|
Hello, Gakon5/Talk archive Alpha, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.
Happy Wiki-ing!
-- Sango123 00:40, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)
Have a look at Characters_in_Super_Smash_Bros._Melee#Unlockable_characters. The Template:Spoiler tag is there. Why, then, should it not be on the Kirby: Canvas Curse article? The "Characters" section of the article has information about unlockable characters that readers (like me) may not want to know, and may not want to be spoiled. I agree that the wording of the tag isn't exactly suitable (talking about "plot details"), but do you know of a more appropriate tag relating to video games? If so, please let me know. -- Daverocks 09:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I fired up my copy of Canvas Curse and made a new file. After heading to the medal swap and scrolling all the way to the bottom of the list, I found that the Meta Knight and Dedede sections were hidden. I had removed the tag in thinking you knew what characters were unlockable, but you had to buy them first. My bad, I'll put it back on :/ And I don't know of an alternative tag; I might bring that up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games.
- Thank you for understanding. Unfortunately, I was slightly spoiled by the section as I had just purchased the game at the time. And we really need a more suitable video game spoiler tag; the general spoiler tag is used on a lot of video game articles. Hope the tag is made soon :) -- Daverocks 13:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that there were four difficulty levels in AW:DS' Combat Mode. Would you please explain the "Easy" Mode? --'Ivan 13:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there's one in the demo game, but I guess not in the regular game. Because, you reverted it. That's odd though. -- gakon5
- I don't remember reverting that page anytime recently. --'Ivan 16:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No wait, I said/typed that wrong. I meant you changed it, becuase apparently the Easy mode only exsists in the single-pak demo, and you didn't know that. -- gakon5
Hi, I've nominated the workshop for the WP:GCOTW. Hopefully we can get some input from the Wikiproject and finally get this thing going. jacoplane 14:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting... collab up for collab :P I've put in my vote; this should help get the ball rolling. -- gakon5 15:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gakon5/Talk archive Alpha, I can see from your userboxes that you love cats.
Would you be interested in joining the Wikipedia Cat Lovers' Committee?
If you want to join, you can add yourself to the members list and contact the committee founder, me, GeorgeMoney on my talk page.
Thank You.
--GeorgeMoneyTalk Contribs 22:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
The Barnstar of Life
|
| For your contributions in the computer gaming space, have this thingy of recognition. With thanks, Colonel Tom 12:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
|
The page was undeleted, appropriately since it wasn't included in that AW AfD. I think we should try to make this article as encyclopedic as possible. I think it's already much better than the Advance Wars article, since it covers the units on more of a historical and game design persective. It could use some references, but I'm not really sure where to find such things since they were never released in English territories. You seem to have more experience editing the Wars articles, and we've discussed the deletion issues at CVG and various AfDs. My experience is somewhat limited, as I've only played Advance Wars 2, but the games aren't that different, it's more my lack of historical knowledge here. Would you help me try to improve this article? --SevereTireDamage 00:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think if NW had stayed in then sureley AW could have been saved. Also, someone merged a lot of the Units in AW stuff into Units in NW (whoever it was basically put in the merge suggestion tags and then instantly went ahead with it - how's that for being bold? ;) I tried to clean some of it out, but it resurfaced later; so really we've got copies of both articles in there.
- Although it does compare the units across the three main sets of games (GB Wars, Famicom Wars, S. Famicom Wars. GB Wars 3), it's still really trying to convey the same thing, which includes comparing and contrasting different units and explaining their functions and purposes in the game(s). Granted however, Units in AW was on a much narrower scope, but the articles' functions were still the same.
- Heck, I once suggested splitting up the Units in NW article, but that never really went through (although some spin-off articles were formed such as Sea Units in Nintendo Wars etc... not really what I had in mind). I figured that keeping the Units in articles to specific games (except in GBW 1/2/Turbo's case, which basically stick together). That'd keep the [split-up] article[s] more in context with their respective games; not to mention it would allow the use of {{main}} in "Units" subheadings for game articles (giving you straight access to an overview of each game's units).
- Of course, that would probably kill the whole "historical context" Units in NW has, which seems to be the only thread left keeping this article from being axed like the rest of the "cruft" articles.
- Woah, that was a long response. So anyway, to get away from ranting and to your question, I'd certainly work with you on Units in NW (especially if there's even the slightest chance that making this article better would possibly bring back Units in AW). I think we may want to find a way to trim the article a bit (or at least the TOC), especially if it's going to stay this long and cover six games' worth of units. But yeah, sure, let's do it. -- gakon5 04:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh man, that's what I get for not watching the talk pages I post to. I'd forgotten I'd even posted this comment here, since I didn't get a response on my talk page. Well, you're on the watchlist now!
- I'm not sure "Air Units" and "Units in Advance Wars" pages should be brought back yet, if at all, again, due to the historical value, though at this point there are now three AW games. This article is pretty long with the merged information now, and it probably should be trimmed. I did do some work earlier to trim out potential speculative claims or original research.
- In any case, I removed the transwiki tag from the page, and it was immediately put up for AfD here. --SevereTireDamage 22:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it was bound to happen, huh? We'll see how that "historical basis" holds up within the rutheless confines of AfD. I still view Units in NW and Units in AW as the same article, even if NW covers more games and thus they're being "compared." Really, the articles seem the same to me, except UINW includes things like "this game introduced this" and "this game changed this" and stuff like that. This article looks doomed for now. I'll probably put in a vote soon; I think with some cleanup the article would be better, as long as it passes on those grounds (that it could be improved; although this is a content dispute, not a format dispute). -- gakon5 00:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-upload your Kirby manga image. It was earlier deleted. WhisperToMe 15:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, if I can find it I'll upload it. It was probably missing fair use rationale, right? -- gakon5 15:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No - it was labelled as unused. WhisperToMe 15:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to tell the person who listed it for deletion that he should have told you that he had listed it. By the way, comic covers are fair use. They are allowed on EN. WhisperToMe 15:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The listing said "(orphaned fair use image, tagged for more than 7 days)" WhisperToMe 15:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agh! Two edit conflicts! Gotta get my reply in. So if it was orphaned, was it not being used on Kirby (Nintendo)? I thought it might still have been, but I haven't been around that article in a looong time. -- gakon5 16:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User:HighwayCello used tags to "hide" the image (the tags are <!-- -->) - See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirby_%28Nintendo%29&diff=56691072&oldid=56690550 WhisperToMe 16:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ... interesting. I'll start hunting now. Can't we just get it undeleted, or is that just for pages only? (not sure) -- gakon5 16:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's for pages only, unfortunately. Anyway, HighwayCello said he hid the image because, at the time, the article did not talk about the Kirby manga, which violates fair use conventions. Now it is in accordance with fair use because the article mentions the Kirby manga. WhisperToMe 16:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just that one sentance, which was there when I uploaded it, and still is. Anyways, I think I've got a site with some of the manga covers. I'll be uploading one shortly. -- gakon5 16:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Kirby manga.jpg There you go -- gakon5 16:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I'm here to inform you that the image, Image:Harvestmoonanother.png, needs a source (For instance, did you scan this? Or upload it from a website?). But since we're on the subject of picture, would you mind uploading me some pictures? Once they're uploaded, I'll add the copyright tags, sources, and put them in the right place in the article myself. I'm sorry if I'm being a hassle! --71.118.145.48 02:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, some people are trying to move this article. DS9 Voyager 01:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Whispy Woods, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whispy Woods (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. TTN (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
