User talk:Dissident93/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Transreality[edit]

Hi Dissident93,

I was surprised finding out you removed my mode contribution in the Pokemon Go page, as the name of that game was added to MY page on transreality gaming by another author yesterday (and rightfully so). Transreality is not a new term or page and as we' re talking game modes here, without any commercial background, I think you shouldn't have removed it.

Let me know your thoughts,

Best regards, Sightestrp Sightestrp (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Sightestrp: It doesn't belong, per the infobox documentation, where it states "Currently, the only accepted values are single-player, multiplayer, or both." Find a way to add it to the prose, or it doesn't belong. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Redskins[edit]

So I'm curious why you don't think references should be included in the infobox of the Washington Redskins article? Every other National Football League (NFL) team article has references regarding the team's colors listed in the infobox. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Headcannon[edit]

Headcannon isn't the engine for Mania, it's Simon Thomley's development studio. See the official website. No engine has been announced. -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of information[edit]

Hello, can you please explain why you reverted my edits? And who decides which regions should be mentioned in infoboxes? Thanks. CoverMyIP (talk) 09:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terraria edit revert[edit]

Yesterday, the fifth, I made two edits on the Terraria wikipedia page which you removed. The first, commenting about the Hallowed, I now realise had a spelling error, however I don't believe that warrants removing the entire edit. The second edit you removed was when I an edit speaking about "expert mode" being only on Windows and OS X. If you could explain your reasoning behind these edits, that would be great. Major Nuisance (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Major Nuisance: Ask yourself if "the Hallowed" and what the game's "expert mode" means anything to a reader new to the subject. WP:GAMECRUFT exists in order for articles to avoid this. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your work on The International 6, you change the score a tiny bit after the game ends. Also, are you a DotA 2 player? If so.... which team? :P Dat GuyTalkContribs 12:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DatGuy: Sort of late for this, but to answer your questions: I do play Dota 2, but not on any "team". I have no relation to anything in the professional scene besides being a fan. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe we should change that. Maybe we should create a Wiki Editors Dota 2 Team. ComplexParadigm (talk) 07:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted[edit]

Hi Dissident93. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dota 2[edit]

To Dissident93 & DarthBotto: I know that you guys have worked hard to improve the article. Thank you for these ongoing improvements. However I don't feel that the article has quite reached FA standard yet.

On the FAC page, I strikethrough my points when I feel that they have been dealt with. I have not struck three of my points. Of these, it seems that two have been dealt with, although the replies on the FAC page do not clarify this.

So far, I have reviewed about half of the article and minor points seem to crop up. In general, the whole article could use a little brush-up to improve the flow of the language, although I myself struggle with this aspect of article-writing.

Would you like me to continue reviewing the article? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Axl: It would be appreciated. And which points were not addressed? I've been slightly busy the last few days and now that the FAC is closed I don't think I'm supposed to continue commenting there. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Axl:, I would like to see it become a Featured Article, but I feel like the nomination was a WIP and closed prematurely, which makes me discouraged. I actually feel like the closure was uncalled for. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 21:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, guys.
Dissident93, the outstanding point is the clarification of "basic damage-dealing attack" vs "non-ability damage". While you responded to my initial point, I don't feel that it was adequately addressed. Did you read my response to you?
I am certainly happy to continue a semi-formal review. I could either do this on the article's talk page, or you could open a formal Peer Review.
Darth, I too want to see the article reach featured status! However the FAC reviewers (including me!) are a tough crowd to please—in my opinion justifiably so. There is nothing to gain by dwelling on the merit or otherwise of the FAC's closure. You guys are doing great. If you're still feeling discouraged, perhaps consider stepping away from Wikipedia for a few days. Come back when you're feeling refreshed and more enthusiastic. There's no rush—the article and your friendly collaborators will still be here. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Props to you though for having the stones to go for it. I'm not sure my pride could handle my writing being critiqued to such minuscule detail. GA is one thing, because I can just convince myself that the reviewer is full of crap. But FA takes several reviewers and they're usually the best of the best. Good luck in the future man. Lizard (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen many FANs throughout the decade I've been on Wikipedia, but very few have been picked apart in the minuscule detail that this one has been. Even so, I saw the outstanding issues as not only being addressed, but in a timely manner, so of course I'm disillusioned with the random closure of an active nomination. I won't participate in any more nominating of this article if this one is indeed closed and prematurely failed. Though, it would be nice for a bit better explanation from the closing admin. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 02:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I realise it's disappointing when a FAC is archived, particularly when (as I said in my closing comment) you've tried to do the right things such as a prior PR and timely acknowledgment of comments, but there was nothing "random" about the closure. I don't archive noms lightly, and it's not uncommon for the coordinators to do so when there's no support for promotion after several weeks, as in this case. I think Axl makes a good suggestion about another PR (whether informal, i.e. on article talk, or formal). That way you should have a bit of momentum going when re-nominating at FAC after the standard two weeks following archive has passed; it will be fine at that point to ping the commentators from the PR(s) and the earlier FAC that the article is back for review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a necessity to step away from Wikipedia, as I haven't lost any enthusiasm for editing, but I can say that I don't have as much interest in working on the Dota 2 article. I mean, it just stopped while getting actively edited when someone cruising through essentially said, "Too slow". That's fine, though; Dissident has been doing a great job on his own. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 20:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not discouraged or anything, but it wasn't like the nomination lost activity, so does closing it early really help anything? And I don't believe I did @Axl:, because I missed some comments when the closing comment was posted. I will (or somebody else should) make a FAC type review post in the Dota 2 talk page, where the same style can be applied, but issues are addressed there so that for the next, and hopefully final, nomination can have as little of editing as possible. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata[edit]

Hey Dissident93. I noticed you removed the GameRanking score from Dark Souls on Wikidata. Please do not do this. The guidelines and rules for enwiki's WPVG and {{Video game reviews}} do not apply on Wikidata. We have been very careful to ensure that {{Video game reviews}} will not show GameRanking scores on enwiki unless the editors want it to do so (In compliance with WP:VGAGG). VGAGG does not apply to Wikidata though so the scores should not be removed there. If you have found a case where the scores show on enwiki despite what you want, please let me know. -- ferret (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ferret: Fair enough, but there needs to be some sort of documentation of what doesn't need to be removed there, because I won't be the only editor doing this. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anything that's based on specific enwiki template documentation or project guidelines should be left alone... Wikidata has its own policies and is accessible from every Wiki project. Not all of them have the same rules for their infoboxes as enwiki. In short, if it's not outright false, it shouldn't be removed just because we wouldn't display it on enwiki. I'll try to work something into WP:VG/WD. -- ferret (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dropped in a notice to start, here. Hopefully some other editors will help shape up this guide as we go. -- ferret (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DotA[edit]

I think we should look at perhaps making a few touches to the Defense of the Ancients article. We should find a way to cite that development has stopped on the original mod and new content has continued on with only the sequel at this point. However, I'm having trouble finding reliable sources that address the original. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 00:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ping David Fuchs, who is the biggest contributor to the article. @David Fuchs: At this point, IceFrog has not utilized playdota.com for two years, Valve removed the website link from dota2.com and IceFrog has stated in emails that DotA for Warcraft III will no longer be updated. What do you think? Should we describe development in past tense now and include a paragraph about the development of the IP now being continued exclusively for the sequel? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 01:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was part of the post-FA plan, but I agree, DotA appears to be officially retired now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can tweak some tenses, but unless we actually have solid sources that its development is done (and not just an unverified email) the problem comes back to having anything to add that can be reliably sourced. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah jeez, I tried editing the tense, but I ran into a snag in the second paragraph of the lead, with the mention of IceFrog. He developed the original mod in past tense and was the final fellow, but there's nothing to source when things explicitly ended, (though we informally know it was 2014). That soft end date will be the biggest challenge for changing tenses. That's not to mention that he continues to lead the development of the IP, which makes the past tense even more tricky. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly reminder[edit]

Please be mindful of WP:3R at the Zelda article. -- ferret (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No Man's Sky[edit]

Hey dude, you stopped replying to the talk page so wanted to come here. I don't care if we don't use the gaming standards tag. I do care though about being on the same page regarding the article as it stands not being suitable for a non-gamers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E ribbon toner (talk • contribs) 10:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Open world video games category[edit]

Hey, there's something messed up with the category. Everything is out of order. I also left a message about this on AdrianGamers page, because I've got no idea how to fix it. If you can help me find someone who can, I'd appreciate it. ThanksDohvahkiin (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I don't see anything wrong with the category. What do you mean everything is out of order? -- ferret (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited it. But I can't find any games past the letter L on the first page. and when I click next page, it just brings me back to the first page. When I click previous page, it only shows 7 Days to Die.Dohvahkiin (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, the same problem exists for me, but I have no idea how to fix it and don't know why it is. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the open world category, it's other categories as well. I just tried the Video games developed in the United Kingdom category and it's the same, there's must something wrong with Wikipedia's servers or something. TheDeviantPro (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems only happens to categories with more than two pages, looks like Wikipedia is glitching out. TheDeviantPro (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mankind Divided[edit]

Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Do social media posts and YouTube videos count as reliable sources on Wikipedia? DBZFan30 (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay[edit]

If that's the case, please remove the past cities for other team season navboxes, other wise I'll revert your edit. GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chiefs roster template[edit]

Believe it or not, that hidden note has actually worked pretty well. I added it a long time ago and since, when new players are added, there's a lot fewer instances of people adding numbers either already assigned or retired.--Rockchalk717 06:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Rockchalk717: Really? In that case, re-add it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lol yeah pretty surprising I know. Already done.--Rockchalk717 06:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Rockchalk717: Related edit, but this article says that the two players were given new numbers, just that the official website has not been updated yet. Linebackers can't wear a number in the 60s anyway. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah I saw that. Didn't see that they changed their numbers. They are pretty slow updating numbers on team websites, something too many IP addresses don't seem to realize lol.--Rockchalk717 06:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Sega 3D Classics Collection[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Sega 3D Classics Collection—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Jotamide (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Zillion to the Sega Franchise list[edit]

Hello Dissident93,

I don't understand why you removed Zillion from the list with the following reason: "04:09, 1 March 2016‎ Dissident93 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,833 bytes) (-153)‎ . . (Undid revision 707670901 by Lrvega (talk) I don't think this is a franchise. we don't list Billy Hatcher, which only ever had one game in it's "series" too.)" There are two games in the the "series":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zillion_(video_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zillion_II

Lrvega (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your good edits to NFL-related articles. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Team Company Template[edit]

Just to let you know, Yuji Naka was not the sole founder of Sonic Team. Sonic Team is a division formed with multiple people. It is imperative that key people associated with Sonic Team are highlighted. Also, key franchises should be highlighted within a company as well.

Regardless, your edits are appreciated.

Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Iftekharahmed96: There is no source for stating it was founded by only three of the original Sonic 1 development team either, so I just removed everybody from the founder field unless you can provide one. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just place them in the key people area instead. That way, they are not removed from the infobox entirely, but they are not labelled as founders.

Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we can come to an agreement. Next time, it's preferable if you manually edit as oppose to doing an outright undo.

Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rectify 54[edit]

Dissident 93, Why did you refuse to change any articles about game composers?

Rectify 54 (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2016, at (UTC)

  • @Rectify 54: What do you mean? I'm the only one who even took action on them, as most of them were badly written and out of date before I created this account. Nobody else really cared enough to maintain them, but I don't "refuse" help or whatever you mean. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you accusing me of being a sockpocket account? That's disrespectful to my contributions![edit]

This is simply disrespectful. I am offended. What I have been doing with the different Sega subsidiaries is that I've been providing a consistent company template and updating outdated images. Vandalising is damaging the citations of the different articles. I have not done that. Look, we both came to an agreement with what the Sonic Team page should look like. You better have a good reason for accusing me like you are...

Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iftekharahmed96: Wasn't accusing you of vandalism, however you edit the same exact articles that a previously banned user who continues to use sockpocket accounts does, so it's simply something that should be looked at. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, just because I coincidentally edit the same articles as someone who got banned, you still make accusations. I'm dissapointed in you. You should have messaged me directly with your concerns as opposed to messaging someone else regarding this. Wikipedia is a community based site. Making accusations like the one you've just made, means that, you break bonds and mutual trust. You could have clarified as to whether I was said previous user, looked at my edit history and been more objective. I demand an apology!

Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Necropolis edit[edit]

Your edit at Necropolis (video game) makes no sense on several levels. You say "we don't include publishers on Steam unless it's a Steam only game", but what other non-console platform is it released on? The example template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Templates has data for both computer and console releases, and the fact is Bandai Namco published only the console versions...Harebrained Schemes self-published for PC and Mac. I fully admit I could be misunderstanding what you were getting at, and if so, I apologise. Also, I admit I cannot find any guideline mentioning this issue with publishers as you mentioned. Would you mind linking it for me? — Huntster (t @ c) 19:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Huntster: I meant that we don't include Steam as a platform. If the PC versions were not by Bandai, then it should say Windows and OS X instead. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'd still suggest that the template page not mention Steam, as that led to confusion. I still cannot find any project guideline that mentions any of this. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/ReCore/archive1[edit]

Consider this a consultation of sorts. I think ReCore is good enough for a nomination, but requested a peer review to make sure it is as foolproof as possible. Care to make an assessment? Cognissonance (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Street Fighter 5/ANI[edit]

Hi there. Those IPs from the Street Fighter V article have started up a thread at ANI now, here. I was wondering if you could drop in with your two cents on matters, since you've edited the article and interacted with them in the past. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 19:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Square is only affiliated with the Xeno series through Xenogears[edit]

Monolith Soft have always been associated with Xeno. Squaresoft/Square Enix are only associated with Xenogears. They have no affiliation with Xenosaga/Xenoblade Chronicles Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Iftekharahmed96: Clearly, but the fact you said the series was always created by Monolith Soft is wrong, seeing as Xenogears is considered the first one in the series. Anyway, I just listed them alphabetically to avoid any future edit warring. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from, however, Tetsuya Takahashi created the Xeno franchise starting with Xenogears. Squaresoft did not provide Takahashi an opportunity to create a sequel for Xenogears henceforth the reason why he formed Monolith Soft. Monolith Soft is the result of Squaresoft not wanting to be affiliated with Xeno after failing sales targets. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Iftekharahmed96: That is true, however there is no need to list based on order of importance, when listing alphabetically isn't up to subjective opinions and is therefore safer to do. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's flawed logic. With that rule, that means that Nights should be first in the Sonic Team franchise list and not Sonic. I've given you objective reasons as to why Monolith Soft should be before Square Enix. Monolith Soft is always affiliated with Xeno, Square Enix isn't. I don't even think this is a case of an "edit war" as oppose to your personal preference. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Iftekharahmed96: If Monolith Soft were the credited developers of Xenogears, I wouldn't be against this. But the fact is they weren't, and trying to list companies (and people) by your subjective importance list is just causing unneeding warring, which is solved by making it alphabetically listed (or even chronologically), like most other templates are. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xeno is cross-company franchise. The latest variant of Xeno is Xenoblade Chronicles. Two out of the three Xeno franchise are affiliated with Monolith Soft. And again, Tetsuya Takahashi is the creator of Xenogears, Xenosaga and Xenoblade Chronicles. He's also the founder of Monolith Soft. That's not bias, that's fact. Clearly, the bias at play here is you believing that Squaresoft created the Xeno series. They didn't. Tetsuya Takahashi came up with the Xeno series concept. He even says so himself Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Starbound[edit]

Dear Dissident, I find it acceptable to reference the star bounder wiki as it is regulated by the game developers themselves, and ensure to list all details within previous versions as to what they removed, changed, and edited within the game. I also find documenting the history of the game's development, especially starboard, as the game was in green light for nearly 2 years, and i will also attempt to gather information from the green light version, but i find the removal of the topic unnecessary. Do you have any suggestions as to how i may go about a better reference or better document version history? Theritt (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC) Theritt[reply]

  • Theritt (talk · contribs) By using sources that are listed at WP:VG/RS. External Wikis can never be used as a source and only occasionally as an external link. Also, while documenting the history of the development is fine (and warranted), explaining the name of item changes and such is seen as WP:GAMECRUFT, because who cares what some non-notable ore was called 2 years ago. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Witcher video games[edit]

All The Witcher games are developed in Poland, re-categorize it in articles is repetition. --A Sword in the Wind (talk | changes) 06:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Dissident93. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VR Cat[edit]

I don't think it really matters much, so I won't fight your revert, I just thought that since I had just written a separate article for Final Fantasy XV VR Experience that it made more sense to just have the category on the VR page. I have no idea what the consensus is on handling such things, I was just trying to combat the confusion on what the VR content was - one source I used when writing the article noted how the confusing/misleading reveal made it sound like all of FFXV would be playable in VR, when its really more of a shooting side game. FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 21:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: I had no idea that a specific article for that existed, so in that case it wouldn't really be needed on the main article (but would if the article didn't exist). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, I just moved it into the mainspace minutes ago. It's very new. Sergecross73 msg me 21:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Sonic release dates[edit]

Hi. I notice you reverted a number of corrections I've made to the release dates of some earlier Sonic video games. I don't see many of these release dates already sourced within the articles themselves (if I'm not mistaken, there is or was a push to remove excessive clutter caused by date sourcing, but I could be wrong), so I'll explain: the Sega Saturn collection Sonic Jam contains a Hall of Fame within the 3D Sonic World. This features a comprehensive overview of nearly every Sonic title released up to that point, including their official release dates. You can view this yourself here. This is the closest thing I can think of as a primary source since it more or less comes directly from Sega of Japan. However, it doesn't list any exact days for the European releases, along with a few others (for that reason, I left certain dates as-is).

To be slightly more precise in what was lacking from Sonic Jam alone, I looked a little outside it within reason. I consulted Sonic Retro for strictly cited content, and found reasonable sources for the exact European release dates of Sonic the Hedgehog and Sonic 3D: Flickies' Island. These two in particular contain legible magazine articles from back in the day (Mean Machines #10 pg. 44 & Computer and Video Games #180 pg. 49, respectively), so I believe they can be trusted. The former also has a section (known as "Sonic Clampdown" on pg. 103) mentioning Sega had trouble keeping US copies out of UK shelves before the actual street date, so I believe that is the reason June occasionally gets tossed around as its release date. For the exact North American Sonic 3D Blast release date, its Japanese Virtual Console website appears to list it. As for Dr. Robotnik and His Mean Bean Machine, images of European cover art seems to show it alternatively appears on the French version, but oddly enough not the English one. This is my mistake, although the article should probably clarify it.

If this is acceptable, I'd appreciate it if the release info be changed back to be more accurate. Cheers. Metalsonic89 (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Metalsonic89: Sonic Retro can't be used as a reliable source, however the printed magazines can. If they are scanned there, you should be able to use them directly as a source (the Sonic and Knuckles article already does this for the credits). For all the other stuff, it would appear to be legit, but perhaps you should post this on the talk pages so the other watchers are able to see it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sega Sammy Holdings: Key People[edit]

If you were wondering as to why I placed Shoji Meguro in the Sega Sammy infobox, it's because he's an employee of Atlus. The Atlus infobox is solely limited to game franchises by Atlus. The Sega Sammy infobox is everything corporate related to Sega and it's subsidiaries. Because Shoji Meguro is an employee of Atlus and all his notable titles are compositions for Atlus, does it not make sense for him to be in the Sega Sammy corporate box (as present Atlus was formerly Sega Dream Corporation)? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, the key people part of the infobox isn't solely for the executives. Plenty of other Navigation boxes with key people display video game developers and directors that are heavily associated with said company (look at Capcom's infobox for instance). Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Iftekharahmed96: Heavily disagree, we should only be putting key executives in that template. Meguro and other Atlus people simply belong in the Atlus navbox. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see no issue with Atlus employees being solely for the Atlus box, however, one thing that I do have to point out is that, other people who've created Navigation box company infoboxes have added all types of key people outside the executive. Again, if you click the names of all these key Capcom people, they're far from executive level. And I haven't even edited the Capcom infobox at all whatsoever. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Iftekharahmed96: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, this is a general Capcom one, meaning that notable non-executives can be added, which can't be said of the Sega Sammy One (which is the corporation that owns both Sega and Atlus). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dissident93/Archive_4&oldid=1140665352"