Talk:Cyber Stadium Series—Base Wars

article reconstitution

I completely revamped the article, getting rid of all the very-too-much gameplay specifities and including in-line citations and reliable sources. I've left it at Stub-class because I don't have any reliable sources for development, reception, etc. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

screenshot?

Quickmythril (talk · contribs) requested a screenshot of this game be added, without any rationale as to its necessity. Does anybody else feel a screenshot is necessary in the article, as it stands? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This article doesn't mention the fighting in Base Wars

Base Wars may be classified as a baseball game, but its fighting mode is almost just as important as the baseball game play. I added a paragraph that explains how the fighting mechanics work in Base Wars.Derkill (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

When rebuilding the article, I didn't have any readily available reliable sources for the fighting aspect of the game. I'd planned to find some, but it rather fell by the wayside. I left your input in there, but tagged it as needing reliable secondary sourcing. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The article mentions that a game can be won with fighting alone, but a rules loophole I found years ago allows a player to win every game by just hitting every batter. Each HBP can remove up to a third of a bot's health. After 21 consecutive HBP the first three batters will be gone forcing the team on offense to forfeit; losing the game while leading 15-0. 205.142.232.18 (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

indiscriminateness

On 29 April 2022 at 12:19 UTC, 76.65.108.236 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added the categories Category:North America-exclusive video games and Category:Video games developed in Japan without an edit summary. The article doesn't currently have any sourced prose alleging the former (IAW WP:CATV), and the letter is already diffused into Category:Konami games. So I removed those categories 7.75 hours later, saying - location-release category IAW WP:V; - development-location category as already diffused into Category:Konami games;.

Thirty-five minutes later, the same IP-identified editor replaced the categories, saying, It is a North-American exclusive video game though. If you have an issue with a category, then remove that category. Don't revert an entire edit just because you don't like a part of it. They then reverted themselves nine minutes later saying, I'll give you the benefit about WP:V. You may however want to read WP:OWN as much of the edits on this page consist of you indiscriminately reverting contributions of others.

Without explanation, I'm assuming that this editor is concerned with the part of Wikipedia:Ownership of content that says, "In addition, you should not undo their edits without good reason." I thought I explained my reasons in the edit summary; if I didn't, I'm naturally receptive to a dissection of the same. As to editing indiscriminately, one definition thereof is "done at random or without careful judgment", which I further dispute given the wiki-linked and quoted edit summaries that accompanied my edits. If anybody can better elaborate on what the anonymous editor may've been trying to specify, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

When looking the page's history, I'm seeing a huge sense of ownership that the article must exactly be the way you want it with little regard to the contributions of others. When someone else is attempting to edit the page, the usual outcome is that they are either reverted outright or strongly corrected by you. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort which means that concessions should sometimes be made. This includes accepting edits that you may not like personally but acknowledging that they don't hurt the encyclopedia and can stay even if it is not how you would have wanted it to be. WP:DIFFUSE is a guideline, not a policy. Is it really the end of the world that Category:Video games developed in Japan is in the page? How many articles on Wikipedia have both the Category:Video games developed in Japan and Category:Konami games categories?

And what does "- location-release category IAW WP:V;" is even supposed to mean? If you're going to revert others, at least try to use common language with complete sentences that everyone can understand. Thank you 76.65.108.236 (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

When someone else is attempting to edit the page, the usual outcome is that they are either reverted outright or strongly corrected by you. In late June 2020, I provided 100% reliable sourcing to the article, and have kept it on my watchlist. In that time, eight registered editors and two IP-identified contributors have changed the page, only three edits of which (all by unregistered users) have I reverted for reasons clearly explained in edit summaries. None of that seems to run in contravention to anything at Wikipedia:Ownership of content.

And what does '- location-release category IAW WP:V;' is even supposed to mean? That first character is the hyphen-minus, used to indicate removal or subtraction; i.e. I removed that which is being followed by the symbol. "[L]ocation-release category" refers to Category:North America-exclusive video games, which was categorization of the video game by location of release. "IAW" is a common abbreviation for "in accordance with". "WP:V" is a shortcut on the English Wikipedia that leads and links to Wikipedia:Verifiability, a policy on this wiki. Regarding your request for common language with complete sentences that everyone can understand, you're possibly only the second user (granting that you could, actually, be the same) to ask for clarification of my edit summaries, and I don't find that compelling enough to modify my SOP. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)