Jump to content

User talk:Deusfaux: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 1: Line 1:
Hello
Hello

==Talk undeletion==
Done. :) I don't undelete talk pages by default, only because so many of them are strewn with irrelevancies. I'm happy to do so anytime, by request. Best wishes, [[User:Xoloz|Xoloz]] 02:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


==Response: List of CE's ==
==Response: List of CE's ==

Revision as of 11:04, 16 July 2023

Hello

Response: List of CE's

Thanx for the reference changing work on List of video game collector and limited editions! Deusfaux 02:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome! People adding external links where a reference should be is one of my pet peeves on Wikipedia, it is one of the things I kinda specialize in.→041744 02:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario RPG lists

Currently, Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars has two lists pertaining to it (List of characters in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, and List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars). User:TTN decided it would be best to merge the lists into the main article and split Smithy Gang into those articles. I recently merged Smithy Gang into the list of chatacters by removing the non-notable characters, and I have asserted that a cameo section in the list of characters is valid, per Wikipedia:Trivia sections and Wikipedia:Handling trivia that uses Alex Trebek#Cameos as a good example. I have suggested that we rename the articles per Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves to something along the lines of Characters of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars and World of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars or Mushroom Kingdom (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) just like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and World of Final Fantasy VI or Gaia (Final Fantasy VII). I believe if these articles are to evolve beyond a non-notable list, they should be renamed. For example, List of Final Fantasy VII locations was merged into Gaia (Final Fantasy VII), because a World article is notable, but a simple list of locations is not. That is why there are other secions of the article to make it a World article. It simply has not been renamed yet.

TTN believes the citations in the development and reception sections of the list of locations, books and magazines, are trivial sources. When I added that the 3D perspective of the game is reminicent of Equinox to the main article, TTN removed it since my souce was "the opinions of the Nintendo Power player's guide writers". Although it was actually Nintendo Power magazine, I do believe a magazine is a reliable source, and I gave a page from Next Generation Magazine which also said the same thing. In addition, I was surprized that TTN said that it was from the players guide, since he claims to own the players guide for the game. He has not verified this, since I asked him for citations in May, "Could you look in the back of the Player's Guide and tell me what “types” of … Magic? I forgot what they call it in the game … well, anyways, what types of Special Attack or whatever it is (actually, could you find out what it's called?) there are? I remember some vaguely when I owned the guide like “Fire”, “Jump”, “Electricity?”, etc. Could you provide a citation, like the page number with a quote in context?" TTN replied that he was going to "get to it" (User talk:TTN/Archive 5#List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars). TTN claims the player's guide is "at the bottom of a box that's behind at least five others in a cramped space". Seeing that TTN did not recognize that the page was not from the player's guide when I provided a scan of the page in question from Nintendo Power shocked me. However, I have continued to assume good faith by not questioning TTN's honesty.

Per Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change, I have offered five different reasonable, temporary compromises that might integrate my idea with TTN's.

  1. Go over the list of characters so we can delete non–notable characters
  2. Rename the articles by following the steps at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves.
  3. Cut down the geography section list of locations by cutting it into the regional maps the adventures use when traveling from one to another. I can get pictures and write the fair use rationals, and someone can cut down the text that has no citation and does not allude to other media.
  4. Write the concept and creation and reception sections for the list of characters
  5. Write the concept and creation section for the main article

TTN rejected my compromise because it still keeps the articles. I agreed I would consider a redirect, but Wikipedia:Article size does not allow that, since the list of locations is currently 82 KB long. Instead, I agreed to help cut down the geography section that is the bulk of the article, but TTN rejected that as well because TTN states, "I am not interested in working on the article in regards to improving it." and "get past this "having sources automatically means that this information is good" mentality." TTN states, "I don't think they have or will ever assert notability." I have replied with, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so if you don't think the articles will ever assert notability, we cannot yet know this, per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#I don't like it.

Would you please take a look at Talk:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars and give us your thoughts? Taric25 01:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wega list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FD_Trinitron/WEGA

3RR concerning the Broken EP issue

I'm not sure if you are aware of the 3RR policy, but it plainly states that a user cannot commit the same revert on the same article in a 24 hour period. Before you or Drewcifer3000 break that policy, I have initiated a discussion here into whether Broken (Nine Inch Nails EP) is a studio album, and therefore Ghosts I-IV is the seventh album, and The Slip is the eighth etc. Please contribute to the discussion, so this can be put to bed soon. -- Reaper X 06:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EP = Album (Broken)

Hey Desufaux, since the question of "Is an EP an album?" keeps coming up, I thought I'd bring the discussion straight to you rather than passive aggressively revert your recent edits to NIN pages. Personally I'm not really sure about it either way, so I did a little research to figure it out. What I found at the Extended play page is this: "In the United Kingdom, the Official Chart Company defines a cut off between EP and album classification at 25 minutes length or four tracks (plus alternative versions of featured songs).[2][3] When the Compact disc became the dominant physical format, capacities increased, with a CD single usually having around 10–28 minutes of music, an CD EP up to 36 minutes, and an album generally 30–80 minutes." So what I interpret this to mean is actually somewhat contradictory: that the cut off is either at 25 minutes or 36 minutes. The two sentences don't seem to agree with each other on that. What is clear, however, at least based on the language used here, is that there IS a distinction between EP and album (what defines that distinction seems to be unclear, however). So therefore an EP and album are two different things, and are mutually exclusive. This is far as I took my research, and perhaps this might be worth looking at a more reliable source, but I wanted to start the conversation with you first. Let me know what you think about this. Drewcifer (talk) 09:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An EPis not a full length album. End of story, if you want it changed get consensus on the talk page.Ridernyc (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into it more, but from what I was reading before, an EP and an LP are both albums. One generally shorter, one longer. You'll notice my edits to the articles are careful not to change the numbering where the sentence concerns anything that specifically describe a LP. "full length" for example. My thinking has never been that Broken is an LP or a full length album, but that it is album of sorts. Moreover, a particularly important one. You can make the argument that many artists release less notable EPs, consisting mostly of remixes, b-sides, or other less substantial material. The fact that Broken consists of eight original tracks, is of substantial length exceeding half an hour, and represents a very distinct NIN sound, make it all the more notable and worthy of mention on other NIN album pages that make reference to the amount of work NIN has produced. Broken is a major release, and the wording of those edited sentences could reflect that "nth major release" "nth studio release" etc, if the "is an ep an album" issue can't be sorted. Deusfaux (talk) 10:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While any information at Extended Play might be helpful, I don't think whether or not Broken constitutes an EP is the issue at hand. From the first line at the Album article: "An album or record album is a collection of related audio or music tracks distributed to the public." Taken at that definition (or similar ones found at dictionary.com, etc) any EP is an album, Broken included. Either my edits are correct, or the sentences need to specify "LPs" or "full length" albums. But why you'd want to go that 2nd route and not throw acknowledgment to Broken is beyond me. Deusfaux (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well it seems like I misinterpreted your edits. If I am to read you correctly, you aren't arguing that "Broken is an album because it's an EP" (though the answer to this question is getting increasingly hard to pin down, it looks like), but you're actually arguing "Broken is a significant release in NIN's history, and therefore should be mentioned along side every other major release." Perhaps I was paying too much attention to the language rather than the intent of the edit? If that is the case, I would actually agree with you, that Broken is significant enough to be mentioned alongside the other releases. Now the only tricky thing is how we word such a thing. Which brings us back to the "Is an EP an album" debate. Perhaps there is a way around this that avoids the word album all together? Drewcifer (talk) 11:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I made a few suggestions (and have made edits in the past) that move away from the simple "album" phrasing. I would be happy with "nth studio release" or "nth major release" with consensus that Broken is each of those things (both made in the studio vs remixed, and major for the reasons given above). Or I would be less okay with "nth LP" "nth full length album/release/etc" with consensus Broken is none of those things. OR I would be okay with the edits I have been making where Broken is considered a plain old vanilla album ("nth album/studio album"). Three choices seem far more generous than what's being offered by those who revert my edits. I'm also open to other language I haven't thought of, of course. Deusfaux (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. FMSky (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References in video games list

Hi, I appreciate the work you are doing on the List of video game remakes and remastered ports article, but please try to also add references supporting the fact the new entries are remasters or remakes. More importantly, do not remove existing references like you have done in this edit. Thank you for your collaboration. Tanonero (msg) 10:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. 1. I'm not super familiar with editing, especially the markup code. Some edits may be unintentional or partial, to be completed when I figure it out or someone else does it.
2. I haven't figured out citation rules yet but everything I'm doing can be cited, frequently using citations found on Wikipedia articles for the games in question. Surely data that can be verified in seconds is better than no data at all. I'll get to it or someone else can tag in.
3. I believe you're misreading my edits in your linked example as I've not knowingly removed any citation for a game still listed. But my method of creating new entries and organizing them appears to have confused the edit tracker and you into thinking I removed good data. I didnt. It was copied as templates from elsewhere, temporarily, then changed to the actual data.
4. I'm halfway through the list removing ports. And have about a dozen others to add. Another day. Deusfaux (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]