User talk:IceWelder/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Template redirects

Hello Lordtobi, thank you for your recent cleanup work on template redirects. I have reverted two of them in my userspace and an old purely statistical listing of templates. In these situations the link was not really meant as usable "link" (if that makes sense), but as an statistical entry in a data collection. In such rare situations it's sometimes better to preserve the old link situation and dependant data as good as possible. Anyway, it's not that big of a deal - just thought I'd mention it incase you come across similar situations in userspace or other maintenance areas. Best regards and a Happy New Year. GermanJoe (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the heads-up, and a happy New Year to you, too! I replaced the template redirect on over 2000 pages today as part of the merging effort between the 'new' and the original template (read up at Template talk:Video game release#Merge Effort). I didn't notice there was anything crucial about the two pages you reverted me on, so sorry about that. Thanks! Lordtobi (✉) 19:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop reverting THQ Nordic edits.

Look, THQ Nordic have published these games on Steam under the THQ Nordic banner, therefore, it is valid to place them as the current publishers of said franchises. Stop your invalid reverts Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

As I have already explained, THQ Nordic (as they already did under the Nordic Games banner) changed the "publisher" field tagged as metadata to the respective games on Steam to reflect their new ownership. For example, here here and here, when they acquired the Jagged Alliance franchise, the former publisher was changed to THQ Nordic/Nordic Games on the respective games. Wikipedia does NOT employ on retrospective changes such as this. THQ Nordic has had no original releases to any of those franchises, the only exception being Darksiders: Warmastered Edition. There were a few digital releases by Nordic Games, for example the Gothic series, but those are not notable works by the publisher, just republishings, and are not to be included in the "products" field. As opposed to your logic, This Is the Police actually was an original (co-)release by THQ Nordic, and could easily be included in the products field, but that was not of your liking. You could so far not provide any rationale for your disruptive edits other than "look on Steam". Please reconsider your statement and stop blaming others. Lordtobi (✉) 20:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you responding with a logical citation as to why THQ Nordic are the publishers then I would have given you credibility. This isn't about whether an edit is to my liking, because quite frankly, there's been a bunch of edits not to my liking that I've accepted, it's about credibility. And for goodness, stop assuming that I'm blaming you. I'm not. I just told you to stop doing something, that's not blaming. Blaming means that I am assigning a fault on you which is clearly not my intention. Do you think I like doing talks like this? I'd rather edit in consensus as oppose to conflict. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I was not Crystal Balling with my edit...

https://www.thqnordic.com/

It is literally on the THQ Nordic website, this is not a "Crystal Ball" edit, this is definitive proof from the company themselves that they are actively utilizing said Intellectual Properties and releasing it under their publishing label. Look at the left and right navigational arrows, they show all the different THQ Nordic franchises or games that will be released. And by the way, the Darksiders remastered releases can be classified as new products because the publishing label is under Nordic Games and the content has been modified from the original THQ releases. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The Darksiders and MX vs. ATV items were already kept in my revision as THQ Nordic has indeed already released new titles in those series. On the THQ Nordic site, truly a "The Guild 3" entry can be found, however, as I have multiply stated, we cannot include it in the list as it links to Europa 1400: The Guild, which has no affilitation with THQ Nordic except for the retrospective ownership takeover. If there was an article on the series, or an article on The Guild 3 itself, that could be included in the list. And what also goes against your rationale to revert my edit: Painkiller does not a have a new-game entry on their website. Your most recent revision edit description concluded that I should "look at Rainbow Studios before you consider deleting MX vs ATV". The MX vs. ATV item has not been deleted in the first place, so that is an invalid rationale. I will now state it again: Saying that a new Painkiller might be released (there is no credible evidence of that) is WP:CRYSTAL. We may not link to Europa 1400: The Guild as a generale The Guild series article, as it was formerly unaffilitated with THQ Nordic, as long as neither the series nor the third game installment has its own article, to which we could link instead. As The Guild 3 currently does not have any content whatsoever on Wikipedia, it does not seem notable from an objective view, and therefore not included regardless, even if that might change in the future. Lordtobi (✉) 12:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painkiller:_Hell_%26_Damnation, Were you not aware that there was a Painkiller sequel that was exclusively published by Nordic Games? that's far from Crystal Balling, that's an outright fact of publishing. Plus, you have failed to see the released games by Nordic Games/THQ Nordic on the THQ Nordic page. I added said entries either because there is a sequel in developmnet published by THQ Nordic or, it was already published exclusively by Nordic Games/THQ Nordic. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I missed the Hell & Damnation game, thanks. Though that should be added to the products field instead of the series, as there is not quite a "series" (which requires three games in it by Wikipedia's guidelines). Also, I will be moving this to THQ Nordic's talk page shortly, as you stated yourself that you will be discussing there. Lordtobi (✉) 12:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GameMill Entertainment.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:GameMill Entertainment.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

GAR for Codename: Gordon

Codename: Gordon, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Superhot

Hi there! Let's discuss Superhot at Talk:Superhot. InternetMeme (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Days of War

Thank you for your help writing and citing the article :) IQ125 (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For cleanup of the article Days of War. IQ125 (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Postal Redux

I gotta ask, do you even play the game? And how is the developer's Youtube channel and the post they make on Steam not reliable? What about the changelog which came from their own website? http://runningwithscissors.com/?p=2356 http://runningwithscissors.com/?p=2764

I see now why the article was in such poor shape. Anyone who tries to make it better will get shot down by some dude who doesn't know anything about the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:C002:D0F0:14F4:2750:1E53:31FA (talk) 10:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you for all your hard work in cleaning up Jamie-Lee Kriewitz article and bringing it to a high standard of quality in accordance with several Wikipedia policies and manual of style corrections. Wes Mouse ✒ 19:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Postal Redux

You aren't gonna find any secondary sources because the game itself didn't get much coverage after release. Likewise, as it says in wiki's own guidelines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources The first thing it says on "reliable sources" is: The piece of work itself Given this is a video game which you yourself have played and verified as true then there is no issue. Hell, because it is a video game, a Youtube video of the game in action can be considered a valid source (assuming the video in question doesn't include un-official modifications). If its false then sure delete it, if not then leave it as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:C002:D0F0:14F4:2750:1E53:31FA (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Accusation of mass-vandalism

In this edit you accused me of mass vandalism. May I ask why? Rob (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, the accusation was not intended to address you, but rather Tyler Yates, who had a partially blurred vandlism-esque edit history which I had partially undone, under that falling also that talk page. While it might not be evident contextless from what he wrote, other of his edits colnclude the same style of heating up things they are not interested in. Sorry if that caused confusion. Since I was already reverted, and the fellow editor considered the "contribution" as proper, I will not interfere further. Lordtobi (✉) 09:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Aah, understood. He didn't respond when I asked for a followup, so I guess another 3rd party request would be warranted. Rob (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

AWB and AfD

Hi there,

Thanks for cleaning up Wikipedia. I noticed this edit, however and wanted to let you know of an issue. Three issues, really. First is that adding a diacritic to a link that works perfectly well is not one of the things it's ok to do to other people's comments. Second is that there's almost never a reason to edit a closed AfD discussion. Third is that WP:AWBRULES advise against "insignificant or inconsequential edits" (of which changing a link from a redirect to the page that redirect points to qualifies). In general, using AWB outside of the articlespace is risky business, and "pointless edits" are a rather sensitive subject (in fact, they're in part the subject of an Arbitration Committee case). So do with that what you will. It's not harmful, except insofar as it clogs up people's watchlists, can cause edit conflicts, makes histories harder to navigate, etc. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I didn't notice that. I was clearing up the undiaricted redirect so it was correct on all articles; when I skimmed the differences if something is broken, I seem to have missedthat I was on the wrong namespace. Guess it is to late to stop me from doing that edit, but thanks for the heads up! Lordtobi (✉) 14:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 28 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Rocksteady Studios page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

GTA

Sam Houser is credited for GTA 1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2y6jAywsMg&t=1m23s) and its also worth noting that your statement "the Houser brothers did not start working on the series until after GTA1" is not strictly correct as its expansion packs London 1969 & 1961 were both written by Dan Houser. I hope this clears up any confusion on this matter. Mainline421 (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

S. Houser is, as you correctly state, credited in GTA1, however, as you might see yourself, he is credited as "BMG Chief Whip", BMG being BMG Interactive Entertainment, the game's publisher. It does not confirm that he had a key role in the game's creation or development, rather just its release procedure. For my prior statement, the expansions were written by D. Houser, but expansions do not mark the origin or creation of a series, wherefore he is not an egible "creator" of the franchise. Per the credits you linked, he had no impact at all on it, and so did Benzies. Garbut had a minor art credit, and there is no source confirming him as creaetor of the series, so we also would not include him. Now that we crossed those three out, let's come back to S. Houser. The source given with him is the same as with D. Houser, nothing that confirms his original influence on the development. I left only him credited for now, but I wondered: Do you have a proper source that gives him as creator of the franchise? By the current means, we could as well add Keith Hamilton (the game's director) to the list, although he did not create the series, but had major influence on the first game. Thanks! Lordtobi (✉) 17:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lordtobi I wouldn't argue than that Dan Houser should be added, as you point out he was not involved in the creation series. The original reason behind me adding Houser to the that sentence was solely because I remembered his name being in the GTA1 credits and it seem to read to me like he wasn't involved and joined much later on which is incorrect, but as you rightly state it is possible that his direct impact may not be that significant, that said I would not object to adding Hamilton and Garbut to the first list. Really though I don't care, I'll leave it up to you. Please ping me in any reposne Mainline421 (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

CSS styling in templates

Hello everyone, and sincere apologies if you're getting this message more than once. Just a heads-up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document on mediawiki.org to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. Thanks, m:User:Melamrawy (WMF), 09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Laundry question

Which sock-farm is this about: [1]? DMacks (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @DMacks: It is User:Salvidrim!/Macy_VG_IP_vandal. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Philippe of Belgium page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

HITMAN

Regarding your revision, when a game is officially spelled in all-capital letters everywhere, why should it not be mentioned on Wikipedia?

Also, why is the line “stylized as DOOM” there in the Doom (2016 video game)?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 13:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Just because someone from the game's marketing decided that it would be a good idea to capitalize the name as often as possible does not mean that it has any relevance to the game or coverage of it, such as most if not all secondary sources usually say "Hitman" rather than "HITMAN". Again, it's a stylistic choice for something printed somewhere. About the Doom case, it's been removed now. Lordtobi (✉) 13:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Just because the people who created the game decided to do something doesn’t mean that’s how it should be done?

Look, I’m not proposing to rename the entire article. I’m proposing to have three words in parentheses in the first sentence of the article in order to let readers know that the game is officially stylized as “HITMAN,” not “Hitman.” I think that information like this should be in the article. I don’t understand why it hurts so badly to have this information in the article.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 13:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Stylizations on Wikipedia are in so far used if they are different from the title (e.g. REC (film) or Watch Dogs, which, apart from capitals, feature additional characters that also refer to the items themselves - underscore for Watch_Dogs, to refer to the computer/hacking theme of the game, and [*REC], refering to the logo of a recording sign on a camera), but not where it just derives the stylization from itself in differently capitalized letters (in the case of Doom and Hitman, capitalized on all letters). It gives credit where credit is not due, as it is solely marketing. Look at any game cover, e.g. Sniper Elite 4, on the logo/cover, the name also is capitalized, but because the marking decided against, it is not on storefronts or else (also note also that we do not bother about storefronts either). I would be glad to invite Soetermans, who you initially reverted, to state his POV. Lordtobi (✉) 13:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The reason we decapitalize the page title is WP:TITLETM. I would expect WP:MOSTM says the same where appearing in the wiki page. --Izno (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Cloud Imperium Games

The main reason for the revert relates to this discussion. The user was unhappy with the basic direction of that discussion (I.e. stop updating constantly based on primary sources) and began socking to edit war. -- ferret (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the heads up! Lordtobi (✉) 08:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

PPAP

That source doesn't say " hailed as the new "Gangnam Style" by various newspapers and online media." and even if it did, fails WP:RS for the purposes of that statement. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:LEGO Videogames logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:LEGO Videogames logo.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:AWBRULES

Please read this. Particularly #4. Edits like this are not helpful [2], [3], [4], [5] and are a good way getting your access revoked. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the reminder. I halted my operation, though I guess that it was too late. Oh well. Lordtobi (✉) 21:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Grand_Theft_Auto_V#Section_for_Lord_Tobi_to_justify_why_shooting_is_a_fundamental_part_of_the_game_but_all_other_game_play_aspects_are_not.

There's a section there. Use it. Status Quo is the original version, the long standing one, not your edit. You constantly edit war with people and I'm fed up with it, start discussing stuff because you are not right by default. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:16, 9 March 2017 (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 Ignition Entertainment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Waltham Abbey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Konami and Hudson Soft articles

Hey there. Seeing as you're so good at cleaning articles to an ideal standard, there's two particular articles that are in a terrible state: Konami and Hudson Soft. Half of the presentation is in bullet points, and there's a clear lack of citations with a lot of areas. Do what you feel is best to make them more presentable. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey there, I will probably take a look at these at a later point in time, as I'm lacking the time, but thanks for the inquiry. Lordtobi (✉) 17:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem, go ahead and edit them whenever you feel is the right time for you. Just to let you know, some of the citations may be broken links too so they may need updating too. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

A move query

• See Wikipedia:Requests for history merge#Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Status as a component of a major index

"An entity's being of a component is not relevant per guidelines of the infobox." That is not the case. Thousands of company articles have this added in the infobox as per allowable guidelines below. I'm unclear how this edit makes the article worse.Ksu6500 (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Information about the company's status as a component of a major index can also be added.

Template:Infobox company#Parameters

Oh bummer, seems like I misread that. Pardon me. I have restored your content with a minor copyediting: Since the entries in the list (symbol, component 1, component 2) are short, {{Unbulleted list}} gets the job done better than plainlist, as you can have the entire thing in one line. Another thing to not is that the "component" should a) not be capitalized, and b) not made part of the link (e.g. [[S&P 400]] component, rather than [[S&P 400|S&P 400 Component]]), as it is presented in the guidelines you linked. If you happend to stumble across a page that violates that presentation, please fix it. I have since restored your edit. Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 14:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks for the update. I'm afraid hundreds of pages probably don't follow the guidelines shown for the infobox as far as formatting. It may require some kind of mass update at some point. I'll use the guidelines on any updates that I make in the future. Ksu6500 (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Acclaim Entertainment's dissolution date

Hello, IceWelder. You have new messages at Talk:Acclaim_Entertainment#DISPUTE:Acclaim_Entertainment.27s_dissolution_date.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Speedy deletion nomination of Kenwilber.com

Hello Lordtobi,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Kenwilber.com for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on 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.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 16:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Mass unlinking

Please revert your mass unlinking. That is only appropriate where an article is deleted, and this is not one of those cases. --Izno (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Acclaim Entertainment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bust-A-Move 2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Destiny 2 cover.webp

Thanks for uploading File:Destiny 2 cover.webp. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 21:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Job title grammar mistakes

Capitalisation is necessary when it comes to providing a job title. Here's an official PDF from Sega Sammy Holdings to prove my point. http://www.segasammy.co.jp/english/pdf/release/20170331_jinji_e_final.pdf Notice how they provide a capital letter to the job title. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The way companies stylize their positions is not the way we do. We are an encyclopedia. See how chief executive officer has none of the three words capitalized, yet you enforce the usage of "Chief Executive Officer" (which is a redirect to the former), even though it is piped with the abbreviation "CEO", and thus only makes more unnecessary fuzz Wikipedia has to calculate, not much, but unnecessary. There was a case—though I don't remember which article it was—where a key staff member assumed the role of a chief product officer (CPO), but stylized his role "C(3)PO" (presumably a Star Wars fan). We would not include that either. IF we are given the choice between "chief executive officer" or "managing director", we take the nearest to what is found in official sources, but adapt it to our standards. As I pointed out before think of a sentence: "Reinhard Pollice is [a] studio director". Lordtobi (✉) 08:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Expect that I changed my initial format so only the first letter of the job title was in capitals, so the whole "three words capitalized" argument is moot at this point. I suppose you have a discussion with other moderators to see as to what formatting is best of for Infoboxes. I honestly don't mind either way, I'm just mimicking what the majority of company infoboxes formats provide. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:OSE—just because other articles feature this kind of stylism, it does not mean that it is correct. On most articles I had been involved with and held discussions on, adpoted the format that seemed to have been accepted as "standard". Also, IMO, all-capital looks better, and exceptions are sometimes made with President (corporate title), although I question the necessity there. If you wish to retain a format for certain pages, it is fine, as long as it is the same throughout the article (also mentions in the text body would then have to be capitalized, as in "Reinhard Pollice became the Studio director"), and clean (no unnecessary redirection as mentioned above, but also no WP:NOTBROKEN violations). Though it is not a thing worth edit warring about, if someone opts to the "nicer" format (all lower-case, with or without President exception), it should be kept, and streamlined over Wikipedia. Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 10:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Minit Records

Hello Lordtobi. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Minit Records, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: multiple claims of significance (associated with notable label, released notable music by notable artists etc.). Thank you. SoWhy 09:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The Slaughtering Grounds

The empty sections don't need to be there, since they are, ya know, EMPTY. Once there is information to be placed there, then re-add them. I made more changes than just those. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 14:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I see what you did there, though nothing really has an impact on the visible article, wherefore it is merely an adaption to personal preferences rather than what was incporporated into the article. Since I guess we both want to avoid edit warring, I have commented out the sections in question, but kept the code changes as they were before, and I would like to kindly ask you to keep it that way (more or less WP:STATUSQUO). Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 14:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The "code changes" were done to make it easier to go through the article and not get lost while editing. References as nothing more than run on lines can cause editors to get lost and to accidentally change something in the reference code to actually screw it up. All I did was add spaces between each field, as well as a - in accessdate, as that is the way it should be, don't believe me? Go here and look at the default field for the access-date is. I do that to avoid any conflicts that could arise from it just being accessdate. You are literally the first person to complain about that. Also, if you'd like to make it easier, just use {{Ping}} to ping me. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 15:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Crash Underride: The above is simply your opinion. The in-infobox spaces make it actually harder to edit on external editors or Wikipedia's mobile editor, and do not necessarily ease its usage on the desktop editor. The spaces between, other than the above, do not enhance nor worsen the their handling, so if it is already given, it should simply be kept aligned throughout all citations, but should not be changed because it is considered to be better that other way, and the same applies to accessdate: There is no "default" field, as the Template is a Lua module that registers both as aliases of a generic parameter named "AccessDate" (see Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration, first entry under "local aliases = {"), and does not prioritize either, especially considering that the documentation of {{cite web}} (which you probably wanted to link, rather than the {{References}} template) is not consistent with all parameters and their aliases. With or without considering my prior explanation, it does not matter which alias of AccessDate is used, it makes 0 difference, except for more characters in the code. There is no reason to forcefully change, and that far off edit warring about, how certain change-invisible elements. If I am the first one to complain about this, I might be the first one to actually care about consistency and status quo. Lordtobi (✉) 15:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Not, you're just the first one to care about the space between one field and the | of the next field in the reference code. I know that no spaces can make it harder for editors as it has tripped me up numerous times before. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 15:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey, why did you undo my jagex edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iach5jalbOifNelb (talk • contribs) 16:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification on the dash use

Thanks for linking me to the manual Iach5jalbOifNelb (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Ubisoft RfDs

I'll tidy or do you want to tidy at RfD. One of us has to do it, but will be EC. I'm standing off, do you want to take it? Consensus usually here, as a reg at RfD, is that WP:NOTCOMPANY and so on, and WP:RFD#D2 confusing, if it's not at the target, it's just confusing. Thanks for finding them. They're a bit mixed with my eubot listings. I have stood off, are you taking it? Si Trew (talk) 08:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: You are using a few slang terms here that I haven't heard of thus far, would you mind clearly re-stating what you would want to tidy up? Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 08:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Amazing what people can do when they take their minds to it. Sorry for the slang. Carry on. Si Trew (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing

Hi, you reverted my edit to the Big Rigs article. Could you take a look at my post over at the talk page? Porphyro (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

A link would be nice. Si Trew (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Consensus on whether Nier: Automata soundtrack releases should be included in Music of Nier article

Hello! You're invited to express your views at the relevant discussion thread. Jotamide (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for help with Draft:Guilty Gear Xrd Revelator

Hello! A while ago I started putting together this draft article but fell behind with it unfortunately. Now I would like to get it done before the next release (Guilty Gear Xrd Revelator 2) is out. I've left this message on your talk page since you have recently participated in the Guilty Gear Xrd article. Hope you can give me a hand. Thanks in advance. :) Jotamide (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: UniSoft Infotech Corporation

Hello Lordtobi. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of UniSoft Infotech Corporation, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: title of the page for years, possible search and link target.Also, redirects are cheap. Thank you. SoWhy 20:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Redirects might be cheap, but are they worth it for hoax titles, regardless of their age and durability? Lordtobi (✉) 20:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

If a page has had a certain name for three years, it's safe to assume that 1) a number of people thought the name to be correct (per WP:SILENCE) and 2) this article has been linked to from other websites, links that will break if one deletes the redirect. Whether it's a hoax title is actually not a reason not to redirect if one can assume that some people will actually search/look for this term (as long as it's not an attack page of course). Regards SoWhy 04:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Your Protection requests...

...you actually (always) ask for full protection. Before making more requests, please acquaint yourself with the policy, as I suggested at WP:RFP. Sollte es Sprachschwierigkeiten geben, zur Not auch auf Deutsch. Lectonar (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lectonar:I am aware that there are multiple levels of protection I would be able to chose from,--even if only semi and full are the only likely targets for mortals like myself--but I realized early that, regardless of what level was requested at RFP, it would be re-evaluated by people familiar with the necessities of protection and chose the proper protection level and duration. Adding atop, I never find semi-protection anyhow useful, as vandals making edits that require approval are just as much work for counter-vandalism editors as if the edit went live immediately, which is why I always tend to chose full, and that is (in 19 of 20 cases) also the outcome, so I don't quite see the problem here. Is asking for full protection where full protection is due problematic to the reviewers? Lordtobi (✉) 20:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Semiprotection isn't the same as pending changes (PC1), which seems to be what you've described. Semiprotection prevents all edits from non-confirmed editors, including those who have recently registered and not yet gained autoconfirmed (This appears in logs as Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access). Full protection prevents even confirmed editors (like yourself) from editing (This appears in logs as Edit=Require administrators access). NeilN set semiprotection on Lego, not full. -- ferret (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh... well, than that's my fault. Pardon me on this one. Will keep it in mind for future requests. Lordtobi (✉) 21:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

<edit conflict> Did you read the policy? Semi essentially prevents IP-vandals from editing the article, so it is the most-used protection level. YOu might be talking about pending-changes. Let me quote from WP:RFP:

"This page is for requesting that a page, file or template be fully protected, create protected (salted), extended confirmed protected, semi-protected, added to pending changes, move-protected, template protected (template-specific), upload protected (file-specific), or unprotected. Please read up on the protection policy. Full protection is used to stop edit warring between multiple users or to prevent vandalism to high-risk templates, semi-protection and pending changes are usually used only to prevent IP and new user vandalism (see the rough guide to semi-protection), and move protection is used to stop pagemove revert wars."

• So kind of an effort is expected when you ask for protection. Many admins might consider what you are doing disruptive, actually. And I find it actually mildly irritating.What also strikes me is that you do not archive your talk-page (it's not forbidden, just irritating). Lectonar (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

SHA=1 Issues Gog

The sources are all reliable. There's nothing disruptive about it; people need to know the risks of using that site. I have reverted the post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.161.249 (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@213.152.161.249: Only the Ars Technica article is reliable and could be properly used in a Wikipedia article, however, it does not depict that GOG.com uses or is affected by the issues of what is outlined by Ars Tech. Because you keep adding without discussion, and thus edit war aginst multiple users, the disruptive editing warning was warranted, and yet you keep reverting, despite warning. In this situation, I would normally have to stick a level-3 warning to your talk page. Lordtobi (✉) 08:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

My Lego Batman 2 change was constructive. Heroe Of Time (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

TomSka

Mi Lord, can you take a look at this? It would be greatly appreciated. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 22:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Redlinks

I always follow how to deal with redlinks, it must be removed if the articles for the redlinks are not likely to be created. If the article creation for redlinks takes up forever, i'll be allowed to remove it.Zirukurt01 (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Iron Maiden's manager official album sales statement for 2017.

I'd like to inform that R. Smallwood - manager of Iron Maiden group in the special interview for prestigious "Music Week" UK magazine, stated Maiden has sold "100 mln copies of albums" to date (first day of May'17). To read "Big Interview" must log in for free trail. Statement of the impresario we can find at the end of article.

http://www.musicweek.com/interviews/read/the-big-interview-phantom-management-s-rod-smallwood-and-dave-shack/068326

Read this one please and make a change on official band'a Wiki bio.

Cheers! Up The Irons! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RALFFPL (talk • contribs) 15:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hey, you’re awesome for all the video game contributions on Wikipedia! :) Just thought I'd reach out and say hello. Wikipedia recently alerted me to an edit being reverted with regard to OS X / macOS. Just wanted to confirm that OS X no longer exists. If you visit the Wikipedia page for OS X, it has been formally renamed macOS. Peace

Lancehyde (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey, that is a nice kitten! I would like to point out though, that we usually apply the name of an OS at the time when the game was published, so if it was before 2016, we put OS X, else macOS. Same with company names. Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 06:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Reading policies

Regarding your revision, Wikipedia has at least five million policies and guidelines, and it’s impossible for a single human being to read all of them, so the next time that you want to provide evidence of how something should be done, please link to the policy, rather than just stating that it exists, before reverting a revision.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 22:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

But, regardless of whatever I stated, you rather decided to edit war? If you feel like someone is not right about something, edit warring is not the solution. Regarding your allegation that it would not be possible to find any policies like this, I was apparently able to do so. Lordtobi (✉) 05:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing posts

How are you allowed to outright remove posts on your talk page without archiving them, and why are you doing it?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 01:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@PapiDimmi: WP:OWNTALK. --Izno (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

“Stylized as”

Regarding this old discussion which we had, you believe that “stylized as _____” is not important enough to be included in articles such as Doom (2016 video game) and Hitman (2016 video game), right?

What about articles like Nintendo 64 (“stylized as the NINTENDO⁶⁴”) and Eminem (“often stylized as EMINƎM”)? There are many articles where “stylized as _____” is included. Your point is that it’s unnecessary because despite the title of the game being DOOM, not Doom, on the cover, in stores, on posters, and… well, everywhere, it’s not necessary to mention it in the article, which I don’t understand. Is there a policy or guideline about this?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 17:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

As opposed to the N64 and Eminem articles, Doom and Hitman only capitalized their title. This is not a stylization in the general sense, as there no specific style element other than full-on capitalization. If we actually took the name as-were from the store pages, ergo "HITMAN" and "DOOM", MOS:CAPS or rather WP:TMRULES would have us decapitalize the titles for encyclopediaism, and not even recognize that there ever was a 'stylization' in the first place. Also, contrary to what became relevant in our abbreviation discussion, stylizations actually never establish notability and are, in 99% of cases, not covered reliably anyhow. What hits the nail on its head is probably WP:TITLETM, which in hindsight references Invader Zim, that would usually say "stylized as Invader ZIM" but does not. As with unnotable abbreviations (yes, there are notable ones), I'm am against the inclusion of stylizations anyhow, but can't overturn consensus (logically). Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 18:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

All right. Maybe we should have a discussion about this elsewhere to achieve consensus?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 18:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, if you wish. I mean, I often have controversial opinions, so I guess I couldn't prevent it anyhow, haha. Lordtobi (✉) 19:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you do it, please? I don’t really feel like it. Besides, where would one start a discussion like this?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 19:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Relevant MOS: MOS:TM/STYLE. -- ferret (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Ketchapp redirects

Hello. Cheers for bringing these old redirects to my attention; I had honestly forgotten about them (I made them 2 years ago). I've left !votes on the most recent ones you listed at RfD, and to save time I've G7'd Amazing Brick and Amazing Ninja, along with their other capitalisation entries. Have a great day! Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Hey, thanks for having my back on the case! Further redirects I think should be deleted are "Don't Touch The Spikes", "Don't touch the spikes", and "Dont Touch The Spikes", since they are effectively three versions of an else-unnotable game (and, since this was backed up in the article with an unreliable source, is no longer in the article), so it would be lovely if you could CSD thouse as well. And in hindsight, the only remaining redirects are "Ketchapp Games", "ZigZag (video game)" and "ZigZag (mobile game)", of which I think the latter two are valid (ZigZag receives attention in the article), but I'm not sure about the prior. Since their web address is ketchappgames.com (or alternatively ketchappstudio.com, they have the same content), this might be semi-valid, but I don't think that it is of high use, and doesn't receive a lot of traffic, but what do you think? Lordtobi (✉) 11:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S.: You can also request my current RfD's for speedy as they are yours. Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 11:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure why I didn't get that ping. Good thing I watchlisted your talk. I'm not sure about the DTTS redirects, I think it could be mentioned alongside alongside the Mudloop issue with this as a source, and possibly even talk about 2 Cars with this as a source; both are reliable. I'll request CSD of Games created by Ketchapp, but I'd like the 2 Cars one to have a full discussion (it'll probably end in deletion, but eh) just because of the idea I mentioned before. I think the other three (Ketchapp Games) and so on are fine as Ketchapp is occasionally referred to as Ketchapp Games, and there's no harm in keeping it (redirects are cheap). Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure you realized but the sources you linked above are the same (and it is already in the article, yay!) . I only kept Jelly Jump at "including" because it has an article, but else? I didn't see a need to list four out of 100+ games, despite not informing the reader in any way (except for Jelly Jump the reader could retreive information on). So, do you think I/we should RfD the DTTS redirects (in regards that they are just about as notable as Pizza Connection 2 (it's there, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯)? Lordtobi (✉) 11:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lordtobi: Oh wow, am I that tired? Anyway, I've added a couple of sentences to the article, so now it mentions DTTS and 2 Cars. Not sure if that'll be enough to keep the redirects, though. I've changed my !vote on 2 Cars to neutral for this reason. Feel free to RfD the DTTS stuff, but don't bother notifying me on my talk page as I'm already watching today's log. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Hey again, I checked the source you expanded the article with, and seems like there is a misunderstanding between what they wrote and what you added: Basically, Ketchapp claims that App Cow stole ideas from them, rather than the other way around. I reverted your edit for now, but how would we resolve this? Also, if you are going to stay with your neutral vote, could you at least CSD "2 Cars (game)", as it is a broken-disambiguated redirect with no (or if we resolve above, little) content, where undisambiguated is sufficient? Lordtobi (✉) 12:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Me again, apparently "ZigZag (2015 video game)", which you deleted, was restored. Please discuss that particular at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_17#ZigZag_.282015_Video_Game.29. Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 15:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

CSD'd. Also I didn't mean to suppress that redirect, just wanted to make a plausible one that could still be used. Anarchyte (work | talk) 22:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow, this has been quite the mess. Sorry about all the misunderstandings that have occurred. Seeing as there is no other content available on 2 Cars or DTTS, I've nominated all the DTTS redirects for G7 and I've noted that I'm fine with G7 on the 2C RfD. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

You're so sweet! Now 2 Cars [x2] and ZigZag (2015 video game) [x2] are the only things left, an Admin has semi-dismissed your 2 Cars (game) CSD, which I reverted and am awaiting comment on, but in the mean time, (striked because, see below ) maybe you could clean out your statement at the RfD for the other 2 Cars's, as you are currently still neutral, and your quadruple-comment is quite a mess. Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 13:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: Battle Royal

Because the primary topic on the subject of battle royals has no e, while the E comes from the the stylization of the franchise Battle Royale. There is a related move discussion occurring at Battle royale (video gaming) -- ferret (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ferret: The battle royal article's lede links to this Merriam Webster page, which outlines that battle royale is a synonym of battle royal, as such shouldn't both versions be correct ("royale" is French anyways)? Or rather, shouldn't this be judged by WP:COMMONNAME and relatably the article title of Battle royale (gaming)? Lordtobi (✉) 12:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not terribly invested in it the outcome, though I lean "royal". Recommend joining the move discussion and allowing that to make the decision. If the new genre page moves (or is merges), that will set the topic name in my eyes. -- ferret (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

2Cars

I misread the RfD was a bit confusing as I saw "I've requested a CSD of the other currently listed Ketchapp related redirect, but I do not want this to be G7'd.", but it wasn't realted to that specific title. I'm going to CSD it now. Sorry about that! RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

No problem! I'm glad we could clear this up. Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 13:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: This whole thing has been a mess, and you have my gratitude for deleting the pages, and my apologies for writing it so confusingly. I've also listed the other two 2 Cars redirects as G7, could you take a look? Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I think I took care of it. Let me know if I missed anything. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	thanks GrahamLennie (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:Non-free use rationale video game screenshot

Your rewrite of this template has broken dozens of fair use rationales by eliminating the way it handles the article and purpose parameters. I asked an admin to undo it for now so the damage can be assessed and it can be redone properly. Fair use rationales must be complete to be valid. It is only used on 73 pages so it isn't that bad but the change over has to be smoother or you have to make sure that every transclusion is updated along with the template. --Majora (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Majora and Oshwah: Hey, sorry I didn't notice that! Since the documentation asks editors to always substitute the template, I considered it untranscluded (only substituted), but in the end I didn't check properly so that is indeed my fault. I will, across this day, change all transclusions to adopt the new parameter format, which results in a way cleaner template usage overall, and then change back the template source code. Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 05:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Lordtobi - No worries, my friend. It happens :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I am currently reworking the transclusions, could you revert your reversion (or shall I?), so that I can check if everything works properly on the changed pages? Lordtobi (✉) 06:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Done! All templates replaced. Lordtobi (✉) 09:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• It's not only used on >100 pages—those are the direct conclusions. The regular use has been to substitute the template, but that was discussed as unnecessary at its last TfD nomination. All major edits to major edits should be both discussed in advance of the edit and tested in the template's sandbox. I see no prima facie reason why the parameters needed to be completely changed. Please discuss on the template's talk page. czar 17:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

WWF The Xperience

A couple of minutes after you !voted at RfD I amended the nomination to also include WWF Xperience – thought I'd better let you know just in case it affects your !vote, though I can't see any reason why it would. Keep up the good work! – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

They basically go together, I wouldn't know how the same argument could change my vote intent. Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 17:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bluehole.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bluehole.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

	Teaching BarnApple
	For helping inform me with different types of sources! (i.e) that wikis are bad sources. Thanks a lot! groig (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Bad source

This is from the official site. Granted primary sources can be seen as biased in certain situations, I believe they are appropriate in this instance, per WP:PRIMARY. The cited information doesn't offer an interpretation of the topic, it simply states the straightfoward facts of what the single player mode will be. Thoughts? DarkKnight2149 15:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I am aware of the guidelines to primary sources, though pages like these, especially FAQs, often tend to exaggerate on the topics they are writing on, wherefore we should not use it as single source for a claim (else we could base the entire article off the game itself and the website). Extraordinary claims (undisclosed future events) require extraordinary sources, so we should look out for secondary sources covering it as-is, or else reword to fit it to its coverage. Lordtobi (✉) 17:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Danang/Da Nang

Hi, I'm not sure where to discuss this, so if this is the wrong place please let me know. I'm just doing it here because you're the one who undid my move so I feel like you may know more about this. I moved the page because, as I said, Da Nang is more common, as evidenced by the fact that every single instance of the city's name appearing throughout the article other than the intro, as well as in related articles, is two words and not one. I added Oxford just to have a more authoritative source behind me. Is there a reason it should still say it as one word?

SaltySeas (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I did not really check on the matter, and I don't really edit a lot on this porject, but I came across this page three times over various links from the Video games WikiProject, and noticed the change. Checking the history, I saw that the article title had changed--semingly without reason, which shouldn't be. As we usually go by the "common naming" guidelines for article titles, there should have been a discussion and proof that "Da Nang" applies to this case. Therefore, please address Talk:Danang with a move request, plus appropriate sourcing. The consensus will determin the moval or not-moval. You don't need to ping me, though, as I am not going to involve myself in that WikiProject, nor would I have the knowledge to allow me to do so. Lordtobi (✉) 15:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! SaltySeas (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

About A7

Hi, please note that A7 should only be used on an article when it has no claim of notability for its subject. This standard is held lower than that of WP:GNG. Competing in the Olympics, in the case of Stewart Green is a fairly significant claim of notability. Please take care when using speedy deletion tags because a new user is often on the receiving end. Thanks! Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 10:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Understood, I listed it for AfD instead. Lordtobi (✉) 10:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

QLoc

Give me a time stamp for the end credits of Remember Me where it says "Ported to Microsoft Windows"? I only spotted "Localization by QLOC S.A." –Cognissonance (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Cognissonance: It seems like credits differ on PC and non-PC systems. The specific line I quoted can be found here, while the same position in this video lacks that line, as you quoted. I own the game on PC so I can confirm that the prior video is legitimate, while I believe the latter is a console screengrab, for which I specifically denoted the Microsoft Windows version in the citation. Lordtobi (✉) 16:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

That's all needed to know. I reformatted the source a bit. Removed the version= parameter as it doesn't seem to show up. –Cognissonance (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ubisoft logo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ubisoft logo.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Accolade

Look, you're correct that the current Accolade is a new company, however, there's little information to warrant a new article about them. Atlus in its current incarnation is Sega Dream Corporation, however, a new Wikipedia page was never made for that so keep the Accolade edit as it is. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Iftekharahmed96: You are correctly saying that Atlus had multiple incarnations, but it remained about the same personnel, branding and catalogue in the transition. This new Accolade is not even a company, it is just the branding, which is now owned by Billionsoft in Hong Kong, rather than San Jose, California. Billionsoft does de facto not actually own Accolade's games, as most of them are held by Tommo, who is going to publish the new Bubsy game as well (check the trailer copyright notice).

So while the "new" Atlus was only a legal switch, transfered by the parent itself, Accolade has no remains of its former self: It closed down 17 years ago, the assets are owned by various companies, the branding by "Billion Soft (Hong Kong) Limited" d/b/a "Billionsoft"; none of the original personnel is involved with it, and there isn't even a new company, Billionsoft does all operations simply under that label when related to it. Specifically, sources say "This new Accolade is entirely unconnected with the previous company and is based in Hong Kong." Please take this into account before adding something like "Accolade Game, Inc." (which is, farily, completey unsourced and likely made up based on the website or Twitter naming). P.S.: Your note "I'm not edit warring with you" in your most recent edit is false, as reverting a reversion so to break status quo is, in fact, edit warring, and I know we had this lot in the past, so let's not do that again.

I am currently thinking about creating an article either on the new brand usage, or directly on Billionsoft itself. What do you think? And would you possibly help me with that? Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 14:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point with the Atlus comparison, I never really considered that. And as far as reverts go, editors use it as a time efficient means of reverting things, that doesn't necessarily mean that an edit war is occurring. I don't have all the time in the world to manually change something if somebody was to make an edit that could be perceived as incorrect. Anyway, I'm glad that this dispute was resolved quickly. Personally, I feel that a Billion Soft (Hong Kong) page would be the better option. Billion Soft (Hong Kong) is a legal entity, Accolade in its current incarnation is just a label used to promote their video games. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay then, I would like to draft an article about Billionsoft somewhere, to cover its appearance, ownership, etc. (short note: it should begin with '''Billion Soft (Hong Kong) Limited''', [[doing business as]] '''Billionsoft''', [...] to make clear both, its legal name and its trading name, in very few words right from the start); the problem is, though, that I found literally no secondary, Billionsoft-related sources not about the Bubsy announcement, but I will dig deeper. Would you mind creating a draft (probably not in the mainspace, maybe in my or your sandbox)? I'll be searching for more sources and media in the meantime. Update: Through the Hong Kongese business registry (search for "Billion Soft (Hong Kong) Limited"), we can date the incorporation to 18 March 2016. Lordtobi (✉) 17:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing, I can create a draft in your sandbox. You can make the primary edits of the article at your sandbox, I'd rather keep my sandbox to myself (no offence). https://www.billionsoftware.com/ I've provided the link to the official website to Billionsoft. Of course, it doesn't provide all that much, but it's better than nothing. At the end of the day, the article can be like Index Corporation. It can start off pretty barren content wise, but through different events occurring, it can become a content filled article over time. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:RFD nominations

Hello, sir/ma'am.

I see that you've raised a large number of nominations at RFD. I wonder if we can deal with them some other way. Some of the discussions are resulting in a firm 'keep' result. - Richard Cavell (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Richardcavell: I tend to nomniate redirects more frequently than any other editors might, because I am not sure if they are in any way useful. I mostly check page statstics, which on average state something at 100 hits in 3 years, so one every nine days or so. I want to make the community aware of these redirects, as I rather let the majority decide on the fate of those, which often falls to my unfavor, but I can't change a thing about that and must as such be fine with it. Even though it might appear like I am doing that in frequent masses, I actually only pick a span of three days or so per month where I just so happend to find a bunch of maybe-invalid redirects I hand out. That another editor marks them as reviewed proves to me that they weren't even considered or seen before.

Now to come to a close, I always write to much, what do you mean with "deal with them some other way"? Lordtobi (✉) 17:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Zoink and UDS

Regarding the information about Zoink and UDS. Zoink was not founded directly after UDS shut down. Klaus Lyngeled quit his job att UDS years before to work at Shiny Entertainment in the US. He also started Zoink (although not making games at the time) in 2001. He's been talking about this in multiple podcasts and can be seen on his LinkedIn page. https://www.linkedin.com/in/klaus-lyngeled-33a47b/?ppe=1

Before Zoink started making games again, the company also did commercials and other animation work, not linking it to UDS.

Why do you think Kore gang should be put as Zoink's most known game? Stick It to The Man has been downloaded and played by over a million people (being a PS+ game), much more than the Kore Gang, which wasn't even developed by Zoink in the end, being taken over by other companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arienne (talk • contribs) 07:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I found archives versions of their website stating that the company was founded in mid-2004, around the time UDS closed, and it did and does employ multiple former employees from UDS (including Lyngeled), and UDS was named as one of the companies Zoink [Entertainment] was "inspired" by (can't quite remember the wording). I put this right into the article, although as it turns out they are older; I wish they could put up a history of some sort on their website *sigh*.

@Arienne: Regarding the notable games, The Kore Gang is the only non-mobile game that was yet released to have a Wikipedia article that indicates notability (there are often articles that don't). Stick It to the Man, however, does not even and never had an own article, and significant coverage is not presented in any way. We have to go from usability for the reader, rather than a POV for these ones. Technically, you could create and article (best place at Stick It to the Man!, so to reproduce capitalization according to our manual of style and the exclamation mark present in both primary and secondary sources), using reliable sources found here (the preceeding link is the Video game WikiProject's custom Google search engine that only includes relaible websites). If SITTM turn out at higher value than TKG, and notability is vastly higher, we can adapt it as such on the Zoink article. Cheers! P.S.: To sign a message you post, please append four tildes ~~~~ to the end of your message, it produces your signature and timestamp in proper, like this: Lordtobi (✉) 07:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lordtobi: I actually work at Zoink and handle the website, so I'll go ahead and write a history section. We've had that as a to-do for quite the while. Sorry for not mentioning this earlier, but I wanted to do things properly and thought that, in the spirit of objectivity, it wasn't relevant. But in case of putting information of the official webpage I guess it is.

Thank you for the information, I will go on and start a new page for Stick It when I've gathered sources from the websites you referred to. And thanks for the tip about the code, still new to this, trying to find my way through the manuals. Arienne (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Arienne: Sure thing, if you need any help, just ask my way, or for controversial questions head to the WikiProject's talk page. P.S. You don't need to ping me on my own talk page Lordtobi (✉) 08:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Well lookie there. I'm too familiar with the Twitter style. Arienne (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Psychonauts 2

Thank you for catching my mistake! The revert I saw was changing MacOS to macOS, which I took to be incorrect. However, that is the way the text is styled. So again, thanks! It turns out I'm not infallible. El cid, el campeador (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@El cid, el campeador: Everyone makes mistakes, haha. Nice to hear this is cleared up. Lordtobi (✉) 15:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Radical Entertainment Crash Landed

psst, forgot to mention on the undo, the [6] after the game name confirms it was planned for the nintendo DS - borgri 14/06/2017 21:45 00 GMT

21:47 edit: nevermind, it lacks the console on the lower part, and again shows the demo made by renegade kid, maybe people were confused and/or misinformed about the demo

File:Ubisoft 2003.svg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ubisoft 2003.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

EA / Lego Island

Just as info, it was in Wikidata, having previously been imported from enwiki. I just removed it from Wikidata. -- ferret (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, okay, seems like I missed that. Thanks for noting! Lordtobi (✉) 14:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. 206.45.7.139 (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. 206.45.7.139 (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:AWBRULES

I shouldn't have to remind you of this again, but #4 at WP:AWBRULES: Do not make insignificant or inconsequential edits. An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit. If in doubt, or if other editors object to edits on the basis of this rule, seek consensus at an appropriate venue before making further similar edits. I frequently see you making AWB edits that adding or removing white space from articles, including your recent batch of edits. It is bordering on disruptive. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@The1337gamer: As my edit summary suggest, I am making use of AWB to refresh pages transcluding the {{Non-free video game screenshot}} template with the arcade parameter, to fix a template misplacement made in the template. And since files pages do not seem to fresh by themsleves, and I did not want to go over 1000+ pages by hand, I thought AWB was an acceptable solution? Also, it does have an effect on the page, considering the category change. Lordtobi (✉) 08:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see what your edits are actually changing on the page. Explain to me the difference between one you've made a null edit to and one you haven't. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Per request, I changed the category Category:Arcade flyer images to Category:Screenshots of arcade games in said template, but as long as the pages' chaches are not refreshed, they will not register the category change. Take for example File:Karate Champ.png, which I skipped for this example: Although it gives the proper category at the bottom ("Screenshots of"), it is not actually there, but instead in the fyler images category. The null edit forces a refresh on the page, causing proper categorization. This is what I am aiming for with my null edits. Lordtobi (✉) 08:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

They should update automatically over time. Changes in category links are placed in a job queue and the pages are re-cached when server load is low. I don't see any urgency to have them moved over. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Also you can purge (which clears the page's server cache) without making a null edit. Add "?action=purge" onto the end of the URL. I've just done it with Karate Champ and it is placed in the screenshots category, whereas it said arcade flyers before. The category page should update when server load is low as above. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I thought also that they should refresh automatically, but I made the change to the template almost three days ago, leaving the change-requesting user unsatisfied. Is there a way to look up how far back this is in the queue you mentioned? Regarding the puring, I am well aware of that, but as stated above, I do not want to go over all 1000 pages in the prior category. Lordtobi (✉) 08:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't how to view the job queue. Even if it takes days to update, I still don't think making null edits en-masse is an appropriate use of AWB, especially for updating file categories which average about 2 views per day. It will automatically update over time so the null edits aren't necessary. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems like the situation is a grey zone for AWB, but I will likely not proceed right now. BTW, Out of the many edits I made (most of which didn't change a thing), how many actually became visible that led to you rmind me? Lordtobi (✉) 09:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I have most of the screenshot categories on my watchlist. I'm not just warning you about this particular instance though. On a regular basis, I see you making inconsequential AWB edits that violate rule 4. E.g. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. This is what I warned you about the first time and I can point out dozens more you've made since. It is careless and leads me to believe that you don't check your edits before saving them, which violates #1 of WP:AWBRULES: You are responsible for every edit made. Do not sacrifice quality for speed, and review all changes before saving. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's true that I am not as careful as I should be when it comes to uncrucial edits; I do check my edits, but often resort to a "it won't hurt" attitude for such (e.g. I always skip pages where AWB changes HTML-code symbols into plain symbols in masses, or when it does a replacement where inappropriate). In case I actually do a faulty edit and realize it too late, I undo myself immediately. I will try to keep in mind just skipping all of those in the future, if they appear as disruptive. Lordtobi (✉) 09:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Reverts to my edits to List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest

I see that you reverted my edit to List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest‬ again. Saying that MOS:SIC applies only to quotations is a very narrow interpretation but I have no time or patience for wikilawyering or edit warring so I will mark it with a non-visible note as a compromise. That should prevent editors (including myself) from "correcting" it or marking it in the future. Orenburg1 (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The Matrix (franchise) Comment

Thank you so much for your help in finding secondary sources on my edits. How do you manage to find them? It doesn't seem as easy for me. Anyway, I was wondering if you could explain further about the citation concerning the password security issue? You mentioned something of an "online virus test" upon removal of the citation, yet there is no mention of that in my comment, nor in the details of the citation. Also, the reference does report on the password security issue of the screensaver. I feel like maybe I didn't word it properly, so I will reword my comment and re-insert the citation to see if it makes more sense to you. Please let me know your thoughts on it. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 07:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Huggums537: I think I gave you this link before, but the Video games WikiProject maintains its own custom search engine, which only covers reliable sources for video games. Coincidentally, it also has sources for The Matrix, hahah. Regarding the security source, I got that wrongly (I probably confused it with a virus test side of a similar name, which I read multiply before). Nontheless, I rewritten the respective content in a proper manor. Lordtobi (✉) 07:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, awesome. I didn't realize you were using that link. Thanks for the tip. I have saved the bookmark for future reference. Also, I noticed you keep leaving off the part about the unofficial screensavers each time you make an edit and I keep adding that part back on when it really doesn't need to be there. I'm still not fully pleased with the end result though. However, I think we can compromise like we did last time and I can leave out the unnecessary parts that you dislike and reword what is there now to create an even more short version of the edit we should both be happy with. Huggums537 (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The thing is that we need a reliable source four that claim, a page with just random downloads is not one of such. Furthermore, saying that they were made in response to the security issues looks original research, as we currently have no indication for that. If we're lucky, we might snatch a source on XScreenSaver's inclusion of either GLMatrix or XMatrix, but else I see no point in including the sentence. Lordtobi (✉) 08:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand. You make valid points and we can leave it out. That seems reasonable to me. Huggums537 (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Flappy Bird

I see you undid my edit on Flappy Bird thank you for the clarification my friend, I'm now better equipped for the future. MJ500 Fancy a coffee? 09:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Glad I was able to help out! If you have any further questions in the future, let me know. Lordtobi (✉) 09:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Lego Marvel Super Heroes 2

Hello. It's me, StrandD. I can't get to my talk page, so can we discuss Lego Marvel Super Heroes 2 on your talk page?2602:30A:C015:EFF0:C171:222:BB47:E93C (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@2602:30A:C015:EFF0:C171:222:BB47:E93C: Hello, it appears that you have a new IP now, which might be the reason I was no longer notified of your messages (I see them now in the page revision history). Is there anything specific you would like to ask? Lordtobi (✉) 09:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

StrandD: If we could see if we could verify the inclusion of Giant-Man in the deluxe edition of the game. Sorry for taking so long to reply.172.1.94.255 (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey again, found an interview at Marvel.com here: [13] You can try to incorporate that into the article, call me if you need help with the citation. Also consider creating an account so communcation with you is not as messed up as it was (as you can see, you previously only had a IPv6 [32-digit-long] address, while you are currently back at a normal IPv4, 12-digit address), and you will also be notified if a page you watch is changed (i.e. I reply here, or someone edits LMSH2). Lordtobi (✉) 17:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

StrandD I don't know if I am allowed to have one yet. Also, this device is blocked from external links and I try to limit my computer time, so, could you do it, please? Don't get me wrong, I want to do it, but I am limited in this manner.172.1.94.255 (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

"Errors" in my edit on the page for Hello Neighbor

In that case, whatever "errors" you found were likely from the device you were using. The heading can easily be fixed because it's just a little typo.

Also, VisualEditor is for those who find the Source editor "too advanced" for them. I am fine with what I've chosen to edit with because it provides 100% more efficiency for me, if you had seen my edits on Fire Emblem Heroes Wiki you would understand. (Also, I have ended up needing to fix some errors I made there, I am only human.) --82.183.48.49 (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I have noted down brief descriptions of the revisions from Pre-Alpha to Alpha 4 (and that Alpha 4 is the last alpha to be released), but have not added anything regarding the E3 Beta. I couldn't bother to look at the references that were in the overly verbose descriptions as they seemed to take up more time than be of useful info. --82.183.48.49 (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

With errors, not always software errors are meant, and especially in the case of Wikipedia, these would come to be violations of our Manual of Style for articles, though mostly minor. I don't want to list specific examples, but it appears that most were fixed in the newer revision. Also a note regarding your comment about the |title= param, although it is in fact unnecessary to use if the basepagename is equal to it, but it is common practice to include it regardless, and there is bot active to fix occasions where there is not. Also, please don't change header markup as it clutters revision differences if there are new secions introduced (where there were), making it harder for editors to see what has been changed, and what just moved around.

If you would like to make a great improvement to the specific article, we will very likely need to actually cut down the Alpha sections, as they take in 95% of the article, and are of less relevance than e.g. gameplay, plot, or development. Of course, you are also free to create an account here . Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 10:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Lego The Lord of the Rings (video game)

Hi,

I'm on the Wikipedia Typo Team and found this page because I'm removing duplications of the word 'the'. I saw your recent reversion of my subsequent edits – I also changed the 'LEGO' in the reference titles to 'Lego'. Can you explain how 'LEGO' is not ALLCAPS? It's the same word as Lego the toy, the same word as the title of the page Lego The Lord of the Rings (video game) and the same word that's used throughout the page in normal case. Just because ALLCAPS is being used by game makers does not mean that it repeated in Wikipedia - the Wikipedia Manual of Style even says otherwise – see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#All_caps (fifth bullet) and within that Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks#General_rules (third bullet).

I recognize that ALLCAPS are frequently used in various games, headlines, and many commercial purposes, but their function is always to attempt to get attention in some way. However, Wikipedia's rules of English and style should trump those of owners or manufacturers and we should not simply be copying the original. Thanks for reading.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK, Allcaps does and should not apply to citation titles, as citations should represent the way the source would appear to the ordinary reader (except for technical fixes, like unprintable characters); if there is a normal case available, we use it. Only in occasions where the entire title is capitalized (e.g. "WARNER BROS. ANNOUNCES LEGO LORD OF THE RINGS"), we change it to titlecase. I'm not sure whether there is a specific guideline on this, but that is precisely the common practice I aknowledged from most editors. As you can see from the article, Allcaps applies to the video game title--outside citations--in all cases (Lego never capitalized). Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 20:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I have to disagree here. I don't think the Manual of Style can mention every possible situation and permutation on a page. But I can't see how there can be different rules for source titles, source authors' names, source quotations, sources names, and so on (and then on to other components of a WP page). Source quotations and names, and some other areas, are specifically mentioned in the Manual of Style as properly appearing in standard or title text and should be corrected if needed. Additionally, there are many source titles – wrestling and general entertainment magazines come to mind – in which the last names of people in the title are frequently in allcaps but many times the entire title is in allcaps - does that mean we should change only those titles that are entirely allcaps? It seems like there should (always) be a standard.

I also think that when it comes to products, going along with a manufacturer's or owner's allcaps is even a small violation of neutral point of view, which we should scrupulously avoid, even if done unwittingly. Additionally, if there is a reason to leave something in allcaps, it should get the 'sic' template with an explanation of why.

Finally, please also see the top of the page Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks, where it says, "This page in a nutshell: Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, regardless of the preference of trademark owners." It doesn't say "except in source titles." Thanks again for reading.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said, this is the common practice I got to know working with dozens of editors, including ones having been here for over a decade, and everyone showed the same sign of simply reproducing the title as it appears on the webpage, and not alter it apart from technical issues to be resolved. If we followed the MOS for citations in every way, we would have to produce title-case capitalization in all cases, italics for games and albums, and quotation marks for songs, etc., and I don't that this is the preferable method to use. Since trademark owners don't really have involvement in the sources published, we shouldn't involve NPOV into the matter. Our WP:CS guideline happens to not regard the MOS in it, however, if we were nitpicking that harshly, said guideline would contain an error in the example citation Carr A, Ory D (2006). "Does HIV cause cardiovascular disease?" PLoS Medicine, 3(11):e496., since all words included, in title-case, should capitalized. It also reproduces "PLoS", although the proper title would be "PLOS" (per the org's webpage), or the unabbreviated name.

While I think you are right that we could take care of citations partially in that manor, I don't think that we should, and the general, unspoken consensus is to leave them (and honestly I am also too lazy to not to). You could elevate this to a formal disucssion at respective guideline talk page(s) if necessary, and if you do so, please also hint me to the target, even if I currently don't know if I will take part in it. But as long as that stands, we should leave status quo at the article, as it was never disputed before IIRC. Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 08:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Multi Theft Auto.ogg

Why did you mark this file as non-free? – Train2104 (t • c) 15:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure; I either did it as part of multiple file edits or it was really late and I accidentally inserted the wrong template. Thanks for noting, though! Lordtobi (✉) 15:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Good thing I caught it before it was about to be deleted. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Trouted for accidential edit warring

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

You have been trouted for accidentally edit warring on The Matrix Revolutions.

UpsandDowns1234 (🗨) 04:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Can it be considered edit warring if it is just prevention of vandalism while waiting for AIV to react to a report? Lordtobi (✉) 06:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Serious Sam- Kamikaze Attack! cover.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Serious Sam- Kamikaze Attack! cover.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Deck Nine - date revert

I see you reverted my edit on Deck Nine. Wikipedia generally uses the DMY format, as the vast majority of the world uses this dating format. The only English speaking country not to use this format is the US. I only did a quick edit at the time, so did not realise the rest of the article used MDY. Helper201 (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Helper201: Hey there, thanks for contacting me! I'd like to point out that you might have a misconception regarding date formats usage (and relatedly English usage) on Wikipedia, as the Encyclopedia does not globablly use the same date format, it is always a question of how an article was defined from the beginning (when it was created, see WP:DATERET/WP:ARTCON), or changed with consensus per discussion.

Some guidelines also force a specific format (e.g. for WP:STRONGNAT, September 11 attacks has a strong connection to the U.S. and as such is written in American English and with mdy date formats, while Brexit is key to the UK and therefore presented in British English and dmy dates), but generally there often is no use in changing the format without reason. The only case where that is, is when there are YMD dates (ugh!), they can be cleaned up anytime, but again according to what the article defines. In that case, or in the case multiple date formats conflict with each other, you should usally refer to the template "Use dmy dates" or "Use mdy dates", that should be present in the article. If there, however, is no such template, you should opt to use the date already used primarily, or chose on your own (by default, I go with the strongnat rules for these specific cases, even if there is no strong nationale connect [company based in America -> mdy, outside America -> dmy; video game developed in America -> mdy, outside America -> dmy]).

No to come to Deck Nine itself, the above-regarded template "Use mdy dates" is present at the very top of the article code, and the dates should be adapted to, kept like it. Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 16:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Portal 2 (Use in Education)

Hello, thank you for reviewing my most recent edit on the Portal 2 article! I am not really understanding why my edit has been reverted. I thought that Science Direct was a reliable source. Can you explain your reasoning for the reversion? Pintumbuddy (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

At first glance, it simply did not seems to be a reliable source, so I undid the change to go indepth with the source once I found the time (though I hadn't yet). But apparently I was wrong, as Masem has undone me already. I apologize for any inconvenience that might have occured through my edit. Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 20:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It's no inconvenience at all! Thank you for replying to me! I'll wait a little bit next time before asking questions. Pintumbuddy (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

ETS2

How about YOU finding a good source instead of taking the easy route and reverting changes. This is why people is growing tired of this whole WP business, I for one the more I bother, the more I wonder WHY I do. --Tactica (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Between the dozens of edits I review every single day, I do not plan to go after every single claim made on every single page, as it often does not strike any notability on ones, is wrong on others, and in some cases simply covered-up vandalism. Apart from having a job and a social life, I tend to spend my spare time not solely on Wikipedia, rather only check with edits being made that I am notified of. Only sometimes, for example when I see new headlines in my feed that I could incorporate or find a topic I really want to do in-depth research on, I take a little bit of time to do so; but of the large number of articles currently on my watchlist, ETS2 is just another page I simply keep track of to counter vandalism, and do not plan to majorly expand. Aandalism still is Wikipedia's biggest problem.

Furthermore, it is not my responsibility to spend more time than I can or want to on this site. Quite the opposite: If you think the claim you added is important, it would be your burden to provide a fitting citation (see WP:BURDEN), not mine. Plus, if it is definetly notable, you should not have any problem finding such a source yourself, instead of blaming me for not to. Lordtobi (✉) 14:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Please spare me the details of your daily life. If you can be arsed to check the SCS forums, nowhere will you find an official statement from SCS admitting they don't support MP3 on Linux. Ergo, since they don't say squat, there's no "proof" and the article contains a blatant lie. But hey, who cares about WP saying the truth? --Tactica (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:V, there is the simple yet crucial guideline that needs every claim on Wikipedia to be verifyable, that is a credible source includes the detail so that it may be sourced and used here on Wikipedia. Frankly, ETS2's page lacks a lot of these and I am not entirely sure if the whole Internet radio claim is backup-able in itself. Either way, the article would by ommitting something not serve a "blatant lie", as the sentence does not say "The Internet radio works flawlessly on every machine running any of the operating systems the game was released on, and has no issues in any way."; this would not be verifyable as no source goes over such a thing in this detail, especially when they themselves are lacking that particular information, and it would additionally server WP:NPOV-ly. My previous point still stands, you will need to find a non-tertiary source for your claim (this does not mean that it has to be primary, a source published the game's creators, developer, or publisher, but can as well [and more likely] be a secondary source from gaming magazines or reliable news sites), for a full list of those you can visit WP:VG/RS. I also recommend using the WikiProject Video games' custom search engine located here, as it only includes reliable sources. Lordtobi (✉) 18:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Rocket League - Sequel?

I see you reverted my edit to the Rocket League page, where I suggested it be referred to as a 'follow-up' rather than a sequel as it not a narrative game. What is your source for saying that Psyonix referred to it as a sequel? I can't find anything to back that up. They did originally announce it as a sequel called Supersonic Acrobatic Rocket Powered Battle-Cars 2 but I can't find them referring to it as a sequel since changing the name to Rocket League, effectively starting a new series. Calling it a sequel now would be like calling BioShock a sequel to System Shock, Shadow of the Colossus a sequel to ICO or Obduction a sequel to Myst (also, in your example, with WWII GI being made after NAM that would technically make it a prequel, not a sequel, if anything - I'm not familiar with those games so don't know if there's any connection). I don't see why media outlets erroneously referring to it as a sequel means that its Wikipedia page should also be technically incorrect (Kotaku's headline - "Rocket League Is Actually A Sequel To A Game Almost No One Played" - seems to be worded for clickbait). The Psyonix page here refers to it as a 'successor' which, in retrospect, might be a better term than 'follow-up' and I would suggest changing it to that to be more accurate and also consistent with the developer's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadetonoir (talk • contribs) 23:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Your narrative unfollowing point or the fact they they are not actually connected apart from gameplay and is very valid and I see where you are coming, yet the "sequel" aspect was announced by Psyonix and picked up by most sources, a few grabs can be found here [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]; the third of these was also published by an executive at Psyonix itself, verifyed through Sony's digital channel. It's fair to say that reliable sources mark the point for "sequel" over "follow-up" or "successor", though why we chose to include a source that does not say that word is beyond me, and I will fix it when I find the time. P.S.: Our "Did You Know?" segment from June 2015 also goes with that flow. Lordtobi (✉) 18:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Mixed reviews

Per WP:VG/POV, "mixed reviews" means that the opinions are scattered across the board, and not "medium" or "I'm in the middle on this..." This is why statements like "mixed to positive" are considered invalid or non-sensical. DarkKnight2149 23:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Clean up of infobox

Hello Lordtobi, while I appreciate your clean up work, but I'm not sure why some content from the infobox was removed with this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SuperTuxKart&oldid=792896799 cheers Shaddim (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh seems like I forgot to leave an edit summary, oops. So the following contens were removed: "Cross-platform", "various free licenses", Steve Baker as original dev, C++ as programming language, Munoz as current dev, and "singplayer/multiplayer"; The second and fourth claim were unsourced, and are not presented as such anywhere in the article, also "free licenses for content" does not apply to the software itself. Furthermore, "cross-platform" is not a platform, as was previously discussed at WP:VG around late last year, and also not true as the game currently compiles on no other platforms than those listed. Next up, Steve Baker did not develop SuperTuxKart, he was 50% of TuxKart which SuperTuxKart is based on, this is also explained in the article itself and given on the game's website. Munoz does not develop the game anymore. And finally, singleplayer and multiplayer are not genres, a "modes" parameter for the infobox is not define, though I think you were the one to propose a open-source VG infobox, right? I haven't taken part in that discussion but I saw that it is a heated debate. Anyways, thanks for checking by. Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 13:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Atlus USA as Index Digital Media

As you can see over here, Atlus USA was known as Index Digital Media when its parent company was dissolved into Index Corporation.

"From 2010 to 2013, Atlus, as a company, ceased to exist and its name became a brand of Index Corporation for video games in Japan. However, Atlus USA remained active and was renamed Index Digital Media, serving as the North American subsidiary for Index Corporation. Much like in Japan, video games continued to be released in that region under the Atlus name during this period. In June 2013, it was reported that Index Corporation filed for civil rehabilitation proceedings, facing bankruptcy with debts of ¥24.5 billion. An Atlus USA spokesperson said that Index Digital Media and the Atlus brand were unaffected by the proceedings."

Atlus USA was just the brand named used for Index Digital Media, legally, Atlus USA reffers itself as Index Digital Media. Plus, Atlus of Japan are entirely unaffiliated with ACE Team, so that link within the Rock of Ages is inaccurate. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of the case, but most if not all sources simply talk about "Atlus", rather than "Atlus USA" or "Index Digital [Media]", so we'd have to include that per WP:V, as nothing else is verifyable that way. I have no issue saying Atlus USA in the article, but we should try to find a source detailing the name as such if possible. Lordtobi (✉) 16:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Hydraulic Press Channel

Hi Lordtobi. I wanted to explain a bit more of my thought process behind this edit, which you reverted. The YouTube link is a video that was published by the subject of the article in question, the Hydraulic Press Channel. This particular video is discussed extensively within the body of the article, both in the lead section and throughout much of the "History" section – the video is singularly how the Hydraulic Press Channel became notable in the first place.

Because the video has so much commentary in the article itself, I thought it would be a good idea to give readers a link to the video, as it is accessible to anyone on the Internet and, in my view, is highly relevant in the context of the article. We do already provide a link to the channel's official page as a whole, but the video is not, as far as I can tell, prominently linked to on the channel's official page, so it would be more courteous to our readers to provide a direct link to the video which the article talks so much about, instead of having readers hunt for it. Scrolling through WP:ELNO, the one entry on that list that I think is most relevant is "Social networking sites", but the video is a link to "an official page of the article's subject", which is excepted per the first sentence (in bold) of WP:ELNO.

Ultimately, I don't see this as a big deal, so I'm fine with not including the link if we can't come to a consensus. But I was wondering whether, given this information, you would be willing to reconsider. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about this, see WP:VIDEOLINK's flowchart, 4-2 and 5-2, and decide for yourself if it will be beneficial to include the article. If the video is relevant to a specific claim in the article, it could better be used in a reference format. Lordtobi (✉) 16:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Lego Bionicle: The Legend of Mata Nui

You are free to revert my edits and delete the page. I thought the game needed a page of its own, but it seems like it doesn't. Also thanks for your help with me on the Lego video game articles and other game pages.

Luigitehplumber (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I know the game is missing from Wikipedia, but for good. Have have exactly zero information on it, so deleting is the better option. Guidelines are guidelines, "we want it" is not a proper reason, sadly. Lordtobi (✉) 20:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a full page about the game on a Bionicle Wikia which has infomation, or is that not a good source?

Luigitehplumber (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

No, Wikis (user-contributed sites) are not reliable sources. By now you should have been refered to WP:RS ro WP:VG/RS at some point. GameFAQs and MobyGames both also apply to this. Lordtobi (✉) 20:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I found a reference in Billboard of all places, that says the game exists. I think the redirect I've since made is reasonable; although the reference to the fansite is unfortunate, it's a basic fact that I suspect could be confirmed trivially in some other source (probably Lego Software's financials). --Izno (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I am well aware that the game exists and was canceled, been on the hunt-down for years. But is simply not notable enough for Wikipedia. Like I stated, only a few contextless screenshots exist in reliable sources, and those were likely uploaded by users as well. I'm glad you did find one print source, but thats simply insufficient for our purpose. Lordtobi (✉) 09:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC) (from the Autobahn)

Insufficient for an article. --Izno (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

GameMaker Studio

Hi Lordtobi, thanks for the GM:S cleanup. Back on June 5th most of your fixes were spot-on, but you also deleted a logo controversy section. It was on the community history and how it impacted the software's logo and visual design today. Would you elaborate further on why you deleted it? I imagine it's not a mistake, but I believed my addition to be warranted. Thanks! BlinksTale (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@BlinksTale: Hello there, it appears that there might be a mixup, as I only performed a few changes to the lede section of the article. As you can see the specific edit was performed by Npodsiad (talk · contribs), so I'd recommend getting them on the line here or you having a direct conversation. However, the user does not appear very active either, and re-comments might be unlikely. Lordtobi (✉) 06:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC) (from Istria)

Not sure how I got this wrong, thanks for the clarification! BlinksTale (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Woedend! Games logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Woedend! Games 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Ref removal on Strategy First

Hello there, I checked up the edit history of the article Strategy First and noticed you were doing some cleanups. I am okay with you removing unreferenced materials, but I also noticed you removed references from the conflict section, as you did in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategy_First&type=revision&diff=731280177&oldid=731279654 . I am unable to find any alternate sources other than these businesses' sites or forums (forum posts are made by staff), so I am a bit confused. Can I ask if there is a specific reason you removed the references in this edit instead of wikifying them, and what should people do with these now-unreferenced paragraphs? Thanks for your time. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 06:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@PlyrStar93: Forum sources, being of tertiary origin, are never reliable sources, no matter who wrote the regarding post. Only if you have a reliable spurce that confirms its credibility (e.g. by citing or refering to it), it can be used for extended information. If you cannot find a reliable source on a specific claim, the claim is not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. I might have removed the refs abruptly, but they should not be restored the way they were. If you encounter trouble with finding proper sources, I suggest WikiProject Video games' custom Google search as can be found at WP:VG/SE. Lordtobi (✉) 20:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC) (from the Adriatic Coast)

@Lordtobi: Well, thanks very much for the explanation. The only reason I came to check on the removes in the first place is that I wanted to translate this article to another Wikipedia because there are several articles linking to it as a red link, and then I noticed the non-referenced paragraphs so I was just checking to make sure you are removing forum sources because of this. No biggie though, I thought about not translating it at all when I wasn't able to find proper sources, but thanks very much for the custom google search link actually. Seems like I might be able to recover some ref's, if not all, with trusted sources, so I might just do it when I have time. Best. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 20:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros

The translations were challenged as being unofficial and unsourced, which means at the very least, WP:BURDEN applies before you add them back. The discussions were held at Talk:Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U, and with follow up discussion currently ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. As a minor reminder as well, all reverts of good faith edits of this nature require an edit summary. Only clear vandalism should be reverted without. -- ferret (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I see now. I disabled non-articlespace pages from my watchlist backlog so I could reach to when my vacation begun, and as such did not see the talk page having been edited in this manor. Apologies for the inconvenience. Lordtobi (✉) 17:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: IGN over page as source for dates

I went ahead and partly-edited each and every contribution of mine where I used GameFAQs, IGN.com, or even Gamespot for release dates. The most common edit of mine was either to add "" to a release date that I didn't add or re-edit my own to where only the confirmed year of release would be left. The most common note I would leave in the edit summary is "Gamespot release date shared with Gamefaqs (unreliable source per WP:VG/RS). IGN.com release date is unreliable. Release date not confirmed. Only year of release (YOR) confirmed." Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Garry's Mod: 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. Twinkle also includes the feature of warning users with templates. I have taken the liberty of warning the user for you, but I hope this notice will help you further. Thank you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

List of games that Data Design Interactive published

Hey Lordtobi. The reason why I reverted your revert of my close is that the idea of separating the nominations no longer applies; in the August 20th discussion, the closer closed the discussion stating that there was consensus to keep both redirects. That means that if either one was renominated, it would be considered trying to go against the consensus. After Mangoe clarified their vote, the rest of the participants also voiced their opinions to keep both of the nominated redirects. (In case it was not clear why I regrouped the nomination, when you split the nomination, Mangoe's comment was posted on only one of the nominations, making it look as though Mangoe had an opinion on only one of the redirects.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

At this point, I'd say the best course of action would be to ask the closer of the discussion, Feminist, if they are okay with you listing that redirect separately; if they are okay with that, then in the new discussion, you would need to ping all of the participants in the previous discussion (there's a guideline that says you should do that, but I cannot find it at the moment.) If all of this gets a go-ahead, let me know and I'll graciously revert my close. If Feminist does not agree with you listing it separately, then the discussion would need to be brought up at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Steel1943 (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Generally, I get that the consensus developed all based off my rationale that such a list does not exist, but the given page title has other problems too I did not mention, and would want to establish a different consensus secluded from the other page and rationale. By no means was I trying to bypass the old consensus, but wanted to give a different thought input. Since this proved useful in the past and I have seen others do so as well, I don't see a particular reason why this very case should be handeled this way. Lordtobi (✉) 21:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you mean regarding not intentionally trying to bypass consensus. However, I can also with certainty guarantee that if I had not closed it early, someone else would have solely due to Feminist's close of the previous discussion ... since on the outside, it looks like consensus bypassing since the discussion was closed as "keep" and as a group. After re-reading my statement in the previous discussion, I apologize that my statement provided a misleading directive that this is okay to renominate either redirect after the grouped discussion was closed; I tried my best to avoid confusing in my statement by specifically stating that separate nominations only apply if you were to "withdraw" the discussion, but instead, the discussion ran its 7-day course with a close. Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverting Watch Dogs

Please start a discussion on the page and state why we can't add the audio lead/composer in the credits of the game. Continue the discussion on Talk:Watch_Dogs, please. --TudorTulok (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverted IO Interactive

Hey, I reverted your revert because IO Interactive released Hitman HD Trilogy for PS3 and Xbox 360 in 2013, which consists Hitman 2: Silent Assassin, Hitman: Contracts and Hitman: Blood Money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinhtq115 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Vinhtq115: Hey, I would've appreciated if you asked first, reverted later. I'd just like to let you know that, per se, Hitman HD Trilogy is its own game, which consists of the three other games, and as such we do not denote the original games to have been released on that platform. Additionally, if I am not mistaken, the remasters were not done by IO Interactive themselves, but a third party, so it would not belong on IO's page anyway. Please be aware that I will revert your reversion of my edit. If you have any further question, I'll be here for you. P.S.: Please remember to sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which will produce the following, just with your credentials. Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 16:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Common terms

LT, readers are expected to be conversant in English. If they don't know what "public funding" is, either they should go back to 4th grade or they can simply type it into the search box. It is not the recommended practice on en.WP to link just on a whim that a particular reader may not know what such items mean. Soon you'll have us linking "government", and "nation state". It's a slipper slope, and the community decided long ago that judicious linking should be the overarching approach. The other terms you mentioned in your edit summary: IMO, they should be linked. Tony (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Google LLC

Hey, just looping you in that I've reverted the revert on my edit on Google as Google LLC is a registered Delaware Limited Liability Company, File number 3478111. If you've got any more concerns just give me a ping. -User:Ethanmayersweet

@Ethanmayersweet: I see you were already reverted for the same reason I doubted the proper registration, as both Google Inc.'s re-reg as well as Google LLC were filed 10/22/2002. If Google was reorgonazied as LLC, I wouldn't think that they prepared that 13 years prior. I'll look into continuing this on the article talk page. Lordtobi (✉) 19:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverting Futurama (Videogame)

I have reverted your revert on Futurama (Videogame). It is inappropriate to deny professional credits to publisher producers and designers. The situation in which the game was published was very difficult, the studio collapsed and the game was nearly cancelled: it would not have reached its audience at all in any version were it not for the work and dedication of the publisher producer and designer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonklaude (talk • contribs) 12:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Vonklaude: Hey there, as it appears, we have a conflict of interest here. Genereally, we only include the most major roles. As I have already pointed out, SCi is only credited in one version of the game, per MobyGames as you cited yourself. Furthermore, in those credited, one is just a consultant designer. The lack of "lead" or "director" already indicates the relative insignificance, as well as the presence of "consultant" (a.k.a. "not really part of the team but did something"). The producer on SCi's side is also just the producer on the publisher side (that makes sure that the game fits for the market, but not tasks like QA, which is handeled in-house). Hence, neither should be included. For a concise rulebook on the specific infobox, please check Template:Infobox video game. If you would like to discuss further, please do so here, not in an edit war. Since that is often punishable, I believe we both want to avoid it. I am going to have to revert you again per WP:STATUSQUO, so let's find a solution here. P.S.: Please remember to sign your posts using four tildes ~~~~, which will produce the following, just with your credentials. Lordtobi (✉) 12:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

It will be good to resolve this. Please remove deprecating terms such as "only" and "just" here. They suggest a prejudice or bias. I note some misapprehensions, for example for the Futurama development all QA was done on the publisher side and the publisher producer organised QA in two time zones for the project. I can see that the video game template doesn't make much provision for publisher staff, even though it covers other third-parties such as composers. I notice the template suggests crediting only 1 producer.

What solution can you suggest that actually moves the page forward instead of locking it into a state that fails to credit creative professionals? Vonklaude (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

So first off, most of your claims here are completely unsourced and appear to be either speculation or original research, such as: "all QA was done on the publisher side", which is wrong as QA was handeled by a third party, The Test Station; "the publisher producer organised QA in two time zones", here again it was done by The Test Station which was based in Sweden (the location actually puts near that QA was commissioned from Sweden (UDS), but that is speculation on my side), plus there is no evidence that a) the publisher produce commissioned any of that or that b) there were multiple timezones involved in the process.

Now, specifically for Griffiths, there is zero chance for inclusion, since he was a consultant designer, someone commissioned to do some design, not be the core of the project; specifically Mark McGinley of UDS is credited as "lead desginer" and as such occupies the field, Matt Groening was also added as he is credited "executive game designer", it could be debatable if only one of those should be, but they are obviously core here. For Thomas, I don't see a great chance either: As you stated, the template suggests to only have one producer listed, but we already have two of the core development team at UDS credited simply as "producer" and as such share the same importance for the game, the producer on the (or rather a) publisher's side just has not the same significance on the game, let alone that both publishers (yes, there were two) were signed on very late by Fox Interactive, who handeled developmen commissioning, if I recover the source I can surely link to you.

Finally, a third point you totally missed: There were two publishers! In the United States, the game was published by Vivendi Universal Games, and they had their own producer: John Melchior as well as associate producer Chris A. Wilson, should they be left out completely in favor of SCi's staff, who did not even participate in the US version? The company each just looked that the game presented fits the region they are released in (NTSC/PAL) but do not take major creative descissions, wherefore they are in 99.99% of cases not included, only if they provenly (with a reliable, secondary source provided) had taken a major creative or directive role within the development, and not in post-production. Lordtobi (✉) 17:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Bionicle 2

Here is a link to a video of a prototype of the game. I don't think the game was officially announced through as Argonaut closed down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6R_mc2oreU

Luigitehplumber (talk) 10:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@LTPofficial: Issues:

• PtoPOnline is not a credible source.
• YouTube isn't either.
• The video is presented without context or verification of actually being about an actual sequel.
• Zero reliable sources exist on this matter. (as you can chheck yourself).
• The title shown in the game actually differs from what the video is called or how you present it in both occasions (omits the "2").
• Everything the video description is purely original research, based on what they think might hav been (PlayStation-styled buttons mean a PlayStation port, etc.)
• The game shows a supposed (cheaply photoshopped) image for Argonaut Sheffield, though Argonaut Sheffield never had their own logo, only were shown the primary "Argonaut Games plc" logo. This indicates a knock-off.
• A second video from the same channel shows that the supposed game is 21.20 MB in size. Comparably, (if CoL was really started on shortly after B:TG) games that were developed along the same timespan are many times greater in file size (e.g. see Catwoman just listed below, which is almost five times the size).
• The player apparently has engine-level access, this combined with the above point leads me to believe either the channel operator or someone who pitched it to them developed the game to spawn a rumor surrounding it.

All these points speak agains an inclusion of the game, or its title, in this encyclopedia. Any I have asked you in the past not to edit war it out, just so your content stays on the page (see WP:STATUSQUO, I believe I linked you to this a couple times already?). I am going to have to revert you again, and please discuss here instead of reverting again. Lordtobi (✉) 18:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not having a war with you, but the demo is indeed real and will work on modded Xbox consoles. The game was never officially announced or confirmed by Lego themselves due to Argonaut's bankruptcy, the site claims that someone from PTPOnline found the demo in an Xbox development kit. Site might not be a good source though. http://biomediaproject.com/bmp/blog/bionicle-2-city-of-legends-xbox-beta-iso-release/

Luigitehplumber (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, he claims that he did. As I stated, we have zero evidence that the game is actually the game it is presented as. Again, any reliable source or extended info? As long as we don't have any of that, we cannot confirm that it is an actual game by Argonaut (announced or not); pointers so far show that it is not. Lordtobi (✉) 18:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I've contacted him a few hours ago and i'll see if the Bionicle 2 prototype was officially developed by Argonaut before their administration. As for now i'll leave both the Lego Interactive and Bionicle: The Game pages alone until he confirms it.

Luigitehplumber (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you are trying to get their confirmation, but the problem here is that they are the only ones to have ever made such a claim. Regardless of what they say regarding the issue, we need a reliable source, and as far as I can see, there is none. Lordtobi (✉) 20:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is the full response I got from Past to Present online:

It's 100% real. I've talked to developers about it. I also have other tech demos from the same period in Argonauts history. I've also showed stuff from Malice, unreleased versions that show the relationships that I built with former Argonaut employees. And on top of that, you can go play the demo yourself if you have a modified Xbox. So yes, it is real hah

but its your decision. Luigitehplumber (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Clearly, the contact you spoke gives no references. At all. Again, neither of us two can verify the actuality of their claims as long as we do not have professional coverage, but sadly, we do not have the slightest. This means no inclusion for that game; again, we should keep it at what was officially announced (as that has the better coverage and is easier to keep track of). This covers, AFAIK, all games that were released, a cancelled PlayStation port for Lego Stunt Rally, and the us-known Bionicle: Legend of Mata Nui. Lordtobi (✉) 08:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Alright then. Luigitehplumber (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Dark Brotherhood

Lordtobi, I see, thank you for your response. LTP, that was quite rude.

Please see the official page https://bethesda.net/en/article/5cy9Czh6p2AmA2kqKmkCik/the-elder-scrolls-legends-the-fall-of-the-dark-brotherhood-announce for the announcement, which contains the info of number of cards and release date (down at the bottom). (redacted signature) Katie^talk 23:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

(redacted) As LTP correctly states below, it appears that your edit was purely unsourced and presented in an unwell manor not fitting guidelines (such as tripple-bolding). I apologize for not having appended any message back then, but I'd like to ask you to look for a reliable, secondary source to support your claims, layout can be worked out on together. Lordtobi (✉) 12:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, IP user; LordTobi doesn't like seeing unsourced material on pages he edits majorly or watches, which you wouldn't know of anyway.

Luigitehplumber (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Enter the Matrix

I just added the removed infomation into its own section in the article, as its true that the game went gold before Infogrames changed their name to Atari, or otherwise why does it say in-game and on the back of the packaging that Infogrames published it (with Atari simply as a brand name) when it says Atari, Inc. on the publisher section.

Luigitehplumber (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Lego Star Wars: The Video Game

I found this ad when I was looking for Lego video games, and its sourced from a Lego Catalogue, possibly the same one that Lego Racers CC was listed on. Proves my point that development started with Lego Interactive, and moved to Giant when Lego Interactive closed.

http://forum.rebelscum.com/showthread.php?t=879936 Luigitehplumber (talk) 07:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Same old issue: WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia does not exactly work the way you would like it to. I wouldn't even disagree on the claim itself, but Wikipedia cannot rely on an image posted to a random forum at some point. Lordtobi (✉) 07:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay. The source for Lego Racers CC was through a german Lego Catalogue, possibly the same one as the one I just showed. Luigitehplumber (talk) 07:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

For one, Lego Racers CC appears in a Dutch catalog, for another, we have professional coverage through Gameumentary. Wonder why this is so difficult... Lordtobi (✉) 07:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you meaning how difficult it was to find that source for Lego Racers CC? Also going off topic, I found a catalogue (don't know what language it is) that had an earlier cover art for Bionicle: The Game with the EA Games logo on. I guess the final game didn't have it as EA were only a distributor for the North American releases, and the main publisher for the European releases. Luigitehplumber (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems you still don't understand; claims made on Wikipedia need reliable sources to confirm them. An image from a catalog is not a reliable source, unless professional coverage shiws that it is valid. Furthermore, claims starting with "I guess" already indicate original research, which should not be on Wikipedia by any means. Please read through the three guidelines I linked to above. Lordtobi (✉) 07:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, as that is the simple problem I have on the site, trying to find reliable sources. I am still surprised how Wikipedia is so strict on this, but maybe its because of vandalism and false infomation...Luigitehplumber (talk) 08:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Infogrames/Atari

My next problem is with the Enter the Matrix page. The reason why I keep reverting is that my infomation is true. Some Atari branded games from Infogrames were released after the rebranding and so they are left alone.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-Rally_3 (Only applies to GameCube version)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Ball_Z:_The_Legacy_of_Goku_(series) (Applies to the North American version of Legacy of Goku 2, as the European version just has Infogrames' logo, and that version was also released after the rebrand)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuntman_(video_game) (Only Applies to GBA version)

Luigitehplumber (talk) 08:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The information you present is not only original research, but also wrong. All original releases of the game don't even include the Atari name, rather the Infogrames logo. The information you inserted is what you guess should be correct based on the image you see in the infobox, but comes without verification of any kind. Regarding the other pages, it would usually apply to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, however, I can literally see you chaned these entries yourself [20] [21] [22]. Their respective histories show that they do not receive a lot of attention, at all, and as such is not handeled with a lot of care regarding guidelines. Lordtobi (✉) 08:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The way I can tell if its a Infogrames title branded using the Atari name is the logo. The tripod was changed to look more like an A after the rebranding, and this is something people don't notice (heck, I didn't notice this until I started buying those games!). Atari games from 2001-2003 are Infogrames titles branded with the Atari name, and therefore use Atari in the game itself instead of Infogrames. Enter the Matrix is a Atari branded title from Infogrames, not published by them, the GameCube version's disc screen says "An Infogrames Production developed by Shiny Entertainment." Luigitehplumber (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

All [www.mobygames.com/game/enter-the-matrix/cover-art cover backs of non-re-releases] give Infogrames' logo and details, the Atari logo on the front cover is just an ad stunt. The covers do not state that it was published by any Atari-branded company. Please stop adding information in leads of an edit war, retain WP:STATUSQUO. Lordtobi (✉) 12:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

That is indeed true (The back covers of my Infogrames Atari branded games say "Published by Infogrames" even though their logo normally isn't on the packaging) and even then, I am not having edit wars with you. I think you are a great help assisting me with both the Lego video game pages and the Infogrames ones. I'll likely delete this section as I have finished the conversation about Lego Star Wars: The Video Game and it doesn't need any changes. Thanks LordTobi!

Luigitehplumber (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring can have a broad meaning, but generally stating one thing in a discussion and then proceeding to change it directly in the respective article before waiting for the other's response (and likely their again-reversion) is unappreciated, and it happend to be the case here (and before at Drome Racers etc). I just hope that it can generally be avoided in the future. If you have any guideline-specific or general video game-related questions, you can always pitch them my way. Lordtobi (✉) 17:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay then. If there is any gaming things that isn't right, just go on my contributions and fix them up. Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

TalK:Google

What I want to change is:

From this

...So the article that this statement has come from is an unreliable source? --Kylea21 (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC).

• • Yes they are grounds. The interpretation can be put in if you point in the primary source where he even mentions that women are "ill-qualified to work in technology." That is not in the article at all. It is about how to better include women and my article is a great reason to not include our words. It is debated and should not be put in the wiki page unless it is certain. There are equally qualified sources showing your interpretation is wrong. Thus, your pov should not be included in the wiki page.

Clown town (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• • • No, that's not how it works. It's not my or your role to analyze the primary source and decide whether or not the secondary source analysis is correct - we are not here to make those kind of decisions, as that is textbook prohibited original research. Our job is to write articles primarily based on reliable secondary source analysis, including analyses we disagree with or think are incorrect. The Atlantic analysis should be included as well, as it is also a reliable source, and we should balance differing views expressed in reliable sources. But removing the NYT analysis because you personally don't like its analysis is simply not how Wikipedia works. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)...

To this

...So the article that this statement has come from is an unreliable source? --Kylea21 (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC).

• Yes they are grounds. The interpretation can be put in if you point in the primary source where he even mentions that women are "ill-qualified to work in technology." That is not in the article at all. It is about how to better include women and my article is a great reason to not include our words. It is debated and should not be put in the wiki page unless it is certain. There are equally qualified sources showing your interpretation is wrong. Thus, your pov should not be included in the wiki page.

Clown town (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• No, that's not how it works. It's not my or your role to analyze the primary source and decide whether or not the secondary source analysis is correct - we are not here to make those kind of decisions, as that is textbook prohibited original research. Our job is to write articles primarily based on reliable secondary source analysis, including analyses we disagree with or think are incorrect. The Atlantic analysis should be included as well, as it is also a reliable source, and we should balance differing views expressed in reliable sources. But removing the NYT analysis because you personally don't like its analysis is simply not how Wikipedia works. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)...

--186.84.65.243 (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

WB Games

I was thinking, all the WB Interactive Entertainment titles they published themselves are branded under the WB Games name and I mmight change all of them to "Warner Bros. Games", but would you classify WB Games merely as a brand name? Luigitehplumber (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

That's difficult to say, honestly: A "Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment Inc." was active under Californian law between 2003 and 2008, while a "WB Games Inc." was from 2007 to 2009, while another "WB Games Inc." was registered in 2009. Since we have no official sources on their relation, my best guess would be that "Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment" currently is the trading name of "WB Games Inc.", which provenly is a subsidiary of Warner Bros. Entertainment per the court's documents. Either way, I would strongly suggest that we simply implace WP:COMMONNAME, and put WB Games equal to Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, and, brand name or not, use Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment in both cases. Lordtobi (✉) 13:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Alright then, going on another topic, I found a source from the TT Games Publishing page that actually said that Lego Interactive were working on Lego Star Wars 1 with Traveller's Tales. Also Giant Interactive are the official European publishers and back covers of the game say so. Luigitehplumber (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Could you show me which cover you are referring to? All the ones I just checked out still bear Eidos' logo, even the Russian release and the demo version of the game. Lordtobi (✉) 13:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Here are the PAL version backs. Also the American versions have Eidos' logo on the front, but PAL versions have Giant or TT Games' logo on the front instead.

• http://www.mobygames.com/game/lego-star-wars-the-video-game/cover-art/gameCoverId,60804/
• http://www.mobygames.com/game/lego-star-wars-the-video-game/cover-art/gameCoverId,189883/ (This one says "Produced" instead of "Published", it doesn't list who published the game)
• http://www.mobygames.com/game/lego-star-wars-the-video-game/cover-art/gameCoverId,164190/ (Same as above)
• http://www.mobygames.com/game/lego-star-wars-the-video-game/cover-art/gameCoverId,127406/ (This is of a budget re-issue, but does say "Published by Giant Interactive")

Game Boy Advance version doesn't count, Eidos published that version in all regions. Luigitehplumber (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, all of these still bear the Eidos logo; and even if that on the reissue was not a typographical error (and it was actually published in physical form by a QA house, although I find that unlikely) it was still a reissue, and as such does not belong in the infobox. All others of the three above were undoubtedly published by Eidos. Lordtobi (✉) 14:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I know that, and I think Eidos were a distributor, as many companies dhave had that done before (eg, Titus Software had their games distributed by Virgin Interactive). Luigitehplumber (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like that Giant Interactive is staying in the publisher section now. Eidos were only a distributor in Europe, but the publisher everywhere else. Luigitehplumber (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Source for this? Eidos appears on all boxes alongside Giant, it never explicitly says that Eidos published it (but we know it did per sources), while it always just says "Produced by Giant" except for that one re-release (and re-releases don't count for Infoboxes). Lordtobi (✉) 22:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is my reasoning. Sometimes other companies have their logos on the back, and are not counted as the publisher for a good reason. Eidos arew the distributor in Europe as their logo doesn't appear at the front (if they were the publisher then their logo would be at the front) and publishers who only distribute the game would only put their logo on the back cover (an example was with a multi language version of an Army Men game I found, it has Infogrames and Virgin Interactive's logos, but nether are the publisher, as The 3DO Company are the publishers). Luigitehplumber (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Your guess again employs a lot of original research and speculation, this is not in sources. Also, this European cover does have Eidos on it [23]. Lordtobi (✉) 16:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I've just made a page on the 1999 Lego Friends game. Do you think it's okay? Luigitehplumber (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

1999's Lego Friends lacks notability all the way, and does not reach for WP:SIGCOV or WP:VGGNG. I've redirected it the list article instead, maybe we will find enough sources someday (although I doubt it). Lordtobi (✉) 18:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

'Good Faith' edit reverted

Hi, could you please explain to me why you decided to revert my edit? I don't see the reason why it would be undesirable, maybe I'm not aware of some rule. Thanks. --Psz (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It appears my revert was one of those edits. The guideline I wanted to link you to is located at MOS:COMPUTING (or, more specifically, MOS:WEBADDR), though I repeatedly typed out WP:COMPUTING (the WikiProject) instead. If you read through that section you will know why I reverted the edit. Apologies for the inconvenience. Lordtobi (✉) 21:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Lego and ref templates in general

For the record, I disagree with M. He might want to rewrite all the documentations for {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, etc. where examples like

• {{cite web |url=http://www.example.org/ |title=My Favorite Things, Part II |last=Doe |first=John |publisher=Open Publishing |date=April 30, 2005 |website=Encyclopedia of Things |access-date= }}

are being used. But for the sake of stability I'm not going to revert your last edit to the Lego article. De728631 (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree with you, the tidy format is way nicer than the crammed one (even roomy, with spaces everywhere, is better than no spaces), but M already reverted me on my change, so I wouldn't want to start an edit war and instead have it aligned all the way. If really necessary, we can achieve consensus, but I think that is overkill for one code-stylistic descision. Lordtobi (✉) 17:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The superstitious belief that PNG has higher quality

I don't know who first said that PNG offers higher quality than JPEG, but he or she clearly lied. For the quality of the image, please look at the image itself, not at its filename extension. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 10:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: The JPEG image format uses high compression, and when the image is displayed at its original resolution, compression artifacts become notably visible. PNG is a lossless format, so no compression, and the image that I *see* evidently is not a formerly compressed image pseudo-converted to PNG, but a new PNG-format screenshot image, and I, as I am one of many people who have a high thumbnail size pre-set in the preferences, can cleary *see* compression artifacts on the one, none on the other. I'd consider the latter to be of higher quality. Also, the reason the image is of larger file size is, again, because there is no compression. Lordtobi (✉) 20:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Here are the links to full-resolution images:

[24]

[25]

I don't see any artefact. Also, PNG is uncompressed?! Great, another misunderstanding.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 08:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

PNG does have no image compression, and as such presents it losslessly. There might be file compression, but that is just to reduce file size (while JPEG removes pixels with similar colors to theur neighbors calculates them back through these neighbors, which results in the mention artifacts). If you zoom in just a little bit (or look closely, as you already claim to have great vision) you will notice off pixel clusters around differing colors, such as around the white text on a dark blue backdrop. Lordtobi (✉) 09:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Update: It appears PTG has uploaded a new version of the image artificially compressed (though the algorith still differs from that of JPEGs), and the image is now of slightly less quality, though still higher than that of the old screen. Lordtobi (✉) 09:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

PTG's edit summary is cute: "If you wanted it to be compressed, you could've made it clearer"! Right! I think I did: "The screenshot's size has been increased by 109 KB and there is no difference in quality." I still don't know why he went through the trouble of changing the screenshot anyway. But the compressed version works for me. I hope it soothes your psychological need for seeing the .PNG extension. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 10:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

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.

Michael Owen's WLS 2000 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Eidos

Muse Software (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Wolfenstein

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Digital Homicide Studios defunct

In this edit, you say Source says "basically destroyed" on that particular date, but the only article statement I see like that says On October 2, 2016, Digital Homicide Studios dropped the lawsuit against the Steam users, with James Romine stating the studio was "destroyed" due to it (and cited to a ref published the next day). The only mention of Feburary 21, 2017 I see is as the settlement date of the lawsuit, but no commentary that that was a more formal end of the company itself. The lawsuit appears to have been filed by Romine as a person not by DHStudios as a corporate entity,[26] so the lawsuit could well outlive the company. DMacks (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, didn't notice that. I suggest changing it to October 2, 2016, then? Either way, the company is no longer active. Lordtobi (✉) 06:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

German Truck Simulator

People do make mistakes and if you find any error then you should fix it. What kind of provoking edit summary is that "At least tag correctly"? Hitro talk 16:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for my provocative writing, it's been a long day and I skipped thinking about what I was inserting into the edit sum. Basically, I wanted to ask you, when already taggin the page in a semi-automated manner, to check which tags fit the page best, as both ones you added could be replaced by better ones, as the SPS one was even incorrect. Though, as we are already talking about it, would you like to cooperate on changing the sourcing situation on that page and related articles (like UK Truck Simulator and Euro Truck Simulator)? Lordtobi (✉) 16:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

macOS naming

Hi, first of all I want to say that I will not keep trying to revert your changes regarding the naming. However, I would like to know why it is that you retain the older name. It is not common for an OS family to have a name change, as far as I am aware. How is it useful to keep the older name? Second of all, after looking through some pages, I have realized that both Starbound and Stardew Valley were released when the name of the OS had already been officially renamed to macOS[27]. I will not do anything regarding this, but I think that you should be aware of this. Again, I will not keep making changes regarding the naming of the OS, I only wish to know why you retain the older naming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.94.72.120 (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2017‎

The first "macOS"-named version, macOS Sierra, was released on 22 September 2016, Stardew Valley and Starbound were released on 26 February 2016 and 22 July 2016, respectively. Both of the latter dates came before the first renamed OS version, hence both games were released on an operating system called "OS X", not one one called "macOS" (similarly, OS X Mountain Lion was the first "OS X" to drop the "Mac" in front of it, and as such all games released before 25 July 2012 should be acredited to "Mac OS X" instead). I once saw this example: If Microsoft Windows was, one day, suddenly renamed BillGates-OS, would you want every single entry on Wikipedia to be renamed that way? No, we keep the name of the OS the games was released on, same goes for companies that were renamed; you wouldn't also go to BioShock and change Irrational Games to Ghost Story Games. This is the standard practice and was already pointed out to you by me, Masem, and Jd22292, among others; it is also in our guidelines:

Games that were developed for macOS when it was named OS X should be listed as being for "OS X", not macOS, nor should this be retroactively changed. However, any new games released after this change can be listed as for "macOS".

I might alter the wording a bit, also to include "Mac OS X", but the current sentence has been there since at least February. Lordtobi (✉) 18:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Apologies for all the inconsiderate edits that I made and for all the inconveniences that I have caused to you and any other contributors. — Comment added by 172.94.72.120 (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2017‎

A page you started (CreativeForge Games) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating CreativeForge Games, Lordtobi!

Wikipedia editor Atsme just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Restored the redirect to the only game for which CFG is notable

To reply, leave a comment on Atsme's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

^{Atsme📞📧} 14:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

About a page

Hey LordTobi, could you help me with this page please?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APEX_(video_game)

The game was made by a European company, and so the page should be renamed to the European name of the game, much like how you changed the name of Soccer Mania to Football Mania as it was made by a British company.

Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for helping me. Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Lordtobi (✉) 20:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello again LordTobi, this time I have something that is pretty confusing.

Billionsoft say they own Humongous Entertainmnent and its properties, but Tommo say they own them. CLick both the links and it will say.

https://www.billionsoftware.com/ http://tommo.com/

Also, I think Billionsoft also own the GT Interactive Software brand alongside Accolade. Does this mean that Billionsoft published the newest Bubsy game or Tommo? Luigitehplumber (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what the deal with Billionsoft is, we only know they own Accolade and Bubsy, Humongous and GT are said to be part of Tommo (also says so on their respective webpages). Since Billionsoft has no established publishing services, they are doing only the ownership for the new Bubsy game, while publishing goes through Tommo. I would think that there are mixed messages indicating that Tommo was bought by Billionsoft, but that is merely speculation. Lordtobi (✉) 17:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Island Xtreme Stunts: Plot, Characters, Sets, Gameplay

Even though these sections are not "Original Research" because someone has played the game and decided to add these sections, how does all the information in those sections satisfy WP:V, WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:GAMEGUIDE, and WP:VGSCOPE? Videogameplayer99 (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Original Research

Could you explain to me how "playing the game" and then writing sections about Gameplay or Plot on the game's wikipage, verifies the information without it being cited? Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Removing talk page comments

I've told you this before but please do not remove talk page comments from editors unless clearly bad faith. Warriorfish was apparently editing in good faith until they got fed up with something and deliberately got blocked. Going back through every talk page they used before then and removing their comments is not appropriate. -- ferret (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Another page

I have another page I need help with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touch_the_Dead

The Game's European title is "Dead 'N' Furious". The game was originally developed by a french company, and was originally announced by Virgin Play, who were a spanish publisher. Could you also help me with the Virgin Play page as well? (even though much of the history on the Virgin Play page was sourced from their defunct website) Thanks. Luigitehplumber (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Will look into that later. Lordtobi (✉) 07:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Luigitehplumber (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Destiny 2 cover.webp

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Destiny 2 cover.webp. 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Deciding on something

Remember when you changed all of the Infogrames Atari branded titles (2001-2003) to simply Infogrames?

I am deciding if I should do the same thing to the Hasbro branded Atari games or Hasbro branded MicroProse titles. Should I use "Atari Interactive" and "MicroProse" on them or just simply "Hasbro Interactive"? What would you say I should do?

Luigitehplumber (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Depends: Is there a publisher by that name, or is just a label stuck afront of the box art (e.g. Atari-branded, but actually published by Infogrames, or EA Games afront, and Eelctronic Arts beign the publisher)? IT'D be great if you could refer to some examples how your changed would affect which articles. Lordtobi (✉) 20:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Here are some examples of some Hasbro Interactive published titles, branded under the MicroProse label.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RollerCoaster_Tycoon_(video_game) (I've tried to edit this many times to Hasbro, but it always gets reverted) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_4.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_II:_Test_of_Time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Air_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Prix_3

And here are the Hasbro Interactive titled branded under the Atari Interactive label

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centipede_(1998_video_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pong:_The_Next_Level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q*bert_(1999_video_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glover_(video_game) (Only the PS1 version is Atari branded) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerf_Arena_Blast

Luigitehplumber (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Square Enix Europe

"SQUARE EUROPE LTD. (presently SQUARE ENIX, LTD.) is established as a wholly owned subsidiary of SQUARE CO., LTD.". This is from Square Enix's corporate website. Eidos was the dissolved legal entity in the merger. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 09:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

See https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/01804186 ; Eidos Interactive Limited was what is now Square Enix Limited. The there-discussed formerly-titled "Square Europe Ltd." is now "Square Enix (2009) Limited". Lordtobi (✉) 09:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

This is confusing. So what exactly is the different between the two legal entities? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

They are located at the same address and have about the same management; only Yosuka Matsuda is added to the former-Eidos SEE. Although this dips in the WP:OR territory, I'd guess that Square Enix (2009) Limited is dormant and only artificially held alive, while Square Enix Europe Limited is still the primary company (and is also always covered, unlike SEE (2009) Ltd). See also that the Eidos Interactive and Square Enix Europe articles have basically the same content, wherefore I requested a merge at WP:Proposed merges. Meanwhile, could we have the article clean of references to the latter's former names? Lordtobi (✉) 10:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm supportive of the article mergers now that you've provided the links to the Gov.uk website. We may as well clear all the former names of Square Enix Europe seeing as Edios Interactive seems to be the surviving entity. I think it'd be a good idea to place Square Enix (Limited) as a division seeing as it's legally active underSquare Enix Europe? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

We don't quite know how the two companies are related, except of being part of Squre Enix of course, so we shouldn't draw circles around information we don't have. What we do know, from official sources, is that SEE Limited was formerly Eidos Interactive Limited and we should present the articles as (with Eidos' history), and leave out SEE (2009) Limited to avoid OR. We could state, though, that the two entities were merged, but need a good source for that. Lordtobi (✉) 10:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'd go for the latter and use the Gov.uk website as the citation. Both legal entities clearly share the same address and Square Enix's corporate website advertises its existence. I'll leave you to sorting out everything else regarding the merging of the articles. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Bubsy: The Woolies Strike Back

For some reason, Tommo and BIllionsoft are treating the Accolade brand separately from them. The Steam page and the physical PS4 copy both say that Accolade published the game. I edited the publisher section because I follow what the packaging says on the back but you can revert it back anyways if you want. Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

See the game's talk page. "Accolade" is no longer a company, Billionsoft, Tommo, and UFO Interactive Games apparetnly really love to say that name but it is just a trademark they acquired and has zero to do with the original company. Lordtobi (✉) 21:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It's strange, isn't it? Luigitehplumber (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Caps

What section are you citing here because I can't see anything where we override the actual title formatting of something. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The specific section is MOS:CT (equals to MOS:CAPS#Composition titles), where an early line reads:

"For title case, the words that are not capitalized (unless they are the first or last word of the title) are: [...] Short coordinating conjunctions (and, but, or, nor ; also for, yet, so when used as conjunctions)" [bolding mine].

Lordtobi (✉) 16:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not being used as a conjunction though, it's part of a pun. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that a pun makes something not a conjunction. The word opposes "fractured" to "whole" (something fractured usually isn't whole); that "but whole" also makes for "butthole" is a different case. Yet, I would suggest that this is brought to larger scale via a discussion. Lordtobi (✉) 16:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Your recent editing history at Hangar 13 (company) 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 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. -- ferret (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

You know better, come on. -- ferret (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for the inconvenience. Yet, I need to state I had learned from my past experience with this editor that discussions are not what they answer to; WP:STATUSQUO is not a thing for them. I could artificially make up further excuses, a few of which might actually be good, but all-in-all this is the case. I try to avoid edit warring where possible, and will try to reapproach said user once their block is lifted. Lordtobi (✉) 16:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Apple, Inc revert

Lordtobi: Thanks for catching my mistake. I am a new HotCat user. I only meant to delete one category. I will be more mindful in the future. sincerely, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Your ignorance is annoying

Let's start with the Hangar 13 page, their own homepage clearly states that they're working on a brand new project, not Mafia 3, yet you continuously try to deny the evidence, next, the Sanzaru page, in the YouTube video, Mat Kraemer, who is a big part of Sanzaru, clearly states that they're working on a brand new project, not Marvel Powers United VR, it's not some random YouTuber pulling this out of their ass, yet you let your ignorance get the better of you, and you deny that evidence as well, why can't you see your own ignorance? I gave you credible sources, an official homepage, and an important employee at Sanzaru confirming what their doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownAssassin1819 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Have you actually READ what I wrote on your talk page? Your comment makes it appear like you did not, and I'm not willing to chew through all of it again here. Lordtobi (✉) 19:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

I full protected Sanzaru Games, because I thought it would likely have lead to a 3RR block for both you and the new account. Based on their edit summaries, I wouldn't call their actions obvious vandalism, so reverting them would not be 3RR exempt. If it continues to be an issue with them on other pages, and they won't engage on the talk page, it would be better to take it to WP:ANI than to continue reverting. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Merci. Lordtobi (✉) 19:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Rayman 3 Box Art Source

The box art came on a CD from a press kit for the game. There's no Tonic Trouble contents on the disc, but there is a disc with Tonic Trouble artwork that was released in Winter 1999. I'd check the Internet Archive, you might find what you are looking for there. RibShark (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

Why is their Twitter page an acceptable source, but their Facebook page isn't? I gave you their official homepage and official Facebook page confirming my facts, how are those not reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownAssassin1819 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you revert my edits for T2's subsidiaries? The least you could've done was come to me and ask me for sources, I would've given them to you, at the time when I edited those subsidiaries, I didn't know how to link a reliable source, but now I do.

The content I reverted consisted of mixed edits from multiple parties (there were 29 edits in total for the timespan I checked), so I wasn't tracking who made which edit. If you would like to re-add what you have found, you are free to do so! Lordtobi (✉) 17:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on NetherRealm Studios. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Rockstar San Diego

If the official Rockstar website says "Rockstar Studios", then that means all of their studios are responsible for the development, not just Rockstar San Diego, i'm pretty sure someone left a note on the Rockstar Games Wikipedia page that explains what Rockstar Studios is, besides, the Wikipedia page for RDR2 already has "Rockstar Studios" labeled as the developer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownAssassin1819 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Rockstar Studios means that multiple (not necessarily all!) studios under the Rockstar Games label are involved. For example, when "Rockstar Studios" was announced for Max Payne 3, it was a collaboration between just Rockstar Vancouver, Rockstar Toronto, Rockstar New England and Rockstar London.[28] Hence, we cannot yet tell how Rockstar Studios for Red Dead Redemption 2 will turn out; even if I, and apprently you too, are pretty sure Rockstar San Diego will have a hand in it, we cannot verify that they do (WP:V). As such, will have to wait for official confirmation by Rockstar Games themselves who is represented by the "Rockstar Studios" name, or wait for the game to release. Lordtobi (✉) 17:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Rockstar San Diego will obviously have a hand in it, so will other studios, Rockstar DID confirm it themselves: http://www.rockstargames.com/games/info/reddeadredemption2, by 2012, Rockstar had Leeds, Lincoln (yes, Lincoln also had a hand in it, their focus is on QA and Localisation, they work on all of their games), London, New England, North, San Diego, Toronto, and Vancouver, those studios all worked on Max Payne 3, so yes, Rockstar Studios IS all of their studios, but now it's 2017, so their studios are compiled of India, Leeds, Lincoln, New England, North, San Diego, and Toronto, those studios will all be working on RDR2 together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownAssassin1819 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

You did not define what "Rockstar Studios" means, Rockstar Games has not revealed any details on it for this iteration, and that it was all of them for Max Payne 3 was all of them (actually, not all of them: Lincoln does QA for all Rockstar Games, but they had no development influence on Max Payne 3 as such, although they previously were a development studio). Defining "Rockstar Studios" on our own would be original research (see WP:OR), and is currently not verifyable by official or secondary sources, unless secondary sources include similar assumptions, which would count as minor citogenesis. Please just leave WP:STATUSQUO until we have an official statement by Rockstar Games themselves, best-case quoted by reliable sources, or until the game is released.

P.S. Please remember to indent your messages (per WP:INDENT) by adding colons, always one more than the previous message had, to the beginning of every section of your comment. E.g., this section starts with three colons, so please add four colons to every section your next reply. Furthermore, also sign your comment (per WP:SIGN), using four tildes ~~~~ appended to the very end of your comment. It looks like this, just with your credentials and timestamp: Lordtobi (✉) 20:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Rockstar's official website has "Rockstar Studios" labeled as the developer, I think that would count as somewhat of an "official statement", furthermore, Rockstar Studios IS all of their studios, how is not? Rockstar Lincoln would just be considered a "studio", not an actual "development house". — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownAssassin1819 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, saying that "Rockstar Studios" is in all cases a combination of all studios is original research. So far we only had one occurence of this name, Rockstar Toronto might be highly busy with Bully 2 and Rockstar North with Agent, everything we do not know could be going on behin the scenes. As I already stated above, when "Rockstar Studios" was first announced, it was a joint effort between just four of their studios, regardless if it turned out to include most studios in the end. Judging from the sentence "From the creators of Red Dead Redemption and Grand Theft Auto V", "Rockstar Studios" could also simply refer to Rockstar San Diego and Rockstar North, however, it could just as well only be a placeholder. Original research is to be avoided, even if both of us are sure that it is one way, we cannot verify that it is so (WP:V).

P.S.: It appears that, instead of using four tildes to sign your message, you copied my signature and changed the timezone (signatures should be in UTC). Please use the format I spoke of above (as is also noted in the guideline, have you read it?) for future comments. Lordtobi (✉) 10:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

According to Imran Sarwar, who works at Rockstar, who was recently interviewed, stated that there were no SP DLC for GTA 5 because of Rockstar North focusing on the GTA 5 remasters, GTA Online, and Red Dead Redemption 2, whenever they work on something, it's always a group effort, they split teams up within all of their studios, so one team connected by all of their studios is working on RDR2, another team with GTA Online, another team with Bully 2, etc.UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

How do you assert "it's always a group effort"? This is the second-ever case of "Rockstar Studios" being named the developer, and maybe that is not even final. The point is, and will stay, we have no official stance by Rockstar Games who "Rockstar Studios" is in detail. Assuming things, like you do, is, as I have already stated twice, original research. Lordtobi (✉) 14:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Rockstar Studios would be all of their studios, just because the games have a certain developer labeled for them, doesn't mean other studios don't take part in their development, take Rockstar Lincoln for example, they don't develop the game per se, they simply help add stuff to the game to make them better or more suited for the general audience i.e. the subtitles and so on, another example would be the credits for GTA 5, you can clearly see that a lot of their studios took part in its development, like I said just because Rockstar North is labeled as the main developer doesn't mean other studios didn't take part in its development, there's times where perhaps most of their studios take part in development, or times where all of them do, hence the label "Rockstar Studios" exists, to explain how all of their studios work on certain games together. UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

No. What you describe als "label" is the depiction of the lead developer. Rockstar Studios means that there are multiple leads, not that all Studios take a role. Even if it is likely, it would be an incorrect assumption to say it is always that one way. And any way you put it, it always falld back to currently not being sourcable. Have I linked WP:V yet? Lordtobi (✉) 16:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I never said they always use all of their studios, I said that most of their studios take part in the development process of some of their games, anyway, I still don't know how the official Rockstar website would not be considered "reliable". UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Not every studio works on every game. For example, on L.A. Noire, only Rockstar Leeds, North, San Diego, and Toronto co-worked on the game, this excludes Rockstar London, New England and the then-still-active Rockstar Vancouver. Hence, your statement is false. Rockstar's website might say "Rockstar Studios" (aka. multiple lead developers), but does not list Rockstar San Diego. The website could be used to confirm that "Rockstar Studios" is the developer, but not that Rockstar San Diego is (WP:V/WP:OR). Again!: Wait for an official statement by Rockstar Games on who exactly develops the game. Lordtobi (✉) 08:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

No, you're not understanding, i'm not saying every studio works on every game, i'm saying MOST of them help in the development of some of their games, so like you said, Rockstar Leeds, North, San Diego, and Toronto assisted Team Bondi with L.A. Noire, well, Leeds ported the game to PC, not completely helped develop the game, but whatever. But since Rockstar's official website labels "Rockstar Studios" as the developer of RDR2, that means all of their studios are co-developing the game, now i'm not saying they're only focused on RDR2, i'm saying that those studios have a set of teams working on something, so "Rockstar Studios" would be a team that's connected to ALL of their studios, so it would be the 1st team working on RDR2, a 2nd Team working on (supposedly) Bully 2, a 3rd team working on GTA VI, and one more team supporting GTA Online, so they're not completely working on one thing, but some people from all of their studios put on a certain project, labeling themselves as "Rockstar Studios". UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I have the feeling this discussion is going circular rather than to a finnish. Your point still is, and I quote, "[...] 'Rockstar Studios' would be a team that's connected to ALL of their studios". I have, repeatedly, stated above that is simply not ture: "Rockstar Studios" merely refers to multiple lead developers. Per my given (sourced!) example, upon announcement, the term "Rockstar Studios" referred only to Rockstar Vancouver, London, New England, and Toronto, not to any other studio. Ultimately, all studios worked on Max Payne 3 in some way, but it was the same with Grand Theft Auto V, which has Rockstar North (not Rockstar Studios, as would have to be the case by your definition) listed as their lead developer. From all we can know, "Rockstar Studios" does not refer to "all Rockstar studios work on it", but rather "multiple Rockstar studios play a major role in the game's development", and from our current standpoint, as I have stated over and over, we cannot tell who is part of that multi-lead team. It might be all of them, but it might as well just be Rockstar North and Rockstar Toronto. Even if it is most likely that Rockstar San Diego is key to the game, and I truly belive so, we cannot source it through reliable sources; simply saying "there is Rockstar Studios on their website, that means Rockstar San Diego works on it" would, past and present, be original research that might as well be incorrect. I'd prefer closing the discussion here, as any further back-and-forth would lead exactly nowhere. The final result should be: Wait until Rockstar Games announced who "Rockstar Studios" is made of, as you cannot simply say its all of them (even that might be the case) with providing a reliable source, which there is not since there is no announcement on the matter yet. Lordtobi (✉) 16:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Listen, it's pretty clear that you don't know what you're talking, you just can't accept the fact that you're wrong, i'm 100% right, 1/4 of Rockstar from Rockstar North, Toronto, San Diego, Leeds, London, Lincoln, India, and even NYC ARE co-developing RDR2 TOGETHER, using a brand new engine the RAGE team created, with the International team publishing it throughout the rest of the world, if there was at least ONE studio not taking part in its development, they wouldn't call it "Rockstar Studios", that's just how they do it, this isn't any speculation, it's the truth, even credible leakers confirmed it, hell, even some guy who works at EA confirmed, his name is Sean by the way, you can find him on Twitter, a developer who would know more about game development and group effort. UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I know pretty well what I am talking about, unlike you, I provided a source and logic behind why Rockstar Studios does not mean all studios. On the other hand, you have so far only said "you are wrong", and provided no counter-examples or even any source. If yaou want to see it like this: It is fact that "Rockstar Studios" means there were multiple Rockstar subsidiaries involved in leading a game's development, not that all studios worked on it. While the latter became the case for Max Payne 3, it was not originally (per my source). That all studios worked on a gane was also the case for Grand Theft Auto V, however, "Rockstar Studios", is not the game's credited developer, Rockstar North is. You could not provide a reliable source that Rockstar Studios covers all of them, so all you are saying is possibly incorrect original research. You appear to not understand that I also think all studios might be involved in RDR2, but it is just not sourcable at present, so we cannot include it. Fin. Lordtobi (✉) 06:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

DreamWorks Classics

Hey there. I know you're a specialist in the video game industry, but I was wondering as to whether you could format DreamWorks Classics? Basically, the company is like THQ Nordic in which they acquired intellectual properties from other companies. I was wondering as to whether you would create an intellectual property table for DreamWorks Classics like you did for THQ Nordic? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Will look at this tomorrow. Lordtobi (✉) 16:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to look at the page? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Iftekharahmed96: I have taken a quick glance at it, but it currently does not seem that such a table is required. If you would still wish it to have one, feel free to attempt doing one youself! Alternatively, you can also use the visual editor, if it appears easier for you to do. Lordtobi (✉) 10:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Sega Live Creation

I noticed on their website that they have changed their name to CA Sega Joypolis in January 2017.

http://www.casegajp.com/en/ Could you rename it to "CA Sega Joypolis" please. Here is the page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Live_Creation

Luigitehplumber (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done Lordtobi (✉) 18:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit Warring Problem with an IP user

Sorry again LordTobi, (You mainly focus on gaming articles though, and this is about a movie) but I am currently in an edit war with someone who keep changing the release date of the US DVD version of Kiki's Delivery Service to 2005, when it is actually 2003.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiki%27s_Delivery_Service

This source is what I follow: http://www.nausicaa.net/wiki/Kiki%27s_Delivery_Service_(US_DVD) alongside this: https://www.amazon.com/Kikis-Delivery-Service-Kirsten-Dunst/dp/B00005JM2O . Both say April 15th 2003.

Could you report this edit warrer please as I have trouble doing so myself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B145:F3F0:1945:5B92:2F45:CDB0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B145:F3F0:D10A:D4D1:7A3E:475

Luigitehplumber (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@LTPofficial: Just take this to WP:AIV, instructions on how to report there are given on the page itself. Since this user is using a non-static IP, you can ask from a temporary range block for 2600:1012:B145:F3F0::::/64, providing the disruptive behaviour from the two contribution pages you mentioned above. Additionally, you could ask for temporary semi-protection of the page at WP:RPP. Also note that neither of the two sources you presented above are reliable, so have this one from IGN instead. It also says April 15, 2003. Lordtobi (✉) 18:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for showing me what to do. Luigitehplumber (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Lego Marvel Super Heroes 2

Can we add the plot now that the game is out? I so desperately want to know what happens.172.1.94.255 (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't played the game thus far. If you have, you may also add the plot. Lordtobi (✉) 19:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I will tomorrow. Thanks for giving me your permission.2602:30A:C015:EFF0:F811:383B:889C:7F4B (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Lordtobi (✉) 09:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please rake your own advice and do not engage in edit wars on Wikipedia, as they are harmful to all parties (see WP:EW). An editwar, especially one break the three-revert rule (WP:3RR) could lead to you being blocked from editing entirely. As Soetermans and I have already pointed out, your added content is not supported by any sources, not even the ones you added. If you wish to have something insterted that is disputed by other editors, discuss with them, either on their talk pages, your talk page, or the article's talk page, but leep WP:STATUSQUO for the time-being. Lordtobi (✉) 10:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

EA Sports BIG

Would you classify EA Sports BIG as a brand name, a publishing label or a series of games (or should I just treat them as separate from EA Sports)? as the games published with that name were casual arcade-styled sports titles. Luigitehplumber (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Per our article (which both of us have aparently discovered), it is a brand name/label (basically the same thing, unless the label has its own management, which is the case with EA Sports but not EA Sports Big). I would say just leave that one as it is, if you are to decide how to insert it into another article, say either "Electronic Arts" (or "EA Sports") [...] "under the EA Sports Big label". Lordtobi (✉) 18:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm just gonna leave the articles how they are. I'm making a page for the short-lived EA Sports Freestyle label, which I think replaced EA Sports BIG. Luigitehplumber (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, seeing the poor quality of the EA Sports Big article, I think it would be a better idea to just place a section in the EA Sports article (e.g. "Spin-off labels"), and cover both "EA Sports Big" and "EA Sports Freestyle" there, instead of having two stubs. Lordtobi (✉) 18:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Alright. Luigitehplumber (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

And don't forget to redirect the EA Sports Big article to the respective new section within the EA Sports article. Lordtobi (✉) 18:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Whoops, I forgot all about this. Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Lego Marvel Super Heroes 2

Hey there. The game is set right after the first game. The first one ends with Star-Lord telling Nick Fury that something else is threatening Earth, and the sequel starts with the heroes celebrating their triumph over Loki. They wouldn't do that four years later. And then the Guardians warn Fury about "something else" and Kang's ship appears out of nowhere. It's in the same place.172.1.94.255 (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Faraday Corporate Center.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Faraday Corporate Center.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Diego Angel.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Diego Angel.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Whpq: Hi, this is a difficult case for me: I rarely (actually, never) uploaded any photographic images to Wikipedia. I only uploaded the two you tagged for deletion above, but would like to keep them for the Rockstar San Diego article. I am not sure if the licenses I added on there are correct (I was inspired by other photos uploaded here), but I have not found any free alternative, or think that there even is one (unless the current image is already free-use). So could you help me sort out the propper atributing for these files instead of having both out-right deleted? Lordtobi (✉) 21:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Ronhjones: Maybe you have an idea as well? Lordtobi (✉) 21:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The policy on non-free content has a lot of rules. The key for use of non-free images is that they must meet all of the Wikipedia:non-free content criteria. The main issue with the images you have uploaded is they do not meet point 1 (No free equivalent). It's not sufficient that you cannot find a free image. It must also be the case that a free image cannot be created. For living people, it's almost always the case that a free image could be created (they are alive so a free photo could be taken of the person). For buildings, it gets trickier as different jurisdictions have differing lawas about photography of architectural works. But in the USA, a photo of a publicly visible building can be released under a free license. As such, the photo of the Faraday Corporate Center could have a free image created by taking a free photo of the building.

A good place to get answers to questions about copyright and licensing questions is Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. I hope this helps. -- Whpq (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, is there an easy way to find out if an image is freely usable? As I stated above, I have no idea how to tag free-use images on here, and they might just be such, only tagged incorrectly. Lordtobi (✉) 05:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Assume everything is copyrighted by default. If the source page for the file provides a specific license that is one of the sufficiently free license for Wikipedia, then it would be freely usable. -- Whpq (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

So by default Wikipedia prefers no image over an image that could be, but is not, replacable? Is there a guideline that outlines how U.S. copyright law affects buildings/persons? Lordtobi (✉) 12:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The restrictions on non-free images is in line with the goals of a free encyclopedia. As for bduildings, see freedom of panorama. For people, see photos of identifiable people. -- Whpq (talk) 11:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Electronic Arts Studios

I've made an article on a short-lived publishing label for Electronic Arts called Electronic Arts Studios, but do you know any other games EA released under that name? Most of them have the normal EA logo on the packaging, but the EA Studios logo in-game. Luigitehplumber (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, but I do not. As said prior, the label does not appear notable, alike EA Sports Big or EA Sports Freestyle. Would you consider mering them all into one page, e.g. List of Electronic Arts publishing labels? Lordtobi (✉) 07:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Die Gute Fabrik

Hi, I see you keep undoing my edit to this page because of unsourced information. However, this info is already technically sourced on the page, as it's all from their own website. I am just not experienced in specifically referencing, but perhaps you could help with that real quick. https://gutefabrik.com/games.html

And yeah, I guess that first game from 2006, despite being on their website, shouldn't be on the page because it was a student project and not a project under their official studio. Anyway the page sorely needs this information so please just help me fix it up instead of wiping all the work away. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hylian pi (talk • contribs) 08:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Hylian pi: Hello there, sorry for the delay in answering. A reliable source is usually acquired through a secondary medium that is considered reliable by Wikipedia, or more specifically, the WikiProject for Video games. Secondary means that it was published by professional journalists, rather than the company owners themselves or a tertiary fan page. Reliable is a per-definition case, for our purpose, best check the WP:VG/RS page for a concise list, or use the search engine acquireable through WP:VG/SE, which only lists results from reliable sources. If I get my head around the artile at some point, I'd be greatful to help out, but with my closed schedule at the moment, this is hardly possible. If you require immediate assitance, please let me know.

P.S., also remember to sign your comments by appending four tidles ~~~~ to the end of your message, it will produce your signature and timestampt in appropriate format. Furthermore, each comment should be indented one piece further than the previous message, by having colons preceding every section of the comment, e.g. my message's sections started with one colon, so each section of your next comment should start with two of 'em. Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 07:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Red Dead Redemption.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Red Dead Redemption.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cuphead gameplay, Captain Brineybeard.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cuphead gameplay, Captain Brineybeard.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Vávra

Hey, I was wondering if you were able to upload this image to Daniel Vávra's Wikipedia page, Daniel Vávra used to work for 2K Czech: https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/554726386946953216/eadJzgEO.jpeg

This picture is from Daniel's official Twitter page, since you know more about editing on Wikipedia, I was hoping you were able to implement this onto Daniel's page. UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I have my own fair share of problems when it comes to imagery of people or buildings (you can see a discussion on this above), wherefore I don't think I will be much of a help for this case. I can only advise you to check the following: Is the image easily reproducable (is this man still alive)? If so, does the image you found come with a license that grants you free redistribution of it? If this is the case, the image belongs to Wikimedia Commons. I think you best seek help there, or contact the user I discussed with on the Diego Angel image thread above. Cheers! 08:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Alright, i'll do that, thanks anyway! UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at talk:Microsoft. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Your deletion is not supported by any provision under WP:TPO. Please desist. Jeh (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Depth Analysis

If you can, you should create a page dedicated to Depth Analysis, the same company that created MotionScan, the same technology that was used for L.A. Noire. UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I currently lack the time to do so, but you can find a lot of good sources for such an article here (even though most is about MotionScan itself, there is also information about the company), so you can try to create an article by yourself! I'll be available for assistance tomorrow evening (UTC+1), so let me know how it goes. Cheers! P.S.: The MotionScan article itself might also need some love. Lordtobi (✉) 09:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sort of a novice here, I don't know how to create a page yet, so that's why I asked you. I'll see what I can add for the MotionScan page, but it looks like it'll be up to you to create the page for Depth Analysis, i'll be here to provide some information for that page as well, though I will try to create a page anyway, thanks! UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I have shorthandedly created an article with preliminary legal information (founding date/dissolution date, locations, etc.). You can find the article here. Have fun editing! P.S., if the article is not expanded within the next two weeks or so, we will have to move it to draftspace. Lordtobi (✉) 14:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thanks, i'll see what I can do for the article! UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for messaging me! If we wanted to link to a part of a page, and an anchor does not exist in the code here, is there a reason we should not add one? I am asking logistically, otherwise I am unclear on how this would hurt a page or the site. (Lucka23 (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Lordtobi. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Game Wiki

Hi, I put a link that led to the official game wiki of Stardew Valley. Why is it that it was taken off? I've seen a few other pages that included a link to their official wiki, such as the Minecraft and Terraria pages. Was there a change to this, meaning that it is no longer needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.127.26.206 (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) See WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Essentially, because we link the official site, which then links to other official content such as Facebook, Wiki, etc, we do not include those. -- ferret (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

NOLF availability

Hi, you reverted an edit I made on the page for The Operative: No One Lives Forever. My insertion was about 'current availability', as I had stumbled upon a website hosting the game and its sequel; you stated in your reversion that "The website might contain copyright infringement and/or viruses, so it is not suitable for an encyclopedia like ours", and went on to suggest that a minor mention may be appropriate.

I understand the concern, which is why my first link was to a well-known and popular online game site, Rock Paper Shotgun and my second was to the Indie Game Bundles (not currently on Wikipedia) reference to these games. Personally, I have no particular 'hand' other than wanting the Wikipedia entry to be current - I have not played either game. I am, however, frustrated that you reverted the change without replacing it with the 'minor mention' that you suggested. You have left me to guess what this might consist of, and wondering why to bother when I cannot read the mind of you or the next editor to revert a change based upon whatever they are thinking at the time.

Additionally, your point that the website 'might' contain copyright infringing material and/or viruses applies to pretty much every website (to a greater or lesser extent); the fact that the article I posted was from four months ago does seem to go some way in mitigating such concerns though.

In short, can you please advise what exactly you expect to see on Wikipedia and specifically on the page in question? I have just been through a rather vigorous 'discussion' of what constitutes deliberately offensive material on another page that my wife found absolutely repulsive, so the community that comprises Wikipedia really needs to consider what its values are and how it communicates these to new volunteers rather than just pushing them away. In this case I saw useful information; I acted to place it appropriately for the interested reader; my edit was deleted.

/increasingly frustrated. Ambiguosity (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The primary concern was that you directly linked to a possibly harmful website, and excessively detailed its appearance. The source you added are valid, but the way the website was presented (as given previously) was unsiutable for an encyclopedia. Hence, I stated that it could potentially be added as a short sentence (to not produce undue weight), which I was hoping you could come forth with. If you wish, you can still add it in the proposed format. Lordtobi (✉) 11:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Le sigh. I have reinserted the new section, and kept it to two sentences. It no longer includes a direct link, but retains the links to the publications that referred to the new website. PLEASE, if you continue to feel that there is a problem in what I have posted, feel free to adjust it to suit your expectations without simply deleting it. Thank you.

(Side note: I had linked to two sources, that were published four months apart. In that time, the RPS writer made no correction to say "Warning: my computer has been infected and broken" or to state that the distributors to whom they reached out (refer to the end of that article) were dismayed by/panicked by/taking action against the new site. I had opined based upon this that the site was benign; I also suspect that there will be complaints at the newly edited Wikipedia entry for not providing a link to the software, but I obviously cannot please everyone (or sometimes, anyone).) Ambiguosity (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Although I would have seen the content you re-inserted, cut a tidied, as a good starting point for the statement we wanted to proivde, it appears that other editors feel otherwise and that the content is unnecessary for the get-go, and have since reverted your edit again. If you feel like the content is absolutely necessary, please refer to them for fruther discussion. Either way, if you have any questions about Wikipedia that are unrelated to this specific content, feel free to contact me. Lordtobi (✉) 09:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

And so I have wasted my limited spare time, trying to improve an encyclopaedia in small ways and being told 'maybe this, maybe that' before someone simply deletes my second edit. Hence, since you have invited it, my obvious question: does Wikipedia want new editors, and if so how will it keep them when it constantly gainsays their efforts to add value and wastes their time with this kind of 'maybe, if you... how about... nope' 'flirting'? Ambiguosity (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

To be completely honest, Wikipedia is always looking for people trying to contribute, where contribute means adding good content, removing bad content, and discussing content in general so to improve the overall quality of articles, not for people who insist on their content being of highest value and everyone who tampers with it is doing it wrong. Sure, everyone has a different perspective on some thigs: I think that this fact could be stated, another editor thought otherwise; but either way, Wikipedia is not a place where everything that can be written should be written (not a Murphy's encyclopedia). If you are, despite these setbacks, still willing to contribute to Wikipedia, I invite you to join the Video games WikiProject, or contact me (or other editors) for any further inquiries. Lordtobi (✉) 09:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Creative Assembly Sofia

Hello, you reverted my edit adding the first release of the above studio under the CA brand as unsourced. Indeed, I did not try to include any sources because the other entries in the table also do not cite any sources. I’m sorry; I work at the studio since 2001 and I may have been too eager to document our first release under CA after 8 years without a released product. Now, about the available sources: the credits of the game unambiguously list the studio and the people who have worked on the product but this is probably unusable for the article. There is, though, a posting on the Facebook page of Creative Assembly Sofia where "Empire Divided" is referred to as "our first project" (https://www.facebook.com/creativeassemblysofia/posts/1949786218622174) and a piece of news in Bulgarian (published here https://offnews.bg/tehnologii/creative-assembly-sofia-se-vkliuchva-v-game-dev-summit-monthly-s-preds-669333.html and here http://socialevo.net/creative-assembly-sofia-se-vklyuchva-v-game-dev-summit-monthly-s-predstavyaneto-na-igrata-total-war-458474). Are these usable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:4802:2A9:900:5026:7856:542:3308 (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey there! Thanks for providing these sources, while the Facebook one is a no-go for 99% of information provided on Wikipedia, I can see how we could use OffNews as a temporary source until one in English (video game-focused) media is available. A list of sources that are defined as reliable for our project is available here, and if you wish to not skip it everytime you find a page, there is also custom Google search engine available here. I'll go ahead and re-insert Empire Divided into the page, with this source attatched, but let's both keep an eye out for a better-possible source. Lordtobi (✉) 13:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rockstar Leeds, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Public school and Motion tracking (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Ubisoft

Elaborate, what removed content disimproves the article? UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

For example, things like when the companies were originally founded, when it was acquired and when it was renamed is now simplified to "Years", although "Years" only includes one month-year pair, so it is neither "Years" nor actually a Year, but rather a contextless Month+Year. Furthermore, studios like Blue Byte Mainz, Ubisoft Barcelona Mobile and Ubisoft Paris Mobile have completely vanished. The current format makes sense in a logical way, and gives relevant info in a concise presentation. Tables might look nice, but they should be formed in a way that all relevant information is there. Lordtobi (✉) 09:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, i'll fix it then, but if it still doesn't work, just tell me why again. UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay! I'll take a look over it, and the table you created a Take-Two's, later today. BTW, would you mind also adding founded/acquired/closed columns, that would replace the "years" column, into the tables at the Take-Two article (Where items that were founded as subsidiaries of Take-Two [e.g. Rockstar Games] could either with their "acquired" columns empty (via {{N/A}}), or have the same content in both the "founded" and "acquired" columns via |colspan="2")? Lordtobi (✉) 10:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do with the T2 article. UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 10:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

So, what do you think about the T2 and Ubisoft articles? UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Hello Lordtobi: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 22:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Lordtobi|<span style="font-family: Impact;">Lordtobi</span>]] ([[User talk:Lordtobi|<span style="color: #B0B0B0;">✉</span>]]) : Lordtobi (✉)

to

[[User:Lordtobi|<span style="font-family: Impact;">Lordtobi</span>]] ([[User talk:Lordtobi|<span style="color: #B0B0B0;">✉</span>]]) : Lordtobi (✉)

—Anomalocaris (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: I see, thanks for the heads-up! I will run an AWB to update my old signatures. Lordtobi (✉) 09:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for updating your signature. As for editing articles where you've already used it, as far as I am concerned, that is great! However, at least one other Wikipedian started to do this, and then pretty soon people started complaining "you're triggering my watchlist!" So the project stopped. So, go ahead, and let's see if people complain. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: I had replaced my signature on a few hundered pages earlier today, but halted there due to time constraints. I have just now proceeded to finnish of the last User talk pages, and let's just say I haven't heard of anyone regarding this yet Lordtobi (✉) 18:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:FREAKY

There should be a limit in scope of what is defined as "Freaky" versus what is considered "Humor". Articles like " Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" are not humor which is what is written above: "This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous". I'm all for humor but lets at least keep entries that are creative or have a good backstory behind them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Just to show what I mean take a look at this: [29], its a "freaky title" yes? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edits by User:Indie Geek

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edits by User:Indie Geek. The user you just reverted has been making similar edits across other video game articles and has not acknowledged my request for them to review WP:OVERLINK. Hopefully, your input will help. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 22:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)