This is an archive of past discussions with User:IceWelder. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Rocket League.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daikatana, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Robert Owens, Eric Smith and Jorge Gonzalez (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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Undertale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Escapist (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.
Hey! I didn't want to revert your entire edit, because there are other changes, so wanted to bring this up. MOS:TM says that we write "Thatgamecompany" instead of "thatgamecompany", even if that's the official trademark spelling. Not lowercasing the first letter (except like iPad) is one of the main points of MoS, even if it is truer to plain English than source spelling. Since the article has also been through FA and FT, a major change and an exception to MOS should have at least a talk page discussion first. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK22:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm not 100% sure about this, since it is "thatgamecompany, LLC" [1], so it is not just the trademark, but the official business name, and the common name. The examplse given at MOS:TMRULES give for example Adidas, which is most commonly referred to as "Adidas" and not "adidas" (AFAIK), so I guess common name also applies? You might get that better than I do. Lordtobi (✉) 23:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Registered business name wouldn't really matter, because we first use common name from sources, which is "T/thatgamecompany". Afterwards, we apply MOS, which says closest to readable English. So it ends up "Thatgamecompany". I can't think of good examples for video game companies, usually it's the other way around -- company uses all capitals. Metacafe, Sakevisual or Diomedéa, perhaps. There's way more examples for products. This is one of those cases where MOS overrides RSes for the sake of readability. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK00:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a reoccuring issue with thatgamecompany stuff; there was a lot of back and forth a few years ago when I was getting the articles to GA/FA about the capitalization of flOw as well. No big deal. On the flip side, I had no idea that the MOS recommends putting "LLC" in the first sentence until you added it. --PresN02:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I noticed your recent edit to Undertale does not have an edit summary. I reverted some edits you made since they seemed to only remove some small content and the flow of the text.
I reverted two vandlist edits and because Wikipedia does not automaticly insert it if you undo multiple things, and I am really busy, I was just to lazy. It should seem clear that vandalism is undone if you regard the section.
To me it just seems like you removed the section on the unofficial port on Android and changed "Toby Fox" in the lead with "tobyfox". Can't really see any vandalism you reverted. Also, please sign your posts. --CaptainSweden14:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
"tobyfox" is the developer pseudonym which has to be used, for that specific purpose, I added comment directing editors to the talk page where the FAQ about it is, but that seems to be of your disregard. That someone added "Unofficial port for Android" is pure nonsense, as a) It does not exist and b) Even if it did, it would not belong annywhere near where he put it. The might in fact be a reason his name is "TrollzorMAX", don't you think? The other edit was done by another user with only two edits so far, both breaking grammar or flow, opposed to what you said, that my revert was "breaking the flow". And by your most recent edit, you did not for me to respond (as I was writing when I got the email), and you were again reverted by Rhain. Consider reading guidelines or the talk page before behaving like someone who is constantly reverting vandalism on exactly that page is performing vandlism edits. Lordtobi (✉) 14:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to ask if you could tell me more about this so that I can make better contributions this week. I thought the two things were notable because opencritic has a recommended percent thing and giant bomb gave the game a perfect score, which i dont think they do very often.
Is there anywhere I can read better about how to make better edits on games?
Per Wikipedia talk:VG, OpenCritic is not a notable aggregation platform and Giant Bomb not a reliable reviewer. It seems to me that you are new to Wikipedia, so welcome! You should start off with reading the five pillars of Wikipedia, and try to make some edits to your sandbox. If you have a question to something specific, feel free to ask me for advice. What you should note for talk pages is that you shouls sign what you write with ~~~~ which will produce the following, just with your initials: Lordtobi (✉) 21:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
If you would like to reply, use colons (:) and the very beginning of the line to tab it, or in this case two as I already produced one. Have a good one and happy editing. Lordtobi (✉) 21:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi again! Thank you. We read those 5 pillars in class. Is there anywhere I can see what are the notable sources in video games? I can't find a list on that page you sent.
And really, ty for answering my questions. we are supposed to try to make an edit about something that we know so I'm trying to do stuff for games! AlmostKeeper (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
There is always this 50/50 consensus, since there are hundereds of pages on the internet that deal with video games. There are, however, the "usual suspects", of which IGN, Eurogamer, PC Gamer, GameSpot, VG247, Polygon, and Destructoid are the most common. We refer to those as secondary sources. There are of course other notable ones, and you may just ask me for specific ones. What you should try to avoid are completely unreliable sources, meaning Steam or GOG.com pages, blog posts, Twitter/Facebook, Reddit, etc. When your citing, you should follow the following reciepe: <ref>{{cite web | url = [URL OF THE ARTICLE] | title = [HEADING OF THE ARTICLE] | last = [LAST NAME OF THE ARTICLE'S AUTHOR] | first = [FIRST NAME OF THE ARTICLE'S AUTHOR] | date = [DATE OF THE ARTICLE PUBLISHED] | website = [NAME OF THE WEBSITE, WIKILINKED*] | accessdate = [THE DATE YOU REFERENCED THE ARTICLE]}}</ref> *Wikilinked = put in two square brackets like [[PC Gamer]], if you have Polygon, the article name on Wikipedia is "Polygon (website)", so you have to pipe it, i.e. "[[Polygon (website)|Polygon]]" to make it appear as Polygon, but still linkt to Polygon (website).
Yeah, that are the genral rules of citing. If you want to have a good project, you can try to build FNaF World with me, it is quite missing some content and would be a good opportunity for you to contribute, and I might correct issue you make and exmplain them to you to learn. Have fun doing some research and keep in mind to hit me up for questions. Lordtobi (✉) 22:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Nixxes logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Undertale: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Nathan2055talk - contribs21:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
With respect, but I don't believe replacing "Undertale" by "Cancer" or similar is not testing, rather plain vandalism. Given user seems to have a dynamic IP because of which warning/banning one had no use. Lordtobi (✉) 22:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but even so, they should receive warnings if only for the purpose of allowing other editors to see if an account has been previously used for vandalism. --Nathan2055talk - contribs22:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi there!
Gone Home is not an interactive storytelling game
Thanks
Your recent editing history at Gone Home shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Amortias (T)(C) 20:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
You understand this edit better than I do, so please correct Template:'/doc to match your edit. I have been changing ' to ` because the document says so, and includes half a page explaining the difference. So I didn't realize that ` now redirects to '. Art LaPella (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, this was part of a consensus at Template talk:', because the accent the template was holding is inacurate by some guideline I had read a few months back, and should use the standarad apostrophe instead. I will look into the doc you linked and see if there is something conflicting. Lordtobi (✉) 12:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, that's part of what I wanted, but I believe you overlooked the first paragraph, which still distinguished ' from `. So I edited it myself.
Should the similar template `s be redirected to 's to match your redirect of ` to '? I almost did it myself, but then I read more about hair spaces and nowraps and decided to leave it alone. I do need to edit Template:`/doc. Art LaPella (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I see I missed something, apologies, but you worked it out yourself which is good, thanks. The ' template was recently changed based on the consensus I linked earlier, which now gives it a CSS-invoked space of 0.1em and nowrap to avoid a break in-line, and thus ` had no use anymore, really. Lordtobi (✉) 17:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
While cleaning up is okay, you probably want to actually archive most of that stuff that you have cut (at least in the discussion parts, the refideas doesn't need it) to a place like Talk:The Witness (2016 video game)/Archive1. Mainspace talk pages, we nearly always want to keep past discussions around without having to search histories, the only things that should be removed as you are doing are pure nonsense input. --MASEM (t) 23:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I only cut off topic content which is to be deleted by guidlines, such as "Will this come to Wii U and Xbox 420 ???" is not very appropriate. Also there was a "discussion" from 2013 with no answers whatsoever, which only contained a question regarding something obvious. If you need to, recover that last one, however, offtopic is not to be recovered. Lordtobi (✉) 23:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to edit war over an Rcat, but "Lego media" is clearly not just a different capitalisation than "Lego Interative". Please reconsider. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
As stated in the edit summary, it is another capitalisation of "Lego Media", which the redirect refers to. Lordtobi (✉) 17:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Fuck off you cunt. You don't revert substantial contributions (Gabe Newell), mark them as minor and say WP:NOTNEWS on a page that's barely a bigger than a stub, then fail to even leave a message. Except technical edits, you've contributed fuck all to that page. No wonder this site is losing contributors.--Vaypertrail (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
@Vaypertrail: Hello, you seem to be new Wikipedia, else you would know that "fuck off you cunt" is more of a hostile and aggressive term that goes against Wikipedia's civility guidelines, than an actual introduction to a problem. Regarding your 'question', things like "on x he did y, on a he did b" belong to the category of being news, as it is just a write-down of what happened on random days, nothing really notable. News are prohibited, as you cited yourself. Seeing that you write this message about two months after the actual edit tells me that you are not actually interested in maintaining these facts, rather you are searching for a reason to yell at somebody. According to your talk page, you have been involved in multiple of such cases, which is why I will let this stay as it is without further edit. In the meantime, get yourself to read Wikipedia's five pillars. Lordtobi (✉) 09:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Steam
I don't want to edit war on this, but how do you view this as common practice? It's not the common format used in most WP:VG articles by far. References are typically clearly under the references section, not under a subsection "Footnotes". Footnotes typically refers to small notes like the active user blurb. WP:CITE describes a Notes and References section as I had put back. -- ferret (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that there was actually a guideline on this, but this format is what I have seen multiply. Ex: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, is what I have found at first glance. Maybe these things should be adapted to your format. Lordtobi (✉) 15:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Just Cause 3 above has the format I typically expect. I would say these should go to the more typical formatting. I truly believe these are outliers, at least within WP:VG scope. Footnotes may be used more heavily in other projects. -- ferret (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Probably around 80% of all video game articles would disagree with that. The vast majority of articles about video games do not have a caption for the picture in the infobox. This is what I based my edit on. To be consistent. I personally think it's really silly to not have a caption but it's essentially the consensus. Just thought I'd give a better explanation than "obvious". —DangerousJXD (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I cannot really see why that is the 'general consensus', because if I run down my watchlist or click on random video game articles, I rarely find a game not having a caption. And if I ever find one without, I just add a caption. If you want to be consistend, I'd suggest rather going down on adding captions, rather than removing them. Lordtobi (✉) 08:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what games you're looking at. Anyway, I'm not looking to start a war, just a further explanation from myself was necessary. All the best. —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I hope so; I have been annoyed by this for quite some time. I could literally list hundreds of games without a picture caption. It doesn't make sense why having no caption is better than having one, especially since this matter isn't a thing in other subjects, with the best example being film articles. At the end of the day, there are more important things. But it's always good to have a consensus. —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kat Gunn, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dead or Alive and Spawn (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.
Hello! I appreciate your edits to the Kat Gunn article, but I believe some of the references you removed may be a misunderstanding. I corrected those and just wanted to let you know here so we don't continue to go back and forth editing the article. If you feel this is an error I would like to discuss it here before changing the article in question. Again, I thank you for your edits and just want to make sure the article correctly reflects the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhDDogg (talk • contribs) 08:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, according toyour edit summaries, I did not properly reason my deletion of sources, which is false. I stated on all sources why they were to be removed, so lets go through the list:
"Five Professional Girl Players That Put The Guys to Shame" is located on Blonde Nerd, a site that is run by only one person as a personal blog, and nothing notable. If there is ever an article other than a let's play, it is a personal opinion.
Her IMDb entry is on IMDb, which is purely user-contributed, therefore not notable.
About the interview, it is a primary source, therefore not as notable. Considering it was written by teammate of Gunn, it is also influenced by opinions and likelynes. It is therefore only semi-notable, but can be kept if needed
Summing up, I did state that things are unnotable for various reasons, and here you may have them detailed. If you agree or never reply, I will remove the sources again. Lordtobi (✉) 11:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello again. First and foremost, I don't check Wikipedia on a daily basis. The fact that you stated I "refuse to reply" is a bit outlandish. If I need to reply within 25 hours then you need to state that. You did not.
As for your edits. The CGS article is in reference to the player salary, which is clearly stated in the preceding line. Random YouTube channels are not notable, however official YouTube channels are notable as per the guidelines stated on Wikipedia. The YouTube channel linked is the official channel of Newegg. The interview is in reference to the fact that she has a position on the team. It's from the official team site so of course it's written by a staff member of the team. The official site stating she is a member of the team is the best source you can find.
I have added these edits and left the blog entry out as I agree with your reasoning for removal. In the future, please allow a bit more than "25 hours" if you want to have a proper discussion about the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhDDogg (talk • contribs) 03:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
By normal means, you should receive emails about the happenings you are associated with. Anyway, lets go over your concerns again:
You re-added the IMDb page, which is by any means unnotable.
The IGN article deptics in its last line that 'certain' people (unmentioned in section, therefore the ones listed above, lacking Gunn) will have gotten at least one amount of money in a championship in 2007. The statement, however, says specifically that Gunn made $160k because she received at least $30k every year. Neither is given in the source. Unnotable for this article.
The two YouTube sources are from YouTube and primary, therefore a mixture of WP:PRIMARY into WP:EL/P, therefore also unnotable.
Because you seem new and uncommon to Wikipedia, I will wait for you to respond. If you respond, do not use a new section, rather put colons. Always one more than the previous message, in this case, five of them: :::::. Also, never forget to sign your posts on talk pages . You can do it by simply entering ~~~~ at the end of your message, and it will produce this, just in your format: Lordtobi (✉) 16:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for waiting on a response. I didn't receive an email notification, but even still I don't think it was necessary for me to respond within 25 hours. I will try to be more attentive though as to not waste too much of your time.
For IMDB, according to the page you linked it states IMDB is notable for external links. I assume it's fine there. As for a reliable source, unfortunately there isn't anywhere else that shows the credits for a video game. IMDB is the only source I'm familiar with that does this. The Wiki page states that IMDB content is not generally reliable, but the only alternative would be to link to a picture or video of the end credits, which would appear on Facebook or YouTube (not under official accounts) and therefore be even less reliable. Do you have a solution or possible suggestion for this?
The IGN article stats, "Drafted players will go on salary starting June 23. Compensation will be at least $30,000, but could exceed $100,000 after bonuses." The other CGS reference provides reliable proof that Kat Gunn was a drafted player. The CGS website no longer exists so that can't be sourced. We do have sources stating Kat Gunn participated in both seasons and therefore was salaried for both seasons. However, since her winnings were not documented outside of the official CGS site, her salary is all that's available. She made more than that, which is why $160+ is stated, but the reference is for $30k which is not included in the Guinness earnings quote.
For YouTube, I'm not following why it's an issue that it's a mix of WP:PRIMARY into WP:EL/P. I've read both pages in the past and unless I'm missing something, neither state that an official YouTube channel cannot be a primary source or reliable. PhDDogg (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Let's just reiterate and detail this further:
As you said, IMDb is not usable as a reliable source, as it is user-contributed. If there is no other way to source the statement, one should consider removing the line entirely, as it is not even worth noting. A lot of people are inserted into "special thanks" sections for various reasons.
The IGN article does state that drafted players' salary would be about 30k, hoever, that does not prove that Gunn made 30k every year and therefore now has 160k. It is not more than an assumption loosely based on one statement indrectly related to her.
The issue with YouTube is, that if you have a primary source, it is only semi-reliable because, well, you could just write random stuff in your own blog and then cite it as true. YouTube is user-contributed, and therefore only semi-notable when referring to official accounts. When it comes to a mix, both source kill each other's reliable half if you read through the guideline clearly. The reason you can sometimes include YouTube is when it comes off a reliable secondary source. Apart from that, Gunn does not even appear in 50% of the GamerChix series. So far, in 7 out of 15 videos, she hosted it. Therefore, the statement is false anyways. It is not notable either, as the show receives just a couple thousand clicks, supposedly the channel's subscribers, and there is not mentionworthy secondary source that covers it. The other "series" as the article calls it, is one gaming session split into two videos. There is nothing more to it, it is not popular, it has just been one event, and it is not relevant anyway.
Can you source where it defines what information is significant and what is not? You seem to be saying portions of the article or references should not be included based on what you believe is relevant. If Gunn is hosting videos on the official Newegg YouTube channel, it shouldn't matter how many views the videos receive.
There aren't many people that are credited in video games. The fact that she is credited is significant. Anyone can buy the game and see that she's credited, it's just that "online" it's only sourced on IMDB.
It's confirmed via multiple sources that Gunn was a drafted player in the CGS. The IGN article confirms that all drafted players made at least $30k which is significant because that figure is not included in GWR figure.
YouTube is user-contributed, yes. However, on Newegg's official YouTube channel only a Newegg employee can contribute to it. You won't see random user-generated content on that channel.PhDDogg (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
If there is no other sources that reproduces this statement, the statement is not significant. It is as simple as that.
Even if Gunn is confirmed to be a drafted player, the statement still reads that she has made over $160k because she made $30k every year. The source given only states that drafted players would get about $30k in 2007. It does not state that it was like that every year, and is far from being able to say that she made $160k. That is also because that championship is not her only source of income. The source gives us zero evidence for the statement, therefore the statement is not even acurate, rather a simple "30 * x = 160" calculation.
As I mentioned prior, only official channels of secondary sources are accepted, and reasoned it above as well. The statement is also disproven since she does not even appear of half of the episodes. If it was significant enough to be on Wikipedia, some other source could have said that. The show itself is not popular, so the statement is unsignificant regardless. Lordtobi (✉) 14:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I once again have to ask for a link to where it determines what's relevant and what is not. Where does it say that a YouTube video has to have X-number of views to be relevant? Why are you even so concerned with this particular page? I saw that multiple users were displeased with your edits before you removed those talk sections and now you're debating about the date format as well.
There are sources, just play the game. The problem is there are no "online" sources outside of IMDB. I can go take a screenshot of the game and add it to Wikipedia and it would be hard to dispute, but I don't think that's a valid source either. The fact is Gunn was credited in the game. That is 100% confirmed. The debate it currently how to properly source it.
GWR reports that Gunn earned $122k. IGN then confirms she made at least $30k from her player salary which is not factored into the GWR figure. Nothing changed with the CGS salaries for the second season, but even if we assume there was a change, Gunn's earnings would be at least $152k. That said, the figure can be changed to $152k, but the statement and source should remain.
Where does it say that Gunn has to host a majority of the Game Chix episodes to be listed as a host? I would think 7 of 15 is more than enough to be considered a host of the show, even if the statement needs to be changed to past tense until she hosts another one. In addition, if the official YouTube channel isn't a valid source, how is it that a secondary official channel would be? That doesn't even make sense and isn't clearly stated in the guidelines. PhDDogg (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Let me tell you, once again, that all you are saying is that "it should be there because there is". Things become relevant if they are considered noteworth by secondary sources, so let me tell you why there is nothing important about any of it:
"Gunn was credited on DoA5" - a quick "Kat+Gunn"+"Dead+or+Alive+5"+Credits google search gives us what? Exactly. Nothing. The only things that pop up are MobyGames and IMDb, as you would expect, as both pages just list down credits no matter what. Is the fact anyhow notable? Not at all. PewDiePie was credited on Turbo Dismount, also under special thanks. Is it important to anyone? No.
"Gunn hosts GamerChix" - yet another quick "GamerChix"+"Kat Gunn" google search gives us... nothing. Again. We get GamerChix itself, random Facebook pages, random Google+ pages, random Wikis that seemingly just copied the Wikipedia text, MP3 download sites, etc. Again: Nothing notable to be seen, not by any chance.
"Gunn made 122k, according to GWR" If that's so, then use it. Do not vaguely state that what you put into your calculator is what she 'has to have' made based on a loose assumption based on another inappropriately used source.
By all means, you are just re- and reiterating the same arguments. Like this, we will get nowhere. You can see our conversation is getting length, but it does not have too. Acccept that some things just are not necessary for Wikipedia. I wondered about her notability before, but was only reverted by you, and you only. Also, you stated that "multiple users were displeased with your edits", I checked my older messages and there were four sections: the first section was a way for a user to let out his incivility. He did not bother ever replying back, and according to his talk page, this was not the first case. The second and third were discussion held about questionable edits, which led to a constructive discussion and a quick compromise. With you trying to alledge me of being in a negative view in the general usership, you just trying to underline that you are right, even though you are wrong. Please do not even try to dig up something just to try to use it against me. Notability is the key factor on Wikipedia, so accept that you are wrong. Lordtobi (✉) 21:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct that we're just going back and fourth. I asked for specific links stating what determines notability. You have yet to offer that. As far as I can tell it's simply your opinion and that's completely irrelevant when it comes to a Wiki article on Kat Gunn. All I'm trying to do is keep the article as factual as possible and you're fighting that for whatever reason. I mentioned the other people in your Talk section because they seemed to be having similar issues with you. I'm at a loss as to why you're so adamant to defile this article, which is why I have now asked three times for references that you have yet to provide. Wikipedia guidelines are one thing, but what you're stating here seems more like personal preference from someone who knows very little about the subject matter (Kat Gunn). If you only know what Google tells you, then you shouldn't be editing this article at all.
No one cares that Gunn is credited in DOA5? How about the millions of DOA players or the thousands of Kat Gunn fans? Again, the fact that it's insignificant to you is irrelevant.
Newegg is one of the biggest PC parts stores online, and the fact that Gunn is at the forefront of Newegg's attempt to expand its audience is significant.
GWR is incorrect because it doesn't include her CGS salary. Why would you even want to leave out details like that? PhDDogg (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I already told you that notability is defined by secondary sources. Neither the DoA5 credit nor the GamerChix series have found any relevance among secondary sources. I underlined this statement by offering you an alternative (yet not as relevant) way of retrieving if something is notable, namely, using Google, which again turned out be just about nothing.
"GWR is incorrect" - how can you tell? I did not see just one source depicting Gunn's salary to be higher than GWS states. Do you have a confirmation that it is higher? And by confirmation I do not mean assumption. You say that she has to have earned more based on a loose calculation you presumably did when you insterted it into the article. The only confirmation there is, is that she may have earned $30,000 in 2007. But there is only that one confirmation, and for 2007 only. If you have proof that she also made the same or similar amount in all other years from 2008—2016, hand it in, else, this statement is and will keep on being an assumption. Lordtobi (✉) 19:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I asked for a linked source concerning notability. You have yet to provide that. If Wikipedia determines notability by Google search results then it's a flawed system since SEO can easily manipulate those results.
The linked GWR article states she earned $100k from Ultimate Gamer. That alone leaves only $22k for everything else. I've already provided proof that she earned 30k from CGS. It was actually more than 60k, but since CGS is gone there's little record of the second season and the money breakdown beyond salary. There's no assumption being made here. The only issue is the lack of online documentation. Just like I'm not "assuming" she was credited in DOA5. In fact, you're the only person assuming anything here. PhDDogg (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
"It was actually more than 60k" - How do you know how much Gunn made if it is not covered anywhere? If you cannot go beyond the GWR source without reliable sources, you cannot.
I never said that you are assuming that she is credited, try not false the conversation. Regardless, per WP:EL/P#IMDb you cannot use it as reference anyhow. Lordtobi (✉) 09:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The source you're linking here is concerning notability of the page subject (in this case, Kat Gunn) not references.
My point was that we have confirmation GWR is saying Gunn made $100k from Ultimate Gamer, which only leaves $22k. We have established a reliable source stating Gunn made at least $30k outside of Ultimate Gamer. So no matter what I say, that's at least $130k, which is more than what GWR stated. If you want additional details on how I personally know, I worked for CGS during both seasons the league was active. I was Senior Writer for theCGS.com and fighting game consultant. During the first season I was even a taxi player for one of the teams. I'm sure I can still find some articles on the internet archive, but otherwise most info on the CGS is lost on at the very least, no longer online. Although... does the internet archive count as a reliable source? A quick look shows quite a few of the old articles from theCGS.com available on the site.
I was going to quote the sentence in which you said I was assuming, but it was actually the entire paragraph you started with "GWR is incorrect" so I'm not sure how you're claiming you didn't state I was making assumptions. As far as IMDb goes, it states "generally" meaning it's not an ironclad ruling that you can't use it. PhDDogg (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
You see, if you had tried to read on, you would have found the connection to WP:BLPSOURCES, which says "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed.", and if you then get back to the statement ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.", you should see where you are wrong.
Right, you have proof that Gunn made about 130k, so cover it correctly, combining the GWS article and the CGS IGN article. As long as you cannot prove any other value through reliable sources, you can also not cover it.
My "GWR is incorrect" paragraph does, by the means of reading it, not contain "IMDb" or similar once. Regardless, per WP:EL/P#IMDb you cannot use it. The "generally" was just put to clarify that there are two cases you can use it for, which are described at WP:Citing IMDb, which was also linked on that page and therefore easily accessible. Even if it is true, you will need to find a reliable secondary source that supports the claim to keep it, else it is deemed unnotable and should be removed. Lordtobi (✉) 18:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Now we're talking about two different things. You're referencing the reliability of a source. I was referring to you discussing what topics are noteworthy to determine what is relevant and what is not. You were claiming that not getting enough views on YouTube makes it irrelevant.
Is the internet archive considered a proper source? If so I will look through there to see if I can find confirmation of the season two salary, which was identical to season one. This may also leads to Gunn's full earnings through the CGS which were in excess of $60k.
When did I say it had anything to do with IMDb? You claimed to never have said I was assuming. That's what the "GWR is incorrect" was referencing. I then commented on the IDMb concerns. PhDDogg (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
We're not really talking about different things, notability and reliability go hand-in-hand. As explained on what I linked, notability is defined by the reporduction of the topic by an independent, reliable, secondary source, and YouTube and IMDb are none of them, IMDb only in rare cases explained at WP:Citing IMDb, which Gunn's case is not part of. That is also the reason I was concerned about the Team Dignitas, since it is not independent of the subject in question, but lies in a grey zone because of it being an interview.
The Internet Archive is not a source per se, it depends what page you are recovering. If the source is independent, secondary and reliable, you can use it, and have to link the original link, i.e. without "https://web.archive.org" etc., where "http://www.ign.com" (example-wise) beings, and then add the "archiveurl" parameter with the full Internet Archive link, and the "archivedate" paramter with the date on which the page was archived to the Internet Archive. Lordtobi (✉) 17:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
You are referring to a source now. Before you were talking about items being included in the article, saying that Newegg and Gunn's employment at the company is not notable because the YouTube videos only had X-number of views.
When I have more time I will go through he CGS archives in the internet database to see what's there that relates to player salary and the like.
At this point we have been discussing the matter for almost a month. I suggest I grab what sources I can from the internet archive, adjust the salary information accordingly (based on those sources) and then we both move on. If I can't find anything on the archive, then I'll adjust it based on the IGN article. Agreed? PhDDogg (talk) 04:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I am not only referring to sources, I am stating the way that contents need notability, and that notability is defined by (at least one) fitting source as described above. If you want to keep the Newegg content, you will need to prove that it is notable, and that by using a secondary, independent, and reliable source. Take, for example, the "Early life" section; it does not have a single source included.
There were references, but you removed them over a month ago. That's one of the reasons I'm proposing we compromise and you move on. The article went from 22 references down to 9 when you set your sights on it. I understand your reasoning, but they were there. Most of the early life information comes directly from Gunn on her stream or in various interviews and YouTube videos.
I have briefly searched through the internet archive and I believe I will be able to find some things, which I will add and reference within the next week or so. Beyond that, are we good here? PhDDogg (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
There were references, yes, but unreliable ones, as you should know now from our month-long discussion.
Please post the references you find onto the article for me to check; if everything is ok, and I have deleted the last unreliable ones, we will move on. Lordtobi (✉) 14:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I do not agree. In fact, according to Wiki guidelines the "rules" are not set in stone and are not meant to be 100% concrete.
I see we are right back to square one with you editing before any agreement is reached. I undid your changes as I do not agree to them. Please do not edit until we can both agree. PhDDogg (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
You cannot disagree with Wikipedia's rules and therefore discard them; this is what has been bothering you over all this discussion, not sticking to the terms. If you feel like something about WP:EL/P, which fight off consistently, is wrong, you have to discuss it there with people who maintain the page, reach for a global and clear consensus per-statement and let it be changed. However, as long as there are these, you will have to adapt to them. Lordtobi (✉) 12:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, according to WP:5P5 the last pillar indicates that I can. Basically we're debating over what is notable and what is not. If you Google Kat Gunn there are tons of links. However, you claim I can't use Kat, YouTube, Twitch and many other references as proper sources. That's the biggest issue right now. There are plenty of sources for Kat Gunn information, you simply won't allow them. PhDDogg (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be misinterpreting that pillar. It says that the rules "are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time", meaning that they might change by valuable input approved by the community, and furthermore that "[t]he principles and spirit matter more than literal wording", where the principle for WP:EL/P is clear as in "use" (yes), "do note use" (no) and "use in special cases" (sometimes). The pillar does not say, however, that you may just bypass these guidelines as in just using the line "sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions", but you cannot entirely source a full claim with exceptions. If you were to add a minor detail that you feel to be mentioned onto an already existing claim, this may be. Take, for example, Rocket League, where the detail of x simultaneous players per system was once source by a reliable, secondary, and independent source, with an updated number then cited through a Twitter post by the game's developer, so that an exception is cleverly used to update a reliably source claim. Lordtobi (✉) 12:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I disagree, but that's why we've been having this lengthy conversation. The basic problem is that while there's quite a bit of information out there on Kat Gunn, you deem almost all if it as unsuitable. Kat Gunn stating something herself seems unsuitable to you. Newegg showcasing her is not noteworthy to you. You cite certain guidelines which are not cut and dry rules, but if we were to follow them as cut and dry rules you'd have to remove half of the articles on Wikipedia. Following your guidelines Kat Gunn would have an article that only discussed CGS, Ultimate Gamer and GWR despite the fact that there's a lot more information about her on the internet and in actual, physical books.
In your Rocket League exception the reliable source was technically wrong, or at the very least, outdated. That source should be removed in favor or the Twitter post which does not adhere to the Wiki guidelines if you view them as concrete rules. Likewise, several articles on Kat Gunn could be written on the various sites and suddenly those would be a secondary, reliable sources assuming the sites had credibility. I could make that happen, but that kind of stuff shouldn't be necessary when the same information is already available online and comes directly from Kat Gunn in many cases. PhDDogg (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The biggest issue in this conversation is you apparent disagreeing of basically everything. That there is information her is fine, however, everything needs a reliable source that gives you the information, or at least one that deems another source usable (as with my Rocket League example, which is actually correct but again deemed wrong by you). In the end, we will have to draw a compromise, since both of us would like to end this very long-taking conversation. So there's that, the removal of IMDb as a source is inevitable, as there are entire pages saying that you cannot use in as a cite except in two discrete exceptions, both of which do not apply for this case. The usage of social media should be cut down to maximum one link, as more could appear as an advert, where guidelines state the addition of such only if the person has nother web presences (such as a website). For that matter, the Twitch.tv page is her primary presence, so that should be used. For the YouTube links, we seemingly cannot agree on anything, so we will let those stay for now. In another thing, you were stating that you would be delivering sources from the Internet Archive to go with some unreferenced claims, but yet have to deliver those, so please do so. Lordtobi (✉) 15:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I do agree that we need to wind this down and move on.
If IMDb is removed then how do we source the book? It's there. It's a fact. Just because the only "online" source is IMDb does not mean it should be left out. So how do we source it?
You can't use Twitch as a primary source because the archives aren't saved for longer than a few months. Anything sourced would be gone in 90 days or so.
I've gone through some of the old CGS site, but there's a lot to go through just to find this small piece of information. I also don't dedicate a lot of time to it. I will find the salary information, but it will take some time. PhDDogg (talk) 05:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
IMDb is user-contributed, meaning that I could go there and insert Markiplier as voice actor, then turn to Wikipedia and cite "Markiplier voiced XX in Dead or Alive 4" with that same page. Eve nif it is true, and a fact, Wikipedia forbids its usage except for the two cases from WP:Citing IMDb, which, again, both don't apply here. Please try to find a reliable source on that.
I think you got that wrong, I meant the Twitch.tv page to be used as the only external link, per WP:EL/P, none of the pages given should be used if there is another web presence, and since Twitch.tv is here primary, that should be used, but only that one. Lordtobi (✉) 12:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I get that IMDb can't be used. My point is that what is listed on IMDb is 100% accurate and anyone can go out and buy the book as proof. So what can be used as a reference for something that is correct but only appears "online" via IMDb? That's a huge limitation of Wiki if there's no way to source this and IMDb can't be an exception. Have a fact you need
It's the Dead or Alive 5 official strategy guide which is only available as a published book (no digital version). Before I make any changes, I can cite that as a reference and we won't have issues, correct? PhDDogg (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Yep, no issues if you include the necessary information (author, publisher, full name of the book, page of the given reference, [if possible] ISIN, etc.) andd add it through {{cite book}}Lordtobi (✉) 16:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Date formats
Please recognize that while normalizing dates is okay, completely switching the primary format as, for example as [2], is against WP:DATERET. Now, I personally have no problem particularly going away from ISO to dmy or mdy where appropriate, but people do get upset about this, which is why if you want to completely change the format, you should get consensus on the talk page first. --MASEM (t) 20:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I get what you mean, the problem is with the alignment. Most pages have a primary date as either mdy or dmy in the body, lead, infobox, etc., only use ISO dates in citations. WP:DATERET exactly states that if you start with a format (which should have been adjusted to the guidelines in the first place), then that format should be kept. With Braid, it is not an exception since the article originally started in mdy format. Of course I am a little hasty using the script on as many pages as I can, but I believe it is for good. Lordtobi (✉) 21:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Please cease your systematic date edits, especially with no consensus to do so. A developer's national origins do not constitute strong national ties to a topic. Also it's fine to use different date formats in the publication and access date fields. czar21:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe I was told somewhere that a developer's origin do affect the article's date format (such as dmy in UK and mdy in US). I will try to find where that bit took place. Other than that, I will stop formatting the dates now, except if there are very significant occasions (such as differnt date formats in article bodies). Lordtobi (✉) 21:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The only guideline is to retain the existing format. If editors want to change a date format by local consensus, that's their prerogative, but "strong national ties to a topic" requires actual proof that a event/work/etc. is actually tied to the location, not just produced there. czar21:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Just as a quick future note, if you see either the {{Use mdy dates}} or {{Use dmy dates}} template at the top and it's clearly been in place for a while and jives with the bulk of the date formats, please go right ahead and fix up the dates. For example, this is not your edit but this [3] is completely reasonable to normalize the dates for.
Also you should feel empowered if you find an article lacking one of these templates, but you can see a near majority of the date formats in one type and only a handleful in another to go ahead and normalize the dates appropriately and add the missing template, which is reasonable by DATERET. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
You are not correcting anything. As I already said, you are probably doing a loose research on the edits you are making, that is because you are often wrong. I tried to communicate, but refusing to reply and still forcing your edits into the article is entitled "disruptive editing", therefore the warnings are entierly true. If you consider that there is a missunderstanding, disucss. Lordtobi (✉) 16:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I understand your need to put Michael Hunter or anyone else in the infobox, but given the fact that the previous GTA games weren't entirely given original scores, I removed it because it might give readers the wrong idea that the game has an original score. Typhoon966 (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@Typhoon966: Credits state "Theme music written and produced by Michael Hunter, for Pablo Productions". The theme music, in fact, is the only original piece in the game, and if there is an original piece, the composer is to be added. Infoboxes do not necessarily state that those in the composer field are the only ones, but the original (always) and most significant (if applicable) composer. Lordtobi (✉) 10:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@Lordtobi: Okay, understood, I was confused about this as a television series infobox have a theme music composer parameter specifically, so it wasn't clear whether the video game infobox's composer parameter had one, but if you are right, what about those articles regarding the Call of Duty series like Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops II? Modern Warfare 2 has Hans Zimmer only composing the theme music while Lorne Balfe did the rest, but Zimmer's name is not in the infobox, same with Black Ops II, with Trent Reznor not mentioned in the infobox and only Jack Wall's name up there. Typhoon966 (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
That is what the statement "most significant (if applicable)" is about, as mentioned above. Usually, you only take the people that did the major contributions into the infobox, which is Balfe for the games you mentioned, as Zimmer only made one piece of music each. You can, however, add Zimmer via {{efn}} as in {{efn|Additional composition by [[Hans Zimmer]]}}, which is common practice, at least for most people. In the case of San Andreas, Hunter is the only original composer, and therefore made the only original contribution, so he takes on the infobox. Lordtobi (✉) 10:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, understood. Apologies if I sounded too harsh in the first post, makes much more sense now after what you said. Typhoon966 (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry, mate. Discussing is a key feature of the Wikipedia community, if you don't know something or have a question, come to my place or turn to WT:VG. Lordtobi (✉) 11:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Witness (2016 video game) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. You wrote "infobox does not need references", could you provide link to some rule/standard which disallows putting references in infobox information ? Thanks in advance. Sir Lothar (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey, WP:CITELEAD (second part of the section) describes that references should be moved into the body; therefore we should work out having all information from the lead inserted into the body [e.g. a "Development" section] and citing it there. Lordtobi (✉) 14:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Czar: If I don't get you wrong, in the archived discussion you stated yourself that "publisher is only for completeness" and that it "just needs to be consistent". When I originally reworked the bare links, I had already added the publishers; Therefore, I don't feel like removing them all is very consistent, rather the opposite. Lordtobi (✉) 15:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Ya, particularly when you have articles that already use both fields consistently. (I used to be a big proponent of using both fields until I realized that most of the publishers changed too often to be accurate and that the main "work" link did all the work necessary for identifying the publication. In this case there is no added benefit to using both fields. czar03:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ubisoft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halifax (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.
There was a consensus somewhere on general infobox style, which included not using double spaces, as some users tend to use external editors in which those look awful, and in Wikipedia itself they do not make it look any better, as line breaks may also occur, and on mobile you just lose the overview entirely. Lordtobi (✉) 17:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't know where it was. I didn't exactly take part in the discussion, only follwed it out of sheer interest and saw the consensus, to which I took action on some template docs. If I'll find it again I'll link it here. Lordtobi (✉) 20:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Explain your reversions when you make them, don't revert without an explanation, which was rude.
If there is some issue of Wikipedia protocol with the edit I made then tidy it up, don't just revert it. That page is a disgrace. CS:S was one of or the worlds most popular online shooter in the past. The wiki page has very little information. The history section does not say when it was released or how it was bundled, which is the most relevant information. It just has minor trivia, not the important details. If people like you are reverting the page when others add information, and you do not fix or explain the issue, no wonder the page is so poor.
Your addition seemed to be an unreferenced claim with unproper formatting inbound, which pretty much seemed like vandalism. Please feel free to get into the Wikipedia rules and try to source your claim next time. Lordtobi (✉) 13:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Lordtobi you are clearly unable or unwilling to properly identify vandalism, or address new users edits constructively, and you are doing nothing to improve that poor quality article. Perhaps stay off Wikipedia.
Registar (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Apart from, how ferret says, good faith should be assumed, I am very clearly able to identify and revert vandalism, or page-breaking formatting as you inserted. Unreferenced or poorly references claims are often key factors for bad content. I am active on Wikipedia as one who tries to keep pages that are often affected by vandalism (e.g. Counter-Strike), and keep the vandalism off it. If I get the time and see the need for a drastical cleanup, which is the case for many older games, I perform that over a span of two days or so, and in multiple edits. I have, oh wonder, also a social life and a place to work, so Wikipedia is not my primary focus in life. As you can clrealy tell from the Barnstar above, off of your radar people appreciate my doings. If I ever find a game very interesting, I happen to do minor research with news flooding in on Twitter and similar, and I can, bit-by-bit, add some information to articles. Counter-Strike is not one of these, primarily because it released over 15 years ago, and there are no news to stumble over without extensive research, or you step on it by chance, but that is not my intention. To turn this, you did nothing but add unreferenced content in broken formatting in a way I know it from many vandals as on Undertale where the 1,000,000 copies sold number is often redrawn to a couple billion, or something lower than ten with the reference "the game is shit anyway lol" added to it. For such, I am not willing to find out if it is good faith or not, it is unconstructive regardless. So if I were to revert something, people my greatly come to my talkpage and talk about the issues, as you did. However, as within your newer message you clearly violated WP:CIVILITY, and with the edit summary (at least tried to) change to "Lordtoby got told", that violation was not by accident. If you really consider me to "stay off Wikipedia" you should first look at yourself, then at Wikipedia's guidelines, then come back to editing, before dusputing other users. Thanks, Lordtobi (✉) 07:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Citation for Black Mesa page
It appears that you have removed my citations for the new "Updates" section of the Black Mesa article, claiming that forum posts are not reliable sources. In the general case I agree, however seeing as the community forums are the primary method of communication on the part of the developers I think it is reasonable to make an exception in this case. The article you linked about reliable sources seems to agree:
Some fansites provide forum excerpts by developers from the game's forums. Favour citing the forum post itself over the fansite's article and commentary about it. When citing a forum post on a fansite's own forum, special scrutiny is advised. Make it clear that it is the post that is cited, not the thread or forum in general. Consider forum posts like journal articles, except that in this case the "journal" is unreliable (see WP:SPS), but the "article" may be, because of its author. Use real names over forum nicknames where the real name is available.
Perhaps I could change any relevant usernames to real names and make sure to use the specific OP link instead of the thread link. Thoughts? --Flafla2 (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, you are right in saying that "some fansites" can cite such forums posts. However, I am not sure if this is implied properly, that fansit will have to be reliable to reliably cite the forums post. Furthermore, you originally had directly linked to the forums posts, no recites, and directly linking is, as your quote says, unreliable, even if you treat it like a journal. So in order to cite those forum posts, you will have to find reliable sources. If I find the time I might well assist you on that, but that is not the case right now. Thanks. Lordtobi (✉) 15:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
User's removing things from their talk page
Hi Lordtobi. I noticed on Thethomster2001's talk page you've undone several cases where the user removed warnings or past comments, as "censorship". I just wanted to note that this is 100% permissible. The talk page is theirs, and they can remove warnings or old sections without replying if they want. (In the case of the section I left, he had replied to my talk page.) Note I'm not defending the user's edits, just making sure you're aware in case the user tries to escalate things. -- ferret (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I see, I was not aware of his reply. However, warnings and such should from my POV not be able to be removed, as other users may mistake them for unwarned and give them a weak uw1 or uw2, as my warnings followed up in short time, with more and more unconstructive edits, even reappearing ones I tried to dicuss in a long conversation that was yet unanswere, except for a sentence taken to my talk page saying "leave me alone". Since this user has a bad reputation, at least for me, I believe that he is not a good one to work with, and absolutely unable to properly communicate. As you can see, although Thethomster and I hadn't interefered for a few months, he started removing content from my user page again, and you put a warning against that. We, as the Video games WikiProject should really keep an eye out for people like him (e.g. Chocolatejr9, who had been discussed at WT:VG before). Lordtobi (✉) 18:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
In principal I don't disagree but I've seen multiple reports to AIV, and discussions at ANI, that state that users are allowed to clean warnings from their talk pages without replying or discussing if they want. See WP:OWNTALK. Note that OWNTALK specifically mentions that removing warnings serves as evidence of having READ the warning, which can be handy. I just don't want to see you get burned at ANI for it, if it ever got that far. It just means we just have to be diligent in checking talk pages histories as best we can to see if the user has cleaned out recent warnings. -- ferret (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
Hello Lordtobi, I've started editing Wikipedia only recently and I'm not familiar with talk pages yet, so I hope this is the right way to use them. On May 19, I added the Japanese release date of Lego City Undercover to the infobox on the game's page. However, you undid the revision saying 'No JP dates allowed'. My question is: why aren't they allowed? I see them on a lot of pages, so why aren't they allowed on the pages of Lego games? It isn't false information and it only makes the page look more complete... Again, I'm a rookie, so I hope you can tell me why :) Thanks for the reply in advance, TheLegendaryN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLegendaryN (talk • contribs) 14:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Hey, the reason I removed the date is simple: The template used—{{Infobox video game}}—holds a guideline for release dates that permit only release dates of English-speaking regions, and that of the developer of the game. E.g. for Lego City Undercover, which was developed by TT Fusion, based in England, we could have NA (North America), EU (Europe), AUS (Australasia), PAL (EU+AUS), GB (Great Britain), and WW (digital). As you can see, because the company is from England, we may not use JP dates, at least not in the infobox. This is a common issue among Wikipedia, so if you stumble upon such, check if the developer (not the publisher!) is actually Japanese, and if not, remove the date, linking to the template. Also, as you are new to Wikipedia, do not forget to add a signature, ~~~~, to the end of your message. It will look like this, just with your name and timestamp: Lordtobi (✉) 14:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Hey, it seems like you mis understood my edit. What I did mainly is inlining sources, slight rewordings and italics, which were partially removed by you. There was no reverting inbound. Inlining soruces is necessary in so far that some do not feature the "Free Edition" or "Game of the Year Edition", as most focus on the "Ultimate Bus Driver Edition". Regardles, I am thankful for the proper edits you made. Lordtobi (✉) 07:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for misunderstanding, then. But most of those sources include all of the information, which is why I had moved them all to the end of the paragraph rather than having it like, “Claim A.[14][15][16][17] Claim B.[15][16][17] Claim C.[15][16][17]” But if that’s preferable, I’ll take care of it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
I mean, you're aware that these talk sections are 7 years old? At the time, they were not trolling.... I don't know how you're deciding these are "blatant trolls". It's just old. -- ferret (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
From my POV, trolling should not be considered trolling beased on how recent the comment is, but the realization that this person is/was trolling. If you consider such sections valuable just because they are old, I won't purposefully perform edit warring. Lordtobi (✉) 14:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
How recent a comment is has a direct bearing on whether it was trolling or not. You don't think that a comment about Portal 2 being confirmed would have any relevance to the fact that Portal 2 was released two years later? Feel free to archive old comments, but they are not trolling simply because they are old and the article's content has changed in the intertwining years. -- ferret (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Unless it's very blatant (like blant hoaxing or personal attacks), archiving is strongly preferred over outright deleting, even if the comments aren't quite right. Please just send it off to the archives instead. (It's not likely to be seen much there anyways honestly.) Sergecross73msg me14:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gang Garrison 2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Game Maker 8 (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.
An edit summary of "cleanup" is generally only used for stylistic/formatting fixes and isn't generally advisable for edits where content is actually changed, since such changing may be contentious. I don't want to edit war and thus will explain my revert here:
Not sure why you removed the alternate stylizations. These are usually added whenever other prominent stylizations exist - see for example Doom (1993 video game) and Pink (singer). Multiple sources refer to the game as "Valhalla", which is clearly different from "VA-11 HALL-A". It's there to avoid confusion.
It's an iPad game, not an iOS game. There is no iPhone version available - just see source #1. It's why Category:iPad games exists.
No sources actually refer to the release date as "worldwide". They just provide a date, and inferring otherwise is synthesis.
Stylizations are what the Internet tends to use, it is nothing official, as "Valhalla" can refer to everything that has a similar naming, while "VA-11 HALL-A" is clearly differntiable. E.g. Doom's article does not say "Also called Dooom, Dom, Ddoom, and D00M sometimes"
Wether it is an iPhone game or not, it is still iOS, and therefore, iOS is to be used per guidelines. You may outline in the article body that it is only available to iPad devices, as iTunes filters them by developer-put :tags and possible hardware issues as the iPhone might not be powerful enough. It is a similar, yet even less abstract case than putting Ouya and Android as the same thing, as it is the same thing, just with minor changes and the corresponding availability.
Digital releases are worldwide releases except if the platform it is released on does not permit such, as the PlayStation Store did for a long time, giving people in America the game a day or two before those in Europe.
The examples you provided are typos, whilst "Valhalla" is not a typo (in the same way "Pink" isn't a typo of "P!nk", or "DeathStar v. Deathstar, or Neo Geo v. NEOGEO). If reliable sources sometimes refer to the game as Valhalla (more than 1 has done so BTW), it's important to note that (unless you can find a policy that says otherwise). Not sure what you mean by "differentiable", as we aren't disambiguating anything.
Not sure your Ouya example works. All articles I checked at Category:Ouya games also have "Ouya" in the platform field. Using "iOS" is misleading as it refers to both iPhone and iPad, yet the game is just for iPad. I can't find the policy you're talking about and using iPad seems harmless.
But unless reliable sources explicitly call it a worldwide release, which they haven't, I daresay that assuming it to be the case is still original research. Again, I can't see policy or precedent at WP:VG/DATE here. Satellizer el Bridget(Talk)12:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
They are less typos, more things people use out of lazyness, such is also typing "Valhalla", as, especially for mobile users, typing dashes and such really is not fun and "Valhalla" goes off the hand way quicker. What you refer to is stylization, what a logo or similar of the entity in question gives you. Such is "P!nk" the stylzation of the artist Pink and "NEOGEO" the stylzation of Neo Geo. I cannot find a logo where it was spelled as "Valhalla".
My Ouya example should apply, if not the article is wrong. As seen at Template:Infobox video game, "The unabbreviated console or operating system family" - iOS is the operating system family. The problem you outline is very clear to me, however, not alignable as you would like to with the guidelines. As I state, outline in the prose that it is available for iPad, but ported to iOS. (The same problem would occur if you refered to iPad, but without compatibility to iPad 3 or whatever).
There are, to my knowledge, no sources that would ever use the word "worldwide" for digital game releases, but that is how it works basically, and it has become a standard. If you find an article that does not feature any region for a digital release, feel free to add {{Video game release}} with WW=.
But whether a spelling is "official" or not has no bearing whether it gets mentioned in the article, per WP:OFFICIALNAME. As multiple reliable sources have referred to the game as Valhalla (their reasoning for doing so is irrelevant), it becomes a "significant alternative name" and these should be mentioned - per WP:ALTNAME.
So what you're basically saying is that you agree with me that referring to it as "iOS" is a "problem", but doing otherwise wouldn't fit the guidelines? In such case, the guideline should be ignored. And even then, I believe that when the guideline was being written "operating system family" was added so that editors didn't have to list out iPhone, iPad, iPod etc. In cases where the game only runs on iPad, "iOS" doesn't work.
Except they do. They just haven't done so for VA-11 HALL-A, and thus according to WP:OR we shouldn't assume otherwise.
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nakon04:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Focus Multimedia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages LGV, DLC and PCV (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.
Could you explain why you insist on removing the citations/"citation needed" tags on release dates in the Strife (video game) article? Release dates need a source, like any other piece of non-obvious data. JudgeDeadd (talk) 07:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
ApS, which is Denmark term for LLC. Of course, it is Playdead ApS, you're right. But, on their website, http://playdead.com, can you SEE any "ApS" on it? Also the publisher name is "Playdead", not Playdead ApS (on Xbox One store and Steam store). And, reviewers, they said "Playdead" instead of "Playdead ApS". I know you are doing right, but it is out of date now.
Thanks. Linh Hoàng 16:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhatlinh1704 (talk • contribs)
It is not important in how far the "ApS" is common when mentioning a company, and it mostly is never, but it is still part of the name and no one (except for themselves) could change a thing about it. What you are refering to is a "common name", which is often expressed with "(commonly referred to as Common Name)" behind it. See for example Squad, which's full name is actually much longer, and has a Mexican law form. In addition, Playdead has a Bloomberg profile, which confirms the ApS. What you did. however, is saying that it was once called "Playdead ApS", but now just "Playdead", which is nonsense. Just because Valve Corporation is commonly refered to as "Valve" does not mean that the company was renamed this way. (Actually, it was Valve L.L.C. before, haha) Lordtobi (✉) 17:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Half-Life takes place in 2009
Hi there as you can see Half-life takes place in the year 2009 because it is stated in the timeline if half-Life wikia, just take a look if you wish [4]. ZenIceHero (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, you seem to be new to Wikipedia. Please be sure to know that claims made on need to be paired with a reliable source, in form of a citation (<ref></ref> tags and {{cite web}} template). A good overview can of popular reliable source can be found at WP:VG/RS. What is deemed unnotable are: Personal blogs, self-published sources (e.g. YouTube, Twitter, etc.), forums, user-contributed sources (e.g. Wikis, IMDb), and many others. The Half-Life Wiki tends to be part of what I bolded out, and therefore cannot be used. Since you are new, make sure to ask people over at WT:VG (the video game WikiProject), or me for help if you needed. Thanks, Lordtobi (✉) 06:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Template:Infobox company
Please read the template documentation. The owner field is explicitly for listing OWNERSHIP PERCENTAGES of a privately held company owned by a FEW key INDIVIDUALS, or a joint venture. The parent field is explicitly for denoting the structure in relation to subsidiaries. -- ferret (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
RE: Wacky Worlds
Actually, the sources ARE used in the current article, but there is a lack of in-line direct citations to them (which is why there is a maintenance template). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉16:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Considering that the article is over ten years old, I thought that this was not the case. I only stumbled across this article by chance, and without the intention to maintain, I at least wanted to do this little cleanup before leaving the article, and seeing the age, it looked reasonable to do so. If you think that those sources are valuable, please in-line them. Thanks. Lordtobi (✉) 16:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
American Truck Simulator
Hi, I reverted an edit you made to American Truck Simulator where you removed a link for being a primary source. I replaced the link because the statement it was backing up was a straightforward statement of fact (that pictures of unnamed trucks were posted to the developer's blog), which is allowed under WP:PRIMARY. clpo13(talk)15:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
DX12 games edits
Do NOT nuke the entire page or threaten other contributers just because you do not like the majority of the sources especially with entries that have DX12 ONLY back-ends like Microsoft's published Quantum Break or Forza 6: Apex. Your edit did more harm than good as it erased at least half the games with actual DX12 support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.0.55.14 (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Vivendi
Hello. Just to let you know, the edits at Talk:Vivendi were by a blocked sock, which are exempt from WP:3RR per WP:BE. I should've left an edit summary explaining that, but there was a lot of them and I was on a tablet, and since that user is now blocked, I thought it would be apparent. Some of the user's edits may have been productive or superficially productive, but some were not, and there's also a problem with disruptive or misleading edit summaries. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kkm010 for more. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uncut (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.
Orphaned non-free image File:GSC World Publishing.svg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:GSC World Publishing.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
I accidentally spotted that you've asked here about getting a ban lifted, but had trouble contacting me. While I'm not usually on Steam, the other means mentioned on my PCGW user page are definitely still active. If you're still interested, do reach out, and I'll review your case. Soebtalk|contribs20:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
@Soeb: Hey, yes, there was an inconvenient case of vandalism conducted by my brother over at PCGamingWiki, just as it frequently happens here on Wikipedia. Because our house shares IPs, my account gets banned together with the IP, as it happened on PCGW as well. PCGW is not my primary platform, so the temporary ban was no life-changing event, but wanted to just get things straight, and encountered problems contacting you, so I turned to Blackbird who is more familiar with PCGW. He since refused to answer. My vacation followed up shortly so I largely forgot about it.
I believe the did not last that long anyway, like a week or so? So even if it has already expired, maybe the record could be taken off my account and kept only on the IP's record? This is the way I arranged it with Wikipedia as well. Thanks! Lordtobi (✉) 19:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I cannot find you under your name on the wiki, so I assume it must have been an IP ban a month ago. If you're still banned, or the ban was on your account, please send me the details via e-mail (listed on my PCGW user page). I do not see your email in my spam filter (assuming that's how you tried to contact me), but I suppose it could have been over a month since you sent it. Soebtalk|contribs11:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Guts and Glory.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Guts and Glory.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks so much for tidying that up for me. You might want to edit the Author tag and set yourself as it, seeming as the Lego logo SVG was also made by you. It might be worth turning your edit into a SVG itself? DAYTALK19:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Putting two SVGs together sounds and likely is easy, however, seeing that there is no popularity in the logo, and the fact that it is available in the resolution needed, I do not intend to change it. The author tag is not that important for me, change it if you wish. Lordtobi (✉) 10:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I spotted the name itself firstly on Spotify, which claims "WEA International Inc." being the worldwide/non-US label for TOP. It was apparently founded in 1999.[5] The back cover of Vessel and Blurryface read "(c) 201X Fueled By Ramen, LLC for the United States and WEA International Inc. for the world outside the United States."[6][7] Maybe there are two different WEA Internationals; or maybe the name was kept for this subsidiary? Regardless, it should not be changed, and also not piped per WP:NOTBROKE. Thanks! Lordtobi (✉) 10:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
But Discogs states that "1990 French label Carrere Disques (Carrere records) acquired. WEA International changes name to Warner Music International. All affiliate companies followed and changed the name into "Warner Music Country" (e.g. Warner Music France, Warner Music UK etc.). " Maybe they revived the label? warpozio (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The Warner Music Group article follows a same phrase, but states WEA even after the renaming; should probably be changed. On the other hand, the German "WEA Records" article states: "With the restructuring of the Warner Music Group Germany company in 2004, WEA and Eastwest became independent labels, and were again acquired by their former parent company Warner Music Group Germany. From then, all vinyls were marketed under the Warner Music Group Germany name. WEA and Eastwest continue to exist as brands and appear on sound carriers, but have no own structure anymore, neither from outside, nor inside the Warner Music Group." (loosely translated) So therefore there are two different WEA International exists as a brand still active as the International division of the Warner Music Group Germany subisdiary, WEA? Confusing, huh. Lordtobi (✉) 13:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Epic Games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paragon (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.
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Template:Twenty One Pilots, did not appear constructive and have been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Your logic is flawed and I suspect that you and 178.1.219.69 are the same editor, but I won't take it to sock. I would expect you to WP:BRD as this is not done on any other nav template and those articles will never see the light of day so it's a waste.Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Seing that you mention WP:BRD, you have multiply reverted me, and other editors, without any explanation or a simple "Revert" as edit summary. Please note that Music is not my primary WikiProject, just Twenty One Pilots and other artists being topics of my interest, so you cannot expect me to know most guidelines, and just take what I get told. Commenting out entries that might own their own article at one point is a concept not seen rarely, at least from what I know, and it does not hurt either, being preparational WP:DUMMYs. On the other hand you only deleted a single and a tour from the template, as well as wikilinks, leaving an album and another tour untouched. In addition you insisted on leaving the Twenty One Pilots album article out of the navbox with no good reason, even if it is an unnotable article currently in AfD. If you care to aid users trying to work on for-them new WikiProjects, then please be more careful, explain problems and solutions to users instead of blaming them. For example, I am not quite sure why the articles added "will never see the light of the day". Also, 178.1.219.69 is not my IP, and even if it was, it would not be a crime per WP:LOGOUT. Thanks! Lordtobi (✉) 15:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Video game images
Hello! I just noticed that in some of your recent videogame article edits (e.g., to Robbo, Brix, and Ancients 1) you removed the image. Was this intentional? Since they were cut from their articles, the screenshots got flagged for deletion, but I've restored them to their infoboxes. ╠╣uw[talk]20:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey, yes this was actually intentional; per guidelines, screenshots are not allowed to be taken into the infobox to represent the entity. I reworked infoboxes of such games as part of cleanup at the Epic Games article and therefore did not put those on my watchlist. Therefore, of those you put back, please remove them or place them in the article body, cover arts can easily be found online, such as on MobyGames. Thanks! Lordtobi (✉) 11:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey! It seems like I typoed, sorry about that. I meant to link WP:VGAGG, the section about reviewers and review aggregators on the documentation for the {{Video game reviews}} template. Thanks for checking by, though! Lordtobi (✉) 08:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:THQ Nordic.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Clustertruck logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blue Byte, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scipio (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.
Thanks for uploading File:Guts and Glory.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Could you please motivate why you think a tracklist of the soundtrack to this game by a very popular artist - and my other edits - would be "unconstructive" and "serving no larger improvements"?
I personally thought many readers would like to know who the performing musicians actually are (Gail Ann Dorsey wasn't mentioned yet) and many also would like to know what the different efforts of the three involved composers were. In the reverted text I interpret it as saying that Xavier Despas added something to Reeves' compositions, rather than what he is actually credited for. Furthermore the reverted text falsely states that "Hours" was upcoming, whikle it was released two months earlier than the game.
I can imagine my contributions were not totally flawless. For instance: I did realize I'd better have a second look at putting the right references (back) in place, but didn't get a chance to.
Hopefully checking the url above can make you change your mind. Please let me know what you think.
Hey, the major problem with the edits was that no reliable sources were given at all, some edits being slighly rough and not fitting with various guidelines (ranging from minors as "+", "&", and numbers under 13 unspelled in the text, to WP:MOSCAPS/WP:TMRULES violations and other). Your latest additions to the page included a track listing template, which is good for a start!, but then again, no reliable source. Whereas, you added two sources one leading to "bowiesongs.wordpress.com"–.wordpress.com directly indicates, without visiting the page, that it is just a blog. Looking at the site itself, it also an unreliable, third-party blog with neither notability nor reliability, wherefore it cannot be used as a source. The other source was contentless only stating the title, "The Nomad Soul (manual)", the publisher, "Eidos Interactive", and the year, 1999. There is no information on where this piece originated and can hardly be checked. The bright side of this is, that you included a manual in PDF above (seemingly from the Steam service website), which you can cite easily (note: remember to cut the "?t=..." parameter from the URL, as it is a tracking param used for analytic purposes). The comment "no larger improvments" was meant for citational improvments, not directly regarding the edit content. So, if you have any other questions, feel free to ask. Thanks! Lordtobi (✉) 19:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
O.k.. Thanks, I hope I did a better job this time. Quite new at this. I still have to look into cutting the "?t=..." parameter and some of your other tips (just saw them after putting in my new contribution. I think I used bowiesongs.wordpress.com mainly as a source for something that is quite easily noticed by any fan comparing songs, but can imagine that it's not the best of sources. I will keep your suggestions in mind and already noticed myself I shouldn't wait to add source references and really keep them in mind when creating the text. Thanks.Joortje1 —Preceding undated comment added 10:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I did some cleanup on your latest addition, but it is not yet at a quality standard. Truly, you are new to Wikipedia, but do not worry! Once I find time, I will take closer inspections on the text and do eventual rewrites. In the meantime, please try to find more reliable sources (newspapers, gaming magazines/websites, etc.) [I also cut the blog source mentioned previously, as well as Discogs]. Maybe another Wikipedia member will get to help us on this. On another thing, please remember to add a ~~~~ to the end of your messages (also noted as "Sign your posts on talk pages:" right below the edit box) to sign it. It will look like this, just with your credentials: Lordtobi (✉) 13:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of PVP Live Interactive
Hello Lordtobi,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged PVP Live Interactive for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
@Celestinesucess: Hey, this is probably a misunderstanding. PVP Live Interactive, Inc. is the company operating the PVP Live website, wherefore I created the redirect to use it in the publisher field of a citation on Kat Gunn. Therefore the page should not be deleted. Thanks! Lordtobi (✉) 08:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Don't start one. If Reddit is not a good enough reference for you, find a better reference. Don't remove information just because it is poorly cited. Biglulu (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
It would normally be in the burden of the editor who adds the statement to include a reliable source that verfies the claim and adapts to Wikipedia's citing guidelines. Wikipedia is not my full-time job, and I do not know if Rust has DX12 or not, especially since the game is still in early access. Seeing that you already understood my statement, you could have already have re-inserted the entry with a reliable source, instead of simply reverting my revert. This plain reverting and disregarding the editors previous statement - "please add a reliable source" - is the actual start of and edit war, not the first, explained revert. Always get back to WP:BRD, I bolded that Reddit is unreliable and reverted, it would have been your move to discuss. I will not revert any further to avoid WP:3RR for both of us, but I please you to get your hands on a reliable source for the claim. Thanks! Lordtobi (✉) 19:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
In your reference to WP:BRD, being bold means that an editor should not be afraid to add information even if it isn't perfect, as defined by WP:BOLD. That guideline also states that one should not get upset if disruptive edits are reverted, but I do not believe my edit was disruptive. I added legitimate information with a bad source, and I think you were too quick to jump to a revert. Posting on my talk page would probably be a better way to go about it, as reverting can seem hostile and one should try to revert only when necessary WP:ROWN and assume good faith WP:GF.
Speaking about the source: in my search, I could not find any third party gaming press sites that mentioned the fact that Rust released DirectX12 support. The only places where people mention it are discussion forums such as the Steam forums and Reddit. I did find a Rust fansite that also referenced it over here, but a fansite is hardly a third party and verifiable source according to Wikipedia's standards.
Maybe that would be a better reference though. I just chose Reddit because it seemed more disconnected than a fansite that tends to get insider information from the developers.
You can change it if you feel it is better though, or you might have more luck than me if you try searching for other references. Either way, I feel that Rust should be included on the list because it does in fact have DX12 support. Biglulu (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
WP:RMT
I cut some of your good faith comment additions to WP:RMT. See Special:Diff/741063321. The placement of the existing short comment in the third section was just to guide folks not to request the move the other way around. Your comment recently confused an editor where to put the request (see the diff for attribution). The current format has been allowing RMT to run smoothly for at least a month. If there's anything in dispute though, let me know. — Andy W.(talk ·ctb)05:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey Lordtobi, I just noticed your removing of your post at the WP Cities talkpage[8]. I don't mean to sound rude but aren't you being overly dramatic? There's weeks/months old stuff there that didn't get answered or only got very little discussion going on, it doesn't appear to be a very active project (or talkpage anyway), and your request has been there for only a couple of days. Why remove it outright (with a snide comment to boot – how can you know people are "unwilling" to help?) instead of keeping it there for future viewers? Or maybe try a different project/group/whatever, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany? I'm literally just a passer-by but deleting your comment just seemed unnecessary to me. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey. Truly, I was a little overdramatic, sorry for that. I am used to good communication as I get on WP:Video games, though I do not understand how a WikiProject for something fundamental as cities be this inactive. Be sure, though, that it is not your fault ; the problem has mostly been resolved by an anonymous user who apparently got banned for being a sockpuppet, but whatever, another editor and myself. That plus the inactivity of WP:Cities led me to delete the comment, the harsh comment comes from the bad day I am having, and that I wrote it when I just got home. Thanks for checking by, though! Lordtobi (✉) 15:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Lordtobi, I also noticed the deletion and was going to leave a similar comment. I've seen some other projects which seem really important, such as the "Time" project, have absolutely no response to pretty basic questions. By the way, since the problem you were raising was typos and formatting, the best place to leave a call for help would be the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Those guys have a backlog though, so they probably wouldn't fix your article immediately. Hope you have a better day today. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
StarlightDoll (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC) Lego Harry Potter Collection is a game and does not need to be removed from the licensed properties section of the List of Lego video games wikipedia article. It is a remastered collection of both Lego Harry Potter Years 1-4 and Lego Harry Potter Years 5-7 only released for PS4, plus new DLC that comes with it. I have it pre-ordered. Also listed in the same list is Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga, which is also a remastered collection of multiple Lego Star Wars games from the console generation before it. Lego Harry Potter Collection is in the same vane. [9][10]
There are lots of games on that list that don't have their own page and not very notable. Look at all the red colored links. It's a reference list that is suppose to show all Lego video games, not a list of most famous Lego video games. Wikipedia's notability rule applies to full articles, but video game lists, console lists, as well as many lists not related to gaming are references to every official release that falls under said category. The exception are list not related to official releases, such as list of hobbies. If they aren't notable enough to include a full article the link will be red in color, but are not removed or deleted as long as it is an officially known release. StarlightDoll (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not talking notability in general, but notable enough for a collection (not a video game) to be included in such a list, TCS fulfills those needs fully while LHPC fails to do so. Other items, even if not as notable and therefore not present in article form on Wikipedia, are to be included in such as list regardless of notability (wherefore, to limit the list, it was already cut down to commercial products; not all free apps offered by LEGO A/S on the Play/App Store). Lordtobi (✉) 19:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Now you're not making any sense. It sounds like you're using personal bias to try and justify not including it. Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga does not fulfill what you are alluding to any more or less than Lego Harry Potter Collection. Both collections consist of 2 remastered games from the console generation before. StarlightDoll (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Look at the Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga article for a moment, it has a fully written Gameplay, Development and Reception section; now look at Lego Harry Potter Collection, it has nothing - not even an article. Usually, lists as such should not include collections or compilations, but the notability and noteworthyness it received made it a good includeable. So far, the only thing on the Lego Harry Potter Collection is the announcement and the release date, nothing amongst reviews, backlogs, updates, etc. If the article for LHPC becomes a thing (e.g. through possible future reviews), it might well be included in a list of games. Lordtobi (✉) 19:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Well it's not a non-noteworthy game compilation. None of them are non-noteworthy game compilations in the sense that you're using. They are remastered meaning they have changes from original releases, in the case of Lego Harry Potter that includes sharper visuals and new DLC content. Game collections aren't noteworthy if they are simply the same exact games in every aspect, except included together in one packaging. And now you're saying a game has to be past release date with a review and its own article. That article part makes no sense since it doesn't need its own article to be included. Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga also didn't need its own article, and neither did Silent Hill HD Collection (or any other collections), and neither did The Last Of Us Remastered (or any other Remaster). Someone just happened to make one instead of simply adding a section for the remastered collection under the articles for the 2 games within it. As for the release date part, a game being released already is not required to be included on wikipedia. It just has to be officially announced. Otherwise there are thousands of articles and listings that should of been removed months before their release. None of them had popular reviews because reviews happen after release, and not all of them were games everyone is talking about. So your compilation reason does not hold up, and neither does the article reason, and neither does the release date reason/review reason. Trying to resolve this without going to the next step, but everything you keep saying falls flat based on what is already allowed. Maybe I'm just not understanding. I'm getting the impression that you think there has been no changes officially announced between the original versions and the remasters, so you think Lego Harry Potter Collection might be a non-noteworthy compilation of the exact same games together in one package. But if you read about it you would know it does have changes just like Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga had changes. StarlightDoll (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
You are seemingly misunderstanding me; Lego Harry Potter Collection simply cannot put up to a notable entity yet, despite confirmation of its existance and a few details. Once e.g. reveiws fly in (I believe the collection is to release pretty soon?), it will prove notability and find a place among e.g. the list of interest in this discussion. Please hold up until such event occurs, and then you may simply re-add it. Lordtobi (✉) 20:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:
I see, this makes sense. Would you bother 'aligning' those then? The discussion should be as clean as possible. Lordtobi (✉) 18:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I respect your high engagement on articles, cleaning up spam, etc. I would be thankful if you could avoid making edits or undo's that do not have associated descriptions - it is difficult for me and other editors to understand justification behind the edits. Thank you very much. Reinderientalk/contribs15:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
It was likely a rushed edit; before I go offline or head to work etc. Could you note down and example/the reason for contacting me? Thanks! Lordtobi (✉) 16:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Civilization VI DirectX 12 Support
Despite promising support across the internet prior to release, the game does NOT support DirectX 12. I upgraded to Windows 10 in preparation and can provide screenshots if necessary. I have yet to see anybody else talking about this on forums/the internet in general, but it should not be brushed under the rug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.208.130 (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Meg Griffin
Talk:Meg Griffin doesn't look ambiguous for me: consensus is to not show Megatron as her name. Per the WP:BRD editing recommendations, I strongly suggest you get support for your changes on the talk page before you make them. —C.Fred (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Note that several previous discussions regarding this change were deleted, but they arrived at no strong consensus either way. I agree that it should be discussed, but I disagree that a consensus can be concluded from the existing discussion. Per WP:SILENCE, there is a status quo, but obvious disagreements on including her full name. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I feel like we need to discuss the GTA London cover situation. There are many pros to the PNG image: it's region neutral, it's platform neutral, it's a digital image rather than a scan. Almost none of the Rockstar Games covers on Wikipedia have the Rockstar logo on them, that does not make them fake. They're all sourced from the official Rockstar website as was the GTA London art. There's no rule that a publisher's logo must be on the cover art however platform and regional neutrality are desirable for Wikipedia. The colours are RGB (being a digital piece of art) and are frankly more accurate considering it's come from the official website, a scan is certainly not reliable in this sense, the red is more orange for a start in that one. And the artefacts argument doesn't exactly stand considering the JPEG has more damage. We will need to come to a suitable decision because the current art isn't acceptable. It can be JPEG or PNG, I don't mind as long as it's good quality, but must be region and platform neutral. Dell9300 (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
It's here, I added the title though because when you replaced the image I took it to mean you wanted it on (that was the only important part missing). Dell9300 (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I see, that makes sense after all. Still, though, it is a JPEG, wherefore I think the current file should be overwritten instead of replaced. As you correctly said, I intended to add the full title to the box art, but also other items, such as the Rockstar Games logo and the "only works with GTA disc" warning. Thus, in my opinion, we should either keep my version and declare it as "cover", or put on your version and make sure it says "cover art" instead, to clarify it to the reader. Does that make sense? Lordtobi (✉) 09:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Well obviously I'd go with using the digital image and declaring it "cover art" as the rest of the articles on the GTA games do, none of them use scans and only GTA Advance (and The Trilogy) has the Rockstar logo. It's not seen on the majority of the covers used on Wikipedia for their games. I'm not sure why you want to see it here almost exclusively? If you're happier with a JPEG though then I will use a JPEG, the only reason I converted it to PNG is to stop artefacts appearing when it's scaled down (which can sometimes happen). Dell9300 (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Another thing I wanted to mention that's related is the developer of London 61 would appear to also be Rockstar Canada. I thought it was strange for the two mission packs to be by different devs so I checked the in-game credits and found the people who worked on 61 are majorly the same as 69, employees of Rockstar Canada. 61 is also "dedicated" to DMA Design and the GTA Team in the credits so I think that's proof enough that DMA didn't make it, they wouldn't dedicate it to themselves. There aren't many sources around for 61 though so the game itself seems to be the only source but that shouldn't be an issue? Dell9300 (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't quite know who developed it as there no source or anything, and I couldn't find any credits of the game either. Considering that I do not own the game I couldn't check myself. Would you mind uploading a screencap of the credits to Imgur or similar? Quick note: "majorly the same" could also include producers and writers at Rockstar Games so be aware. If Kevin Hoare (Rockstar Toronto/Canada's manager) is included, we can be certain. Lordtobi (✉) 16:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah that was the issue, same with 69, but the cover of the later "collector's edition" release revealed Rockstar Canada to be the developer, of course nothing like that happened for 61 though. Yes, exactly, the Housers etc. are listed who are obviously from the NYC office. Kevin Hoare was definitely listed though, as director if I'm remembering correctly, I'll be sure to take screenshots though to confirm, I'm not at my PC right now though. Dell9300 (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
About MS-DOS and .exe files: I honestly don't know if London 61 would be compatible with MS-DOS but you put it as such on the Rockstar Toronto article so I was just following suit. Dell9300 (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, *cough* [looks for excuse] it said so on the game's article and I simply copied it [dodged that]. I'll clean that up, London 61 is linked from so many pages. Lordtobi (✉) 17:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
DMY format and Japan
Regarding the PPAP article, I think the right reason was WP:DATERET and MOS:RETAIN, not WP:DATETIES. Japan is not strongly DMY or MDY. Japan is YMD, but that isn't a format the English Wikipedia uses. On the flip side Indonesia and of course India are DMY. Since your contrbutions to the article got it out of stub status, I'll gladly use DMY there, but I don't want a precedent of changing all Japanese articles to DMY. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Grand Theft Auto London 1969.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Grand Theft Auto London 1969.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Ioi-logo-640-black.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
I don't recall the exact link for proof, and I'm short on time at the moment, but the current consensus supports Iftek's version, not Tobi's version. While linking the word "series" isn't the end of the world, the word "series should not be in italics because it's not a part of the actual title. Sergecross73msg me14:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Ifte: Please do not transfer other users' comments without full context or notification. You left out my subsequent comment. It would be better to have asked Tobi to check the section on Serge's talk page. -- ferret (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I do apologise for that ferret. The original comment was intended to be answered by just Sergecross73. Please do not take it personally nor take any offence, it's just that I needed LordTobi to understand my edit changes through his own page. I will keep your feedback in mind next time, thank you for your input Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Look, Atlus as a brand did start in 1986, however, that entity was dissolved when Sega acquired Index Corporation. Look at the Siliconera article and the corporate profile of Naoya Tsurumi. It clearly states within the Sega Sammy Corporate Profile "President and Representative Director of SEGA DREAM CORPORATION (now ATLUS. CO., LTD.)". Why does it not just say "ATLUS. CO., LTD?". Sega Dream Corporation is a shell corporation to absorb all of Index Corporations assets. Index Corporation dissolved and Sega Dream Corporation was the remaining company. http://www.segasammy.co.jp/english/pdf/release/20130918_index_e_final.pdf
You are informing yourself about Wikipedia on Wikipedia, linking to me sources that are linked exactly this way here, but wrongly. Firstly note that Index Corporation did not go defunct, you actually linked to it yourself—iXIT Corporation. The cycle of Atlus went as follows: Incorporated in 1986, acquired in 2014 and deactived as developer/publisher. It was, however, retained as licensor, alike LucasArts currently. At that point Atlus Co., Ltd. is a part of Index Corporation. Index Corporation is acquired, and their software business assets (withunder Atlus Co., Ltd., its subsid Atlus Holdings, Inc., and the sub-subsid Atlus U.S.A., Inc.) are re-organized into Sega Dream Corporation. Now, Atlus Co., Ltd., an brand-naming licensing company is a subsidiary of Sega Dream Corporation, and not the Corporation itself, as the article currently claims. Sega Dream Corporation is renamed Index Corporation and the actual Index Corporation is sold and renamed iXIT Corporation. Atlus Co., Ltd. is now a subsidiary of Index Corporation. 2014; the gaming business of Index Corporation, aka. Atlus Holdings, Inc., Atlus U.S.A., Inc., and Atlus Co., Ltd., is split from Index Corporation and structually re-organized as a direct company tree subsidiary of Sega Games Co., Ltd. (commonly known as Sega, which is used per WP:COMMONNAME). Now what is the result? A company of the name Atlus Co., Ltd. switches hands a couple of times and is deactivated as well as re-actived as a fully-fledged company. Other than the seemingly obsessed anonymous IP editor, I will try to find some sources on the matter than explain clearly in English (or any other language I am able to read) how it came to be this way. Lordtobi (✉) 12:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
NOTE: While I was writing this response, you willingfully revert edits related to this very discussion topic. You a) gave me no chance to reply in time and b) broke WP:3RR, the "three revert rule". You asked before how to avoid edit warring, but you did not listen. Please respect that in the future. Lordtobi (✉) 12:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
You're only partially right. Look, let me put it to you in layman terms so we can be in consensus here. Index Corporation went bankrupt. Sega acquired the bankrupt Index Corporation. Dissolved the bankrupt entity and absorbed all its assets into a new company called Sega Dream Corporation. The old Index Corporation is finished, it is no more. This new company, Sega Dream Corporation then split all of its video game development assets into a company called Atlus and all of its marketing and business development assets into a company called Index Corporation. Sega Dream Corporation is no more. Then, as a corporate reformation, Sega sold it's Index Corporation subsidiary (formerly Sega Dream Corporations marketing and business development side) to Sawadao Holdings. And please don't disrespect Wikipedia editors, it makes you look arrogant and is not community spirit. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
You are right in what you are saying, clearing up that minor confusion with iXIT Corp. However, it still supports my thesis on "Atlus Co., Ltd. = Atlus Co., Ltd.", as detailed above. Are there any sources that prove that the company known as "Atlus Co., Ltd.", formed in 1986, was entirely disestablished, also legally, so that the current Atlus Co., Ltd. must be a new legal entity? If a company is publicly dead, even if not legally, we handle it as defunct, however if the same company is rebooted, which is the case here, we say it was "re-opened" but still founded on the same date as it is the same company. If they dry out legally, newly-founded companies are handeled as actually new companies (alike Atari, Inc. and Atari, Inc. (Atari, SA subsidiary)). Lordtobi (✉) 13:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
"Are there any sources that prove that the company known as "Atlus Co., Ltd.", formed in 1986, [...]." Yes the dissolution notice of Atlus below from Index Corporation, the company that dissolved Atlus. Unfortunately it's in Japanese, but the source can't be any more reliable than that.
As to the current Atlus being a new company. Well the company's website says that the company was founded in September 2013. The info can't be any more reliable than the company itself.
It seems that the article linked states that the company was merged, not dissolved. It is very likely that merged companies remain active after a merger (such as Rockstar Vancouver, which changed its name twice after being merged, and still appears on Take-Two's annual reports, but is inactive and therefore handeled as defunct, as possible future events cannot be foreseen per WP:CRYSTALBALL). This rather, even if not really, supports my thesis rather than refuting it. Regarding the official website part, we cannot always verify what is said there, even if there would be no reason for them to put up false or misleading statements. If possible, try to look up the company in a Japanese business/company register, and check if it was dissolved legally. Lordtobi (✉) 14:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Check the section (2) of Index'reports that says the following. If you don't read Japanese, translate it with Google translator. It says that Atlus was dissolved.
Yes, Atlus merged with Index but in the process one of the two companies was killed in the process. Unless a merger is performed to create a new holding company (example: Sega Sammy Holdings), a merger between companies almost always mean the demise of one of the two companies. No new holding company was created with Index and Altus. They merged their operations, Index was the surviving company and decided to uses Atlus'name on video games in Japan for marketing reasons (but the copyright on the video games was Index Corporation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.55.52 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, but it seems that Atlus still developed games during their being-dead time, maybe the Atlus as legaly entity was disestablished, but not as functional entity? Effectively that would mean that the company survived, but is branched onto a different legal entity, which is definetly possible, and would handle it as the same company after all. On a side-note, please remember to sign your comments on talk pages by appending ~~~~. It helps me identify when you wrote what; it looks like this, just without stylization and with your credentials: Lordtobi (✉) 16:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Related-topic edit: As your reverted me again on "Sega Games Co., Ltd.", note that "Sega Games Co., Ltd." is just the full legal name of the company known as Sega, not a subsidiary or division of it. Therefore, we are forced, per WP:COMMONNAME, to use Sega in the infobox. As I want to avoid the three revert rule, please consider changing it back on your behalf. Lordtobi (✉) 13:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The "seemingly obsessed anonymous IP editor" has decided to drop by to sort the whole Atlus/Index/Sega Dream/iXIT story that is somewhat confusing and complex.
1) Atlus Co Ltd was merged and dissolved by Index Corporation in October 2010. The brand name continued but for the company itself it was over. (Heck, Atlus's own website redirected to Index's website at the time).
2) Unlike Atlus Co Ltd, Atlus USA was not dissolved; just renamed Index Digital Media.
3) Index Corporation went bankrupted in June 2013.
4) Sega Dream is created in September 2013 and acquires the Index Corporation.
5) Sega Dream is renamed Index Corporation and dissolves the original Index Corporation that was bankrupted anyway.
6) In April 2014, Index Corporation (formerly Sega Dream) is split. It is renamed Atlus and loses its non-gaming business to a new company created the same day that takes the name of Index Corporation.
7) Index Corporation (the new company created in April 2014) is renamed iXIT in 2016.
As nonsensical as this may sound to westerners, it is very common for Japanese companies to rename themselves and then creating new companies that take their former names — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.55.52 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Different things are stated from you two currently, one says that Index Corporation (2) was split into two different parts, Index Corporation (3) and Atlus, and Index Corporation (2) is deunct, while the other states that Index Corporation (3) is simply split off of Index Corporation (2), and Index Corporation (2) is renamed Atlus, remaining active. And yes, you are right, it does sound nonsensial that a part of a company is split off and then renamed as the former company, which is then renamed something else. The different articles on the topic also confuse it the same way, wherefore I had stated prior that we need better sources. For one, secondary sources, at best, English-language secondary sources. Would you, 24.202.55.52 (or is there a name I can call you by?) and Ifte, help out in reaching for good sources? Lordtobi (✉) 13:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Index Corporation (1) is dead, Index Corporation (2) is now Atlus, Index Corporation (3) is now iXit Corporation. No company currently trades under name of "Index Corporation". As to what happened in April 2014, my guess is that Sega Holdings was never interested in Index Corporation in the first place back in 2013 and only acquired the company so that it could get Altus. Sega probably separated Atlus and Index in April 2014 so that it could eventually get rid of Index while keeping Atlus. And that's what happened. Sega sold Index Corporation to another company in 2015 and kept Atlus.
Many of the sources are in Japanese because I go a lot to the Japanese Wikipedia which obviously uses most sources in its language. But I'll see if I can find English sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.55.52 (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I understand that me and User talk:24.202.55.52 are taking the interpretation of the Index Corporation assets within Sega Dream Corporation slightly differently, however, the one thing that's unanimously agreed is that the Index Corporation before merging with Sega and the Index Corporation that's the subsidiary of Sega are legally different companies. It's like Taito Corporation. The parent of Taito Corporation is Square Enix. Under the ownership of Taito, an Index Corporation = Sega Dream Corporation event occurred in which Taito was merged with The Game Designers Studio and then later merged with ES1 Corporation by Square Enix. As a result, legally, Taito's a completely different company from when they started (the former ES1 Corporation), but from a brand perspective, they're still the same. You can see Atlus as the same thing. Legally, they're the former Sega Dream Corporation, but from a brand perspective, they're exactly the same. As far as the Sega Games to Sega situation goes, you make a valid point. Rules are rules for a reason so I have to abide by them (and another unbeknownst rule for me too). One thing that I do need to point out is that, I've made every Sega Subsidiary company infobox as symmetrical as possible. Make changes to Atlus, you have to make similar changes to other Sega subsidiaries like Sonic Team and Sega AM2 etc. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Sonic Team infobox
Hi there LordTobi, would you be able to do a favour and edit the Sonic Team infobox correctly? there's an editor that is subjectively changing it to his liking. Basically, the issue is that, Sonic Team is known for the Nights, Pyuo Pyuo, and Phantasy Star Online franchises but he refuses to place them on and places an incorrect placeholder instead (amongst removing elements of the infobox). If you make an edit on it, it would make him understand the ideal format. Cheers Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
We are discussing this on your talk page, so we can continue doing that. Why are you trying to get another editor to revert my edits and act as if that is an okay thing to do? --The1337gamer (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Because I want to get an objective overview on how to solve this charade. I always invite a third party whenever there is an edit conflict to see what the best course of action is. And how do you know that Lordtobi will revert my edit? He may give an explanation as to why I am in the wrong. Wikipedia is a community based website, embrace that aspect. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
You requested an uninvolved editor to start edit warring with me. You didn't request for them to contribute to the discussion. An incredibly immature and naive thing to, especially when I'm watching the editor's talk page that you turn to. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
You talk about immaturity but you are the one throwing names at me: ironic is it not? Look, I didn't talk to LordTobi for him to stroke my ego, or to say "I am right and you're wrong!". I talked to him separately so he can have an outsiders perspective of how to solve this situation. Clearly, if you believe that he will "edit war" with you, then how are you going to prove your point? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I didn't think he would edit war with me. But I think you wanted him to do just that. The way you phrased your request to him made it sound very biased towards pushing you're own agenda.--The1337gamer (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Look at the wording, it says "edit the Sonic Team infobox correctly?". I never said that he should revert your edit to my edit. There's a clear difference in intentions. Look, I don't even care at this point if I'm in the wrong with the edit and revert edits, you're being very difficult to come to a consensus with by throwing labels at me to justify your edits. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Maybe look at the wording yourself. You asked him to edit it correctly, then proceeded to call my revision incorrect. You were pushing him to revert me. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Read the WP:COMMONNAME page. What does is say at the very top of the page? It says Wikipedia:Article titles: "This page is about the policy for article titles." It says nothing about infobox parameters. I already commented on the discussion above ([12]), pointing out to LordTobi that he was mistaken to think that WP:COMMONNAME overrides the infobox doc. The full legal name should be used in the parent paremater in the infobox. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. This inconsistency is getting me fed up though. There's no point of having a default format if it's not going to be followed properly. It's not fair on me to follow a rule on one article only for it to be over-ridden on a similar article. I'll change all the parent company titles to Sega Games Co, Ltd for the Sega gaming subsidiaries. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Oxenfree logo.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Oxenfree logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello, Lordtobi. 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.
Hey, I only saw that the company was renamed in my newsfeed the other day, and remember that was an article and that it should be updated; seeing that the in-article stuff was already done, I did the last thing which would be renaming the article. It was taken to my notice that there was any discussion ongoing, so the move seemed logical. I did check out the talk page, after being told so. I check at New York's DoS company databse, and truly Gizmodo Media Group, LLC was just founded on March 2, 2016. News site really should get their information sorted out before addressing the public. Please excuse me for the inconvenience. Lordtobi (✉) 13:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikilink examples for companies that move between countries
Hi @Lordtobi. I'm not sure I understand your edit summary on your recent edit. I don't understand why if a company moves from one country to another, one should wikilink the name of the country in the founded field in the infobox.
My edit was intended to make the example conform with the guidelines of the Manual of style. More specifically, there is a consensus that it is always preferable to only wikilink the most specific place, and not its state/province and country (unless of course, there is no article for the most specific place). For an entry where only the name of a country appears, of course, there is no problem with wikilinking it. My Gussie (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Please desist
As far as I can recall, my only interactions with you stem from when you come to an article either in draft or to which I have contributed significantly, and you subsequently fiddle around with white space, citation format, minor elements that have little import outside of making the article harder to edit for those actually writing it. You've been around a while, so I would think that you already know that the community frowns upon small edits that distract from writing actual content, and I'm certain that you know that when your changes are reverted, they should go to discussion on the talk page rather than a reversion to the ones you like (edit warring). I'd like to ask that you desist from these sorts of edits in general, especially if they are unwelcome on any single article, but if for whatever reason you are not amenable, please desist at a minimum from these edits on articles I am writing. I would prefer to not waste that time with discussions like this. czar00:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Rockstar Agent
Hi. I'm admin of one local fan groups about Rockstar Games Agent. I saw you added new cover for Agent on wiki page. Do you have any special reasons for that, i mean do you have any idea what's going with project, or you did it just because? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.215.253.44 (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
We go reliable sources, not your personal interpretation (WP:V, WP:OR). And according to reliable sources, it first released on Windows on 27 April 2015, so that's the date that should go in the infobox. It would be misleading and confusing to state otherwise. Further details on the Definitive Edition release are covered appropriately in prose. Also {{Video game release}} is not required, and never has been. There are numerous featured/good video game articles that don't use it. It's only worthwhile using when we are listing dates for specific regions. Otherwise it just look messy and cramps the infobox with unnecessary WW tags. The Tfd has no bearing on why I removed it, I was restoring the article to its previous state before your edits. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Interrupted conversation about examples in the Infobox company template
Oh, sorry about that, seems like I overlooked your question when I cleaned up. The reason I undid your edit is because the state or country where a company originated from can differ from its current or last headquarters location. As an example, I gave Free Lives, a South African develpoer, which moved from Cape Town to a city on Mauritius temporarily, wherefore for the time-being the founded field said "April 2012; 12 years ago (2012-04) in Cape Town, South Africa" and the headquarters field "Tamarin, Mauritius". Since neither of the countries is a major geographical location, WP:OVERLINK did not apply. Having the documentation propose a linking of state and country (I even don't think that state is affected by WP:OVERLINK) by default would therefore result in proper linking, and a hundful of cases (e.g. same country/state as headquarters) to apply WP:OVERLINK and remove the links from the founded field in favor of having the headquarters field link to the respective articles. I gues that makes sense ...? Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 11:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
OK @Lordtobi, I'm getting what you mean. In the Free Lives example, I see no problem with linking to both Tamarin, Mauritius and Cape Town, South Africa, as both these towns/cities are relevant to the subject. My question was about a much simpler matter, which has to do both with WP:OVERLINKING and WP:SPECIFICLINK. For the same example, the consensus would be not to link to Mauritius, if one is linking to Tamarin, or not to link to South Africa if one is linking to Cape Town. The reasons are twofold: the town/city is more specific than the country, and having a separate link for the country dilutes the value of the town/city link. Am I making sense? My Gussie (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I believe Specificlink referes to editing out links so that readers find exactly what they are searching for when clicking on it. Using that for City, State and Country does not seem a problem to me, as a user would click on what he would like to find more about, e.g. link Mauritius if someone had never heard of that island before, but also link the city the company is based in so people can also find out about that one. As with Overlink, I explained above that we could, by default, have everything linked, and put Overlink to action if there are doubled entries (e.g. "North Carolina" and "United States" present in both fields), unlinking the one in the founded field in favor of that in the headquarters field. Lordtobi (✉) 10:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Temeplate:Infobox video game states: Individual development tasks handled by different companies (e.g., scenario, programming) and ports should not be mentioned in the infobox but in the article text instead. War Drum is just that. They "ported"/"programmed" the mobile version of an existing game. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Please note that War Drum Studios was in charge for reworking visuals, controls, and more, and did not just port. If you still do not consider that is enough, we can leave it inside the efn if you wish, but it should be stated as clearly as can be, that these "editions" were made by them. Once you are on it, maybe you could check those at Bully (video game) as well? The Anniversary Edition just came out yesterday, but we have always handeled the 2008-released Scholarship Edition as a seperate development as well, where Mad Doc Software (now Rockstar New England) had enhanced visuals (a bit), added multiplayer, better controls, a few more missions, and moved it all to a new engine. That edition was also used to create the Anniversary Edition, which likely runs on War Drum's own engine, but of that, I am not sure. Lordtobi (✉) 19:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.
This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
Can you just stop just undo changes that are right in common? When multiple editors changes the same thing, it might be true, but instead of just click undo, listen first.
People are editing wikipedia, if you want to do your own, get off this platform.
First off, regard your civility. "Get off this platform" is rather harrassment than advice. Secondly, articles like this one are often the target of vandalism and misinformation, often because people do not understand that support for game was confirmed, even if it that support is not out yet. Some users keep spamming the page by changing the "Support confirmed"/"Support upcoming" tags to "No support!!!!", or blatantly removing the entire table entry, which is pretty much the most I have reverted there, only very rarely were there other cases to be undone, such as moving unreleased games to the released section. I believe you have so far not edited anything other than my talk page and have not contributed to the article itself? At lest your edit log says so. Also, you could have expressed what exactly you are concerning, what is "the same thing"? Everything on the page seems fine to me, so instead of blaming me for something you are not telling me about, please try to precisely state what you want to know and what you would like me to do. Lastly, please remember to sign comments you add by adding four tidles (~~~~) to the end of your message, it will look like the following, just with your credentials: Lordtobi (✉) 14:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Sniper Elite 4 logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
![[6]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61fR2vWJI-L._SL1200_.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://media2.jpc.de/image/w600/rear/0/0075678669637.jpg){kind=link}
