thanks! Fin©™ 17:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. I noticed you cleaned up an infobox at Overlord: Dark Legend. While that is very nice of you to do, I would like to ask you to notice {{inuse}}-tags placed on articles. Your edit resulted for me in an edit conflict and I had to trace your edit before I could do my changes. So please, as a courtesy to other editors, if someone places {{inuse}}, you should postpone your edits until they have finished. Regards SoWhy ^{review me!} 14:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Yang Peiyi. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that AfD for me, I was trying to figure out what I did wrong, any tips? sicaruma (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note that per WP:SK, early closes of deletion discussions when the nominator withdraws are only permitted if there are no other recommendations to delete the article. Just letting you know for future reference. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for informing. Before i created the article i have checked the new articles announcement and forgot to check the category. I have asked a admin to do HistMerge. The job is done.--SkyWalker (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete it if it's not used. I didn't relize you were waiting on me. BW21.--BlackWatch21 19:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw your edit to GRAW and I was wondering if you'd like to join the Ghost Recon Wiki. I'm the founder of it. We're a small wiki but i think if we spread the word it could be big. Thanks, Spartytime^Talk_{My Wikia} 17:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

How do we go through relisting AfD for WPVG? I know for the main AfD log you tag it and copy the AfD on top of the current day's log. I just noticed we have a couple of AfD that are now a week old that has not been closed. MuZemike (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've almost completed coding to implement your request at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 22#Template Deletion bot, I just have a few questions for you first. Please reply there. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 18:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Re my talk page: No, MU for the old old games — MUDs and such, rather than "multi-user". --Izno (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't put deletion request on that template until ALL articles using it have been moved to the updated Infobox VG template. Also, there is some work to be done, as the current VG Infobox with "collapsible=yes" attribute looks terrible. See for an example using Infobox VG with collapsible attribute: Battlefield 1942#Expansion_packs. Both lines need to be centered when it wraps to the second line. Currently only the second line is centered. Also, I think the header font is way too big for these purposes. It is suitable for a main VG Infobox which is entirely visible. See here for an article using the VG Hidden template: Daisenryaku. ---Majestic- (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If you read the criteria for T3, it requires that the template be tagged for 7 days before being deleted, and since I was transferring the few uses tonight, I didn't see a problem. As for the aesthetics, that can be dealt with later. The [show] link is what causes the first line not to be centered in the box, and I have yet to find a way around that. IMO, having the templates look the same is more important than individual pages. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

About a month ago, you reverted an edit of mine: Talk:ZZT-oop (yes, I'm late to respond: I didn't have it in my watchlist). I don't oppose the revert, I just want to know why, so I can learn. The article states: "ZZT-oop was an early in-game scripting programming language, designed by Tim Sweeney, for his computer game ZZT." (emphasis mine)

Why is this article different from other articles about scripting languages specifically designed for computer games? Think about/compare to QuakeC, Kismet (gameplay scripting) etc. --DanielPharos (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explaining and correcting. --DanielPharos (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you upload a Screenshot and make a boxart to Elvira: Mistress of the Dark? - Jon (talk) 8:32, 2 Octomber 2008 (UTC +1)

Thanks. Here you'll find some screenshots: http://www.thehouseofgames.net/index.php?t=10&id=155 - Jon (talk) 8:32, 2 Octomber 2008 (UTC +1)

Well, I saw that you edited Elvira: Mistress of the Dark so I checked your usersite and I got the impression that you are serious about editing. And... I'm really new with wikipedia so I don't know how to do all the stuff really... I'm sure there some page where I can ask for uplaods but I was just to lazy to check... - Jon (talk) 8:32, 2 Octomber 2008 (UTC +1)

hehe, yeah thanks :) - Jon (talk) 8:32, 2 Octomber 2008 (UTC +1)

Hey, me agian. Could you upload images to Elvira 2: The Jaws of Cerberus? Jon swe (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Jon (talk) 8:32, 2 Octomber 2008 (UTC +1)

Yep, here you go: http://hol.abime.net/2837/screenshot. Thanks for the help. Jon swe (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I just recently created an article for the Xbox 360 game RACE Pro that a user immediately nominated for deletion because he/she is not convinced the game exist, despite the fact that I've listed valid sources (the game's offical website) and such. Their reasoning is because the article is too short or whatever (albeit the game hasn't been release yet). Please help. Thanks.Beem2 (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Greatly appreciated. :) The RACE Pro article is now exempt from deletion.Beem2 (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi I have recently redesigned the IndustryPlayer page and I see you have added some edits. To help me understand can you let me know what you found wrong (so I don't do it again) Thanks Sunshinebr (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That was great feedback - thank you very much Sunshinebr (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You wrote to TallNapoleon (talk • contribs • count)

Could you please create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radical skepticism or remove the deletion tags. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radical skepticism. Your comments there would be appreciated. Please remember that Twinkle sometimes fails to complete AfD nominations. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:Cfl requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MrKIA11 (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC) MrKIA11 (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand what it is for, but with the new process, {{cfd1}} is the only template needed for all category nominations. MrKIA11 (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Which is moot since in a few moments I will be reverting the "new process" per WP:BRD, and as lacking WP:CON.

Further discussion is clearly warranted before having this "new process" go "live".

Any help with the reversion would be welcome. - jc37 03:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please wait on the revert. Please discuss. I've tried, but it's been hard. MrKIA11 (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand that it's difficult to find consensus. And I am strongly in favour of Being bold. However, at this point, it's time for the RD part of WP:BRD. Which means reversion.

That said, I have no problem waiting for a little bit until you respond the the many concerns at WT:CAT. Giving a bit of time before reverting shouldn't make much of a difference. Perhaps there is something to your case, but so far it's more disruptive than helpful. - jc37 03:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I thought Twinkle had worked. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the DJ Max Portable articles and templates. Greatly appreciate the help. Fireblaster lyz (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on the article for Grand Theft Auto clone. I remember you as someone who has good insights on video game images... but even if you don't, I really just need an outside opinion. In that article, how many images would be appropriate for a good article (balancing coverage and fair use)? If you had a thought on what the images might be or could fish out an image or two, that would be even more helpful. Even just a quick opinion would be helpful, though. Randomran (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! I'll try to work with it. Randomran (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Why you insist on adding styling to the template? --Mika1h (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, what mechanism are you currently using to filter out new pages? JACOPLANE • 2008-11-12 16:43

While it is true that most A-class VG articles are often GA's (the article is going to GAN the moment one of the two I have up there at present is assessed), A-class is independent of the GA process. It is an informal agreement, which only needs two assessors to agree; a GA review has not been a prerequiste on this project. If you have an issue with the article being rated as A-class, take it up with the three reviewers who listed it as such: User:Krator, User:Yzmo and User:Kung Fu Man, rather than edit warring over it. -- Sabre (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I will, the moment one of the other two articles I currently have listed at GAN is reviewed. I don't like clogging up the process, I never have more than two articles at GAN at any one time. -- Sabre (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Howdy! I noticed that you added Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RTL_Games to a 'video games related' deletions. As far as I can tell, the company doesn't make any computer or video games, I think the category on the page might be in error. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, first off I'm in no way, shape, or form a wikipedia expert. So if my changes/edits/contributions are done weird or out of the socially accepted way or if I miss something that you're supposed to do when taking any of these actions, you need to take that into account. (Like me not leaving comments in my first 2 changes) While I've used Wikipedia since damn near it's launch I've never edited one until 2 nights ago...so I'm still learning.

Now before you go around saying I've destroyed a list and that you've done your homework maybe you should get your facts straightened out.

Those PSN store downloads are nothing more then ports of PS1 games. A port is when you take one game from one system, don't change anything about it, and stick it on another system. The only changes/additions made to the code those which will allow it to operate on the new platform, in this case the psp. They are not new. They are not created for the PSP. They are not unique. They're nothing more then conversions. And just because they have a price tag on them doesn't change a thing.
Reference for porting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porting

If you play one and then go and play their PS1 equivalent it's the SAME GAME. Same format. Same secrets. Same everything. And I know this because I MAKE these types of games. Any PS1 game you can imagine I can put onto a PSP. Hell I was playing Xenogears before I got onto my computer.

Now if the whole "Well they can be played on the psp so it's a psp game" is your argument then the list of games is about 2% complete. You missed all of the following systems which can, in fact, be emulated on the psp just like PS1 games can-

1. NES
2. SNES
3. SEGA
4. MAME
5. N64
6. C64
7. Amiga
8. GameBoy
9. GameBoy Advance
10. GameBoy Color
11. Game Gear
12. LYNX

There's definitely more systems, but I think I've made my point. If being able to play a game on the PSP is the logic being the argument, that means you need to go pull ALL the game lists from all said systems (don't forget the rest of the PS1 game library) and any other systems that can be emulated on the PSP onto the PSP Game List Wiki and edit them accordingly.

Do you understand my point?

So instead of us fighting back and forth about these PSN/PS1 games belonging on the list, why not just leave the PSN games off and instead make a link, up top, to the PSN Games wiki. I mean that's why it was created right? That way A)users can find their PSN/PS1 games B)the people who made the wiki didn't do so in vain are are getting their due credit C)the psp list stays true to PSP created games.

This keeps the list clean, cut, and anyone looking for said information can find it whether it be here or via the link provided.

here's a link to the playstation network wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Network

and here's a link to a list of the games offered on the psn (which you can note as being titled "List of PSOne Classics")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PSOne_Classics


ZeroAccend (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree about me trying to format this to my own personal interest. I'm trying to make this wiki thorough, clean, and as informative as possible while providing your avg user with whatever info they may need.

Separating the PSN games from the actual, physical, "created for psp" games is not me modifying it to my personal preference. I'm trying to separate 2 different sets of games. As stated before, all PSN games are PS1 ports. I've yet to see a custom made PSN game. But this is where my dilemma rises...You argue that for it to be a PSP game that it can't be emulated through 3rd party programs. That's fine. We'll rule out all the stated systems above, but what about the entire PS1 library that has yet to be released that can be played on the PSP through the built in PS1 emulator? They're legit games. They're made by Sony. They don't require 3rd party software. And as I said before, they can be made by any user who poses the right tools and access to the original PS1 game CD's / ISOs.

One thing I should note is the reasoning for me getting into all of this in the first place. I was looking through the PSP game list. I saw 2 Extreme and thought it might be a new release of the game Extreme-G which I LOVED on N64. I searched my ass all over the internet trying to see how much the game was going for, yet I couldn't find it. It was a waste of my time and was nothing more then a frustration, and it was because the game wasn't properly labeled.

So this just dawned on me. How about we do the same as the "alternate naming convention" we agreed on.

If all the PSN games are going to be incorporated into this list as a point of being complete and accurate, would it be possible to add some type of indicator saying that it's not a physical UMD but instead a download via the playstation network store? It would be notated as to not confuse people.

So, as an example, if you had a game such as "2 Extreme", the new naming convention could instead be "2 Extreme (PSN)" and at the top of the screen would be notated that "all games marked as (PSN) can only be bought via the playstation network store".

As an alternate solution, if the naming convention would look tacky (which, depending on who you ask, someone might say it does), we could instead incorporate 1 more small column on the right. This column could be labeled (PSN/UMD). A PSN would indicated it's downloaded while a UMD would indicated it's a physical and original game.

This column wouldn't be hard to implement, would help to make the games list more accurate, and wouldn't take up that much more space.

While both solutions are completely viable, I'm thinking the extra column is probably the more logical and reasonable solution.

The more I think about it the more I like it. Your want of the PSN games being left on the list is fulfilled and my want for better identification is met. Also, the fact that the games being on the list makes the list even more complete and precise appeals to me very much being that is the point of the wiki. And, of course, the end user benefits from both.

I'm interested in hearing what you have to say. I'll check back in an hour or 2. Going to get some house work done and grab something to eat.

--ZeroAccend (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Just got back from thanksgiving. sry about the late response. I'm glad to see we have a common goal in this list and I do appreciate your input and want to work with me on it.

I understand that your preference doesn't lie in the column idea, however I've been playing around with the column thing in the sandbox and have come up with something that works quite well.

By removing 2% width from the title, 1% width from the publisher, and 2% width from the released regions, there's enough width room for a %5 wide column called "U/P" at the end. Naming it U/P keeps the space to a minimum and the tags UMD and PSN also both fit in the 5% constraint. I also populated a large portion of it randomly with UMD and PSN tags (not accurate by any means) just to see what it looks like, and to be honest it came out quite well. Also note that I'm running my monitor at 1024x768 (which, to my knowledge, is the general accepted minimum for most current pcs).

If you have an email address you could share with me, I'd be happy to shoot you a text copy of the wiki and you can copy & paste it into a sandbox of your own for viewing. I'm confident you'll agree it looks quite acceptable while not cramping any of the other columns.

Look forward to hearing back from ya.

ZeroAccend (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I decided to say screw the extra column. I just denoted all PSN games with a ** and also included the ** explanation at the top of the page. I've added over 1/2 of the PSN games to the list and will add the other 1/2 today. If you think it looks bad, then we can always undo it.

Also I had my first alt-name game pop up in the PSN games. It was Hot Shots Golf 2. AKA Everybody's Golf 2. If you use the syntax

Name <br> - Name2

it puts the 2nd name below the first and indented. IDK if that's the format that you like but I think it looks pretty good.

Anyway, I should have it all uploaded within the next couple hours and you can check it out.

--ZeroAccend (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. (PSN) is a lot more straight forward. I went with the ** originally as to save on space being that was one of your concerns.

--ZeroAccend (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as naming games by their European or American or Japanese title, I would suggest there be another column added. Said column can contain known alternate names.

IE Hot Shots golf is an American title where as in Europe its called Everybody's Golf.
Same with Off Road being called Ford Racing: Off Road.

As you said "And for Off Road, you should also remember that this is not only the NA wiki, but the EN wiki, and even though I happen to be in NA, I made the list conform to the way that games are listed on their own pages".

This would alleviate all the naming problems as people could ctrl+f for a game and still find it. And I'm sure that some die hard fan would be happy to go through and put in any known names for all the different countries...whether it be NA, EU, JP, SK, AUS, or any other country there might be.

Also, you said:
"The list also does not include JP only games, as this is the English wiki, so there is no reason for that to be on there"

Yet at the top of the wiki it says:
"This incomplete list is frequently updated to include new information.

This is a list of games on the Sony PlayStation Portable handheld game console, both released and in development.

Games have been released in several regions around the world; North America (NA), Japan (JP), Europe (EU), and Australasia (AUS).

• Note: Publishers and Regions are placed in order of release"

I don't believe the call of whether or not games get put on the list is yours. There's tons of people who play Japanese games but can only speak/read english. Do you honestly think they can just hop over to the Japanese wiki and read it?
Just because you want english only games on here doesn't mean that's how it is. I've got quite a few more Japanese titles that will be added within the next day or two and I expect them to go untouched (unless, of course, i mess up on a date, fact, etc...)

ZeroAccend (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

With the naming of the games, using the secondary name method instead of adding an extra column is fine by me. I don't mind HOW it's done as long as there is some way to note that "X" game is known as "this this and this". John Q User should be able to press ctrl+f, type the name of the game, and have it pop up.

Anything implemented at this point is better then nothing IMHO. The purpose of a wiki is to be as thorough as possible and I feel that not having alternate titles hurts the wiki's credibility a lot.

Whatever style you go with, I'll use. I don't really have a "preference".

--ZeroAccend (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice job on cleaning that stuff up. I had no idea if i should just put "no" for those things on the PSP list of PSN games or leave them blank or w/e :P

Was just checking to see also if you thought the ** idea was alright/looked ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroAccend (talk • contribs) 06:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You must understand the motives of removing this extra multiplayer content. What is useful is not also what is necessary, and you have to step into the shoes of someone with 56k - it is a noticeably slow-loading article even for me with broadband, I can't imagine how bad it would be for someone with 56k. Online can be made a category, and Adhoc can be made a category. How many players there are isn't necessary for the list, and when you're at 111kb, you can't really argue against removing extra content. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you please not change the date for it becuse it is onley for Germany at the moment. A Candela (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the mess that occurred when I tried to nominate an article for deletion. I thought I was going slowly insame when I couldn't figure out what was going on there (and, frankly, I'm still not sure - the old procedure seemed much more intuitive). B.Wind (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this. The article is about a video game director, not a video game. The Prince (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me sort out the mess I made of the AfD. Your assistance was appreciated! NoVomit (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)