This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 95 | ← | Archive 97 | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 | Archive 101 | → | Archive 105 |
This one come from VentureBeat article which was published in 2017, it cites that "the Sonic The Hedgehog series has lifetime game sales of approximately 360 million. This includes physical and digital." [1] But in 2016 in Complex article it cites that the Sonic The Hedgehog series has sold 140 million copies. [2] It is confusing whether if it really sold 220 million copies in just a year or else the VentureBeat article is wrong. Kazama16 ( talk) 13:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
You must be Sergecross73, right? If so, why did you revert the release dates for Castle of Illusion, Columns, and Earthworm Jim? Vecchiom ( talk) 00:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
The other day what i was saying is that on the Sonic Frontiers article, when i used the term "However, it was more favorably received by fans of the series", you kept reveting it, thinking that term is not necessarily worth it, like why? On top of that, whenever i fixed grammer on any pages, you'll keep reverting my pages by using the "Not an improvement" excuse. 50.219.108.51 ( talk) 13:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Linkin Park's fifth studio album has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 27 § Linkin Park's fifth studio album until a consensus is reached. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: ( talk, contribs) 17:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Sergecross. I'm writing you because I'm new here and I found myself in a pretty absurd situation. User: Binksternet had suspects of me being a sockpuppet, so he deleted all my edits. He opened a sockpuppet investigation which proved I'm not a sockpuppet, but even after that verdict, he's still insistently deleting my edits with the sockpuppet excuse (including the messages I wrote on his talk page asking him to stop)... What am I supposed to do in a situation like this?.... All weekend on the weeknd ( talk) 15:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, as I have updated my reply several times on my talk page, I thought I would post it in full here:
Hi, regarding Waiting on a War which is the one that is contested, I have checked out the source which is www.ultratop.be and it does seem to be pretty reliable on these and it is an official chart provider. I don't think they have just taken a screen snippet from a random website, although I cannot find either any websites where it could have been unofficially posted and taken from by ultratop.be or any news sources which would confirm it as official. Regarding Shame Shame which has not been contested and is also from ultratop.be, firstly, I remember this being posted to online news sources officially and as the first single from the album it is inline with the officially confirmed artwork for the second single from the album, No Son of Mine. However, what I can also tell you from watching the promotion of the latest Foo Fighters album, But Here We Are, is that some news websites did initially post artwork for the first two singles, Rescued and Under You, but then a couple of weeks later those websites had replaced the images with the album artwork. This may be a deliberate part of the marketing scheme to best promote the album. I think this is what happened with Shame Shame. The artworks that were posted for Rescued and Under You look like they were possibly taken from the lyric videos on Youtube but do actually look better quality than screen snippets and if taken from Youtube then they are supposed to accredit it to Youtube for Copyright fair use which they were not. This was before before they were replaced with the album artwork. They are still available on on some other websites: [3], [4] [5] [6]. For the third single, Show Me How, Virgin Radio did actually accredit the image to Youtube: [7] but for the second single Under You they did not: [8]. Also, if you look at these Google Search image results you will see that it appears that Goldmine Magazine have the single artwork for Rescued but when you click on the link and go to the webpage the image has been removed: [9]. QuintusPetillius ( talk) 20:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).
Hi, I notice you've been active on the talk page of this article over the years. Do you have any opinion one way or the other on whether this would still make a good TFA? On the downside, I notice that this tool is showing that a fair amount of unreferenced text has crept in. On the upside, there are six archive pages on the talk page, with lots of evidence of improvements over the years. - Dank ( push to talk) 19:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I noticed they created a Gravity Rush series page from scratch with only 148 edits with an undiscussed primary topic grab and page swap, not even making it with a disambiguation first. You also warned them about other problematic edits in the past. Their actions are very bold and seem sock-ish to me, I'm really not sure how such a new user would immediately jump to such indepth edits. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 11:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Regarding this, it appears as though the user that started the thread has been trolling and vandalizing, so I think you may have been right to consider a NOTHERE block. The Night Watch (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello - I have expanded this article and added 11 reliable sources. Please review your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isn't It Now?. Thanks! -- BRIAN 0918 16:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I've already reverted them and left a talk page message showing them examples of critical reception sections, but these two edits from an experienced editor [10] [11] really surprised me. I have basically never seen an editor think a future date needs to be removed from the released= parameter presumably because it hasn't happened yet. But even moreso, critical reception sections are everywhere. On articles for all forms of media. I must say I don't come across too many editors who think each quote from a publication needs to be put on a separate line or that somehow quotes are "separate topics"(?) Do you see these sorts of edits on video game articles? Ss 112 11:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
A user with 400 edits left a message on my talk page half an hour ago to say that I made "disruptive" edits to Religiously (song), which I last edited...four days ago. And they're asking me to explain myself [12]. An example of a disruptive edit, perhaps... I'm lost. Ss 112 03:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I found you salted this article name. Just a few minutes ago, I created the Scan Man redirect to the page The Kaze, a group that Scan Man and MC Mack are part of (and whose memberships in the group are noted in the article). Would you mind unprotecting it so that it can be redirected to The Kaze? I see that apparently a sockmaster previously tried to recreate a full article about this individual on multiple occasions, but given that he is discussed on the article of this notable group as a member, I do feel that it is a worthwhile redirect. Should problems arise with repeated attempts to reinstate the full article, feel free to protect it if you see fit. Thank you. JeffSpaceman ( talk) 19:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I reached out to you a few years ago when Blood & Stone was released to ask for help contributing to the article, as it kept getting redirected. As of right now, Sevendust's new album Truth Killer is still in Draft form, and I was wondering if you would like to help contribute to the article so that we can remove the redirect. My comfortability in editing is somewhat restricted to tracklisting and liner notes, so I wanted to reach out to other editors for help with the other areas of the article. Thanks in advance! Stellar420 ( talk) 04:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi Sergecross, I have a question regarding The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill. I had previously removed the co and additional producers, Che Pope and Vada Nobles in the infobox due to the template only calling for main producers. But user Blastmaster11 reverted it claiming that the lawsuit they had against her for not properly crediting them ended in their favor. But according to the Rolling Stone articles they only state it was settled out of court for a sum of $5 million. No where does it state they were granted writing/producing credits after the lawsuit was settled. I have tried explaining this to the user on their talk page but they are still determined to have them included despite not providing any sources actually stating this in any article. They provided an AllMusic review that does list additional production and producer for Vada Nobles and lists Che Pope only for programming. I do not believe this to be a "source" as it’s the only thing that seems to list them from what I can find. If I could please get your opinion on if they should be kept or removed I would very much appreciate it. Thank you. Pillowdelight ( talk) 22:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
If this is about me removing Bowsette from the see also page in the Mario character page, It's because she's not exactly an official character, and I just don't like her existence. She weirds me out. Sure, when I younger It did'nt bother me too much. But now, I wake up knowing that a dominatrix gender-bent Bowser fan character exists. Like, why??? It's like how Sonic fans search up sonic the hedgehog and are met with questionableart from DeviantArt. And I don't exactly see a problem with me replacing the Bowsette link with a Donkey Kong link in the See also page. iT'S NOT LIKE I deleted the entire Bowsette page. SuperWario64 ( talk) 02:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi Serge. I've just reverted the user Avalean again on Blackbox Life Recorder 21f / In a Room7 F760 for stylising titles. I left a message on their talk page asking them not to do this, and they took my not replying to them as the go-ahead to reinstate the stylisations. I'm not sure they get the concept of starting a discussion to gain consensus for changes, and they seem to think that I am obligated to reply to them. I've just reverted another user, D-ynamics, telling them the same thing—to start a discussion if they want to change the article and not reinstate the stylisations until/unless there is consensus per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. I'm not sure these users understand this and they think that because other Aphex Twin articles (that I didn't start) stylise titles that this should be too, but sources do not consistently use any one case of letter for the titles. Ss 112 18:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I see that you removed the article for Sonic! Software Planning and stated that it should not have an article because it is equivalent to the early years of Camelot. This statement is false.
Sonic was a separate entity from Camelot. Sonic was established in 1991 with funding from Sega, and Camelot was established in 1994 as an independent studio. Takahashi has stated that Camelot was founded so that he could develop games for platforms like the PlayStation. Sonic was a second-party Sega studio. The two studios operated separately.
Both studios did codevelop many games, but there are a large number of games that Sonic developed before the founding of Camelot that are not and cannot be credited to Camelot. It would be inaccurate to say that Camelot developed any of the games developed by Sonic prior to Camelot's founding in April 1994, and this constitutes a large volume of titles including Shining Force, Shining Force Gaiden, Shining Force Gaiden II, Shining Force II, Shining Force CD, and Shining Force Gaiden: Final Conflict.
After the establishment of Camelot, Sonic continued to be a separate studio with different stock investment and different staff. Camelot would support Sonic in the development of later Shining games, but Camelot as an independent studio would also develop games like Beyond the Beyond and Everybody's Golf for PlayStation, in which Sonic had no involvement. Their frequent collaboration does not make them a single entity.
Sonic did not become Camelot, and it cannot be said to be Camelot's predecessor.
Unfortunately, we do not have a source that states whether Sonic was eventually shut down or absorbed, but Sega's 1998 financial report shows that by March 1998 it was no longer a subsidiary. Shining Lore ( talk) 05:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi Serge. Do you think WP:ALTTRACKLIST is something that's important enough that users who have made edits citing it have a right to be reverting again over? I've seen users (not specifying whom or an incident in particular, as it's not relevant and I'm speaking generally) revert again if somebody has taken issue with them removing another track list as if it's an excuse to essentially edit war over or something users are even obligated to follow. Personally I wasn't convinced by the "consensus" that took place to make it a thing (anyone can see it was pushed by one user) and regardless of MOS:ALBUM being widely followed, at the end of the day it is still an essay on style, and neither a guideline or policy. Sure, I agree if an article lists 10 editions of an album that's too much but I think this is starting to be abused/applied for minor cases (listing a couple of bonus tracks) as if it's something we must follow. Thoughts? Ss 112 09:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).
Interface administrator changes
I think I've fallen victim to an IP editor troll. The one whose talk page I pinged you on earlier as they were on a disruptive revert spree on four articles I had edited, 197.87.63.202. They've previously been repeatedly warned for edit warring and disruptive editing on the same IP range— this is not the talk page history of somebody who's here to edit constructively. They said they would "happily admit they were wrong" if I gave them a reliable source that says certifications are not all sales and include shipments and streams. I did. They ignored that [13], and continued removing my queries to their incorrect/questionable edit summaries, and now they claim I've "ignored what the RIAA says" [14] and have called me a troll [15] despite their history for acting like one. I provided them with a source, they couldn't accept it and have continued on making inflammatory statements. This makes me think they're a troll more than anything else. What do you think? Block-worthy? In any case, I'm concerned they will resume edit warring later. Would you be willing to block them if that happens, considering I provided them with the proof they asked for, and their history/comments? Ss 112 11:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
There are rumors for a Sonic Heroes Remastered. Yet you revert it my edits. Just why? I'm not stating as fact. It's like lets say i dunno a movie and down there they said a sequel is on development. Whether you like it or not, you should've just kept it. But no, all you do is revert my edits just for the hell of it. 2601:196:4A01:D770:C67F:2E4:142F:7A19 ( talk) 21:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
I have nominated Chrono Cross for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. George Ho ( talk) 09:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Hey Serge first of all just wanna say thanks for the minor edits for the lists I have been working on and also I noticed many Midway titles from 1996-2009 the publisher is Midway Home Entertainment but the article list Midway Games instead. Midway Home Entertainment is the publishing division of Midway Games from 1996-2009 as mentioned here:
So I am thinking of changing any Midway title that the back of the box mentions as publisher and have them linked like this [[Midway Games#Publishing and distribution|Midway Home Entertainment]]
What do you think? NakhlaMan ( talk) 01:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi Serge,
I have been developing a project for electronic literature (WP:WELW) and I would like to develop a source list. Can I just create one for our project? How do you settle on criteria for sources? Who has to approve our source list?(For example, ILoveEPoetry is a blog by an expert in the field dedicated to electronic poetry).
Electronic literature has some overlap with video games. Some games are considered classic electronic lit (e.g., Rob Swigart's Portal). Some games like Zombies Run also incorporate story elements. LoveElectronicLiterature ( talk) 16:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 95 | ← | Archive 97 | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 | Archive 101 | → | Archive 105 |
This one come from VentureBeat article which was published in 2017, it cites that "the Sonic The Hedgehog series has lifetime game sales of approximately 360 million. This includes physical and digital." [1] But in 2016 in Complex article it cites that the Sonic The Hedgehog series has sold 140 million copies. [2] It is confusing whether if it really sold 220 million copies in just a year or else the VentureBeat article is wrong. Kazama16 ( talk) 13:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
You must be Sergecross73, right? If so, why did you revert the release dates for Castle of Illusion, Columns, and Earthworm Jim? Vecchiom ( talk) 00:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
The other day what i was saying is that on the Sonic Frontiers article, when i used the term "However, it was more favorably received by fans of the series", you kept reveting it, thinking that term is not necessarily worth it, like why? On top of that, whenever i fixed grammer on any pages, you'll keep reverting my pages by using the "Not an improvement" excuse. 50.219.108.51 ( talk) 13:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Linkin Park's fifth studio album has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 27 § Linkin Park's fifth studio album until a consensus is reached. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: ( talk, contribs) 17:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Sergecross. I'm writing you because I'm new here and I found myself in a pretty absurd situation. User: Binksternet had suspects of me being a sockpuppet, so he deleted all my edits. He opened a sockpuppet investigation which proved I'm not a sockpuppet, but even after that verdict, he's still insistently deleting my edits with the sockpuppet excuse (including the messages I wrote on his talk page asking him to stop)... What am I supposed to do in a situation like this?.... All weekend on the weeknd ( talk) 15:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, as I have updated my reply several times on my talk page, I thought I would post it in full here:
Hi, regarding Waiting on a War which is the one that is contested, I have checked out the source which is www.ultratop.be and it does seem to be pretty reliable on these and it is an official chart provider. I don't think they have just taken a screen snippet from a random website, although I cannot find either any websites where it could have been unofficially posted and taken from by ultratop.be or any news sources which would confirm it as official. Regarding Shame Shame which has not been contested and is also from ultratop.be, firstly, I remember this being posted to online news sources officially and as the first single from the album it is inline with the officially confirmed artwork for the second single from the album, No Son of Mine. However, what I can also tell you from watching the promotion of the latest Foo Fighters album, But Here We Are, is that some news websites did initially post artwork for the first two singles, Rescued and Under You, but then a couple of weeks later those websites had replaced the images with the album artwork. This may be a deliberate part of the marketing scheme to best promote the album. I think this is what happened with Shame Shame. The artworks that were posted for Rescued and Under You look like they were possibly taken from the lyric videos on Youtube but do actually look better quality than screen snippets and if taken from Youtube then they are supposed to accredit it to Youtube for Copyright fair use which they were not. This was before before they were replaced with the album artwork. They are still available on on some other websites: [3], [4] [5] [6]. For the third single, Show Me How, Virgin Radio did actually accredit the image to Youtube: [7] but for the second single Under You they did not: [8]. Also, if you look at these Google Search image results you will see that it appears that Goldmine Magazine have the single artwork for Rescued but when you click on the link and go to the webpage the image has been removed: [9]. QuintusPetillius ( talk) 20:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).
Hi, I notice you've been active on the talk page of this article over the years. Do you have any opinion one way or the other on whether this would still make a good TFA? On the downside, I notice that this tool is showing that a fair amount of unreferenced text has crept in. On the upside, there are six archive pages on the talk page, with lots of evidence of improvements over the years. - Dank ( push to talk) 19:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I noticed they created a Gravity Rush series page from scratch with only 148 edits with an undiscussed primary topic grab and page swap, not even making it with a disambiguation first. You also warned them about other problematic edits in the past. Their actions are very bold and seem sock-ish to me, I'm really not sure how such a new user would immediately jump to such indepth edits. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 11:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Regarding this, it appears as though the user that started the thread has been trolling and vandalizing, so I think you may have been right to consider a NOTHERE block. The Night Watch (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello - I have expanded this article and added 11 reliable sources. Please review your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isn't It Now?. Thanks! -- BRIAN 0918 16:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I've already reverted them and left a talk page message showing them examples of critical reception sections, but these two edits from an experienced editor [10] [11] really surprised me. I have basically never seen an editor think a future date needs to be removed from the released= parameter presumably because it hasn't happened yet. But even moreso, critical reception sections are everywhere. On articles for all forms of media. I must say I don't come across too many editors who think each quote from a publication needs to be put on a separate line or that somehow quotes are "separate topics"(?) Do you see these sorts of edits on video game articles? Ss 112 11:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
A user with 400 edits left a message on my talk page half an hour ago to say that I made "disruptive" edits to Religiously (song), which I last edited...four days ago. And they're asking me to explain myself [12]. An example of a disruptive edit, perhaps... I'm lost. Ss 112 03:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I found you salted this article name. Just a few minutes ago, I created the Scan Man redirect to the page The Kaze, a group that Scan Man and MC Mack are part of (and whose memberships in the group are noted in the article). Would you mind unprotecting it so that it can be redirected to The Kaze? I see that apparently a sockmaster previously tried to recreate a full article about this individual on multiple occasions, but given that he is discussed on the article of this notable group as a member, I do feel that it is a worthwhile redirect. Should problems arise with repeated attempts to reinstate the full article, feel free to protect it if you see fit. Thank you. JeffSpaceman ( talk) 19:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I reached out to you a few years ago when Blood & Stone was released to ask for help contributing to the article, as it kept getting redirected. As of right now, Sevendust's new album Truth Killer is still in Draft form, and I was wondering if you would like to help contribute to the article so that we can remove the redirect. My comfortability in editing is somewhat restricted to tracklisting and liner notes, so I wanted to reach out to other editors for help with the other areas of the article. Thanks in advance! Stellar420 ( talk) 04:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi Sergecross, I have a question regarding The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill. I had previously removed the co and additional producers, Che Pope and Vada Nobles in the infobox due to the template only calling for main producers. But user Blastmaster11 reverted it claiming that the lawsuit they had against her for not properly crediting them ended in their favor. But according to the Rolling Stone articles they only state it was settled out of court for a sum of $5 million. No where does it state they were granted writing/producing credits after the lawsuit was settled. I have tried explaining this to the user on their talk page but they are still determined to have them included despite not providing any sources actually stating this in any article. They provided an AllMusic review that does list additional production and producer for Vada Nobles and lists Che Pope only for programming. I do not believe this to be a "source" as it’s the only thing that seems to list them from what I can find. If I could please get your opinion on if they should be kept or removed I would very much appreciate it. Thank you. Pillowdelight ( talk) 22:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
If this is about me removing Bowsette from the see also page in the Mario character page, It's because she's not exactly an official character, and I just don't like her existence. She weirds me out. Sure, when I younger It did'nt bother me too much. But now, I wake up knowing that a dominatrix gender-bent Bowser fan character exists. Like, why??? It's like how Sonic fans search up sonic the hedgehog and are met with questionableart from DeviantArt. And I don't exactly see a problem with me replacing the Bowsette link with a Donkey Kong link in the See also page. iT'S NOT LIKE I deleted the entire Bowsette page. SuperWario64 ( talk) 02:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi Serge. I've just reverted the user Avalean again on Blackbox Life Recorder 21f / In a Room7 F760 for stylising titles. I left a message on their talk page asking them not to do this, and they took my not replying to them as the go-ahead to reinstate the stylisations. I'm not sure they get the concept of starting a discussion to gain consensus for changes, and they seem to think that I am obligated to reply to them. I've just reverted another user, D-ynamics, telling them the same thing—to start a discussion if they want to change the article and not reinstate the stylisations until/unless there is consensus per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. I'm not sure these users understand this and they think that because other Aphex Twin articles (that I didn't start) stylise titles that this should be too, but sources do not consistently use any one case of letter for the titles. Ss 112 18:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I see that you removed the article for Sonic! Software Planning and stated that it should not have an article because it is equivalent to the early years of Camelot. This statement is false.
Sonic was a separate entity from Camelot. Sonic was established in 1991 with funding from Sega, and Camelot was established in 1994 as an independent studio. Takahashi has stated that Camelot was founded so that he could develop games for platforms like the PlayStation. Sonic was a second-party Sega studio. The two studios operated separately.
Both studios did codevelop many games, but there are a large number of games that Sonic developed before the founding of Camelot that are not and cannot be credited to Camelot. It would be inaccurate to say that Camelot developed any of the games developed by Sonic prior to Camelot's founding in April 1994, and this constitutes a large volume of titles including Shining Force, Shining Force Gaiden, Shining Force Gaiden II, Shining Force II, Shining Force CD, and Shining Force Gaiden: Final Conflict.
After the establishment of Camelot, Sonic continued to be a separate studio with different stock investment and different staff. Camelot would support Sonic in the development of later Shining games, but Camelot as an independent studio would also develop games like Beyond the Beyond and Everybody's Golf for PlayStation, in which Sonic had no involvement. Their frequent collaboration does not make them a single entity.
Sonic did not become Camelot, and it cannot be said to be Camelot's predecessor.
Unfortunately, we do not have a source that states whether Sonic was eventually shut down or absorbed, but Sega's 1998 financial report shows that by March 1998 it was no longer a subsidiary. Shining Lore ( talk) 05:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi Serge. Do you think WP:ALTTRACKLIST is something that's important enough that users who have made edits citing it have a right to be reverting again over? I've seen users (not specifying whom or an incident in particular, as it's not relevant and I'm speaking generally) revert again if somebody has taken issue with them removing another track list as if it's an excuse to essentially edit war over or something users are even obligated to follow. Personally I wasn't convinced by the "consensus" that took place to make it a thing (anyone can see it was pushed by one user) and regardless of MOS:ALBUM being widely followed, at the end of the day it is still an essay on style, and neither a guideline or policy. Sure, I agree if an article lists 10 editions of an album that's too much but I think this is starting to be abused/applied for minor cases (listing a couple of bonus tracks) as if it's something we must follow. Thoughts? Ss 112 09:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).
Interface administrator changes
I think I've fallen victim to an IP editor troll. The one whose talk page I pinged you on earlier as they were on a disruptive revert spree on four articles I had edited, 197.87.63.202. They've previously been repeatedly warned for edit warring and disruptive editing on the same IP range— this is not the talk page history of somebody who's here to edit constructively. They said they would "happily admit they were wrong" if I gave them a reliable source that says certifications are not all sales and include shipments and streams. I did. They ignored that [13], and continued removing my queries to their incorrect/questionable edit summaries, and now they claim I've "ignored what the RIAA says" [14] and have called me a troll [15] despite their history for acting like one. I provided them with a source, they couldn't accept it and have continued on making inflammatory statements. This makes me think they're a troll more than anything else. What do you think? Block-worthy? In any case, I'm concerned they will resume edit warring later. Would you be willing to block them if that happens, considering I provided them with the proof they asked for, and their history/comments? Ss 112 11:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
There are rumors for a Sonic Heroes Remastered. Yet you revert it my edits. Just why? I'm not stating as fact. It's like lets say i dunno a movie and down there they said a sequel is on development. Whether you like it or not, you should've just kept it. But no, all you do is revert my edits just for the hell of it. 2601:196:4A01:D770:C67F:2E4:142F:7A19 ( talk) 21:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
I have nominated Chrono Cross for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. George Ho ( talk) 09:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Hey Serge first of all just wanna say thanks for the minor edits for the lists I have been working on and also I noticed many Midway titles from 1996-2009 the publisher is Midway Home Entertainment but the article list Midway Games instead. Midway Home Entertainment is the publishing division of Midway Games from 1996-2009 as mentioned here:
So I am thinking of changing any Midway title that the back of the box mentions as publisher and have them linked like this [[Midway Games#Publishing and distribution|Midway Home Entertainment]]
What do you think? NakhlaMan ( talk) 01:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi Serge,
I have been developing a project for electronic literature (WP:WELW) and I would like to develop a source list. Can I just create one for our project? How do you settle on criteria for sources? Who has to approve our source list?(For example, ILoveEPoetry is a blog by an expert in the field dedicated to electronic poetry).
Electronic literature has some overlap with video games. Some games are considered classic electronic lit (e.g., Rob Swigart's Portal). Some games like Zombies Run also incorporate story elements. LoveElectronicLiterature ( talk) 16:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)