User talk:Clyde Miller/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Clyde Miller. 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Topics
- PR work
- Supreme Commander
- TimeSplitters 2
- 1080° Snowboarding
Priorities
Just a few questions on the priorities. First of all, would you consider that Starcraft is Top-priority, being one of the first RTS games? Second, should Age of Empires be Top-priority, being the first historical RTS? Third, should the first game of a series determine the priority of the next? (for example, just because Civilization is Top-priority, should Civilization IV be Top too?) Thanks! · AO Talk 12:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well...
- Defining articles of the strategy genre should be top (strategy game, risk, starcraft).
- Important games (spawned a series, changed the genre, added to gameplay) should be high.
- Unless a sequel or game does something awesome (like Dune 2, which defined the genre and should be top or high) a sequel in a series or varation on game should be mid (like Chess variant).
- Rules about games, expansion packs or obscure varations not worth mid should be low.
- What do you think?--Clyde (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, games like Civilization, Age of Empires, Starcraft etc. should be Top-priority, no matter what (let's not even begin to mention Risk, Chess, and Go). However, I personally don't consider Civilization III (for example) to be Top, but since it's part of a "Top series", I'm not sure. Should we judge on a game by game basis, or by series? For example, Shogun Total War is probably High, but I'd say Rome Total War is Top; should all Total War articles be Top, or just Rome, and the rest High? That's what I think you have more experience with.
- I agree that expansion packs should be low (I think I had The Warchiefs as Mid, I'll check...) · AO Talk 19:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- As to the Total War series, I think it should be as you said. Be careful of how much you rate top and high though. According to the index of all the ratings, the ratios of top:high:mid:low is 6:15:47:68 or about 1:3:8:11. hmmm... I need to think about this, because we need to adjust our system a little. It's going to end up being 1:2:1:1 or something like that--Clyde (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll remove the "not-too-important" sequels; that should bring your ratio back to normal (or a little at least). I'm also taking a look at all the unassessed articles; if all of those were categorized, we'd have a ratio of 1:1:2:100. I don't even recongize the titles on these games! · AO Talk 20:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- That a bit better? I assessed a few lower-priority games; still plenty more, so don't worry about the ratio. · AO Talk 20:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Still about 1000 unassessed articles... · AO Talk 23:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
For your help bringing Eragon (video game) up to GA. Having played the demo for fifteen minutes, I think it's probably the worst game to be the subject of a good article. UnaLaguna 05:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
RE: Question
Hey Jim I have a bunch of assessing to do for a wikiproject I'm a part of, and I just noticed Ikiroid (a friend of mine) made an alternate account. Am I allowed to make one for assessing articles and the like?--Clyde (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Let me direct you to WP:SOCK. To sum it up, it is okay to have multiple accounts, but it's generally discouraged, due to the abuses possible with them. Go ahead and make that second account if you want, but I'd make sure it's clear from the start that you run both. JimmyBlackwing 18:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
GR promoted to FA
I don't know whether you've looked at Gwoyeu Romatzyh recently, but it was promoted to FA earlier today. Many thanks indeed for your thoughtful comments on the article, which have helped us bring it up to FA standard. All the best, --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Clyde Miller.
WikiProject Strategy games finished it's first collaboration on Risk (game). We have voted for possible candidates for the next collaboration, and three finalists have been selected:
If possible, please vote here on which of these articles to collaborate on. Thank you.
- Well, I don't think I have to tell you I gave them all out (I even gave one to myself, not sure why though). :-) Anyways, AoE I is in the lead, followed by II, and Stronghold has none. · AO Talk 15:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Clyde, your 'bot added a message to my talk page. Please see reply I put there on the assumption that you were watching my page. Let me know if I should remain in the shadows or just disappear. — SWWrightTalk 20:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm, looks like you are using a 'bot of some sort, Clyde. Nevertheless, I will assume that you are watching my page, since you left a comment here; so I will reply here. If I don't hear anything from you within a few days, I will
copy my remarks tostick a tickler in your user page. By the way, you have a really cool user-box setup. I would like to copy it. I am guessing that's OK, since everything here seems to be more-or-less community property. - I joined WikiProject Strategy Games when I found that a new article about Quantum Tic Tac Toe, was claimed by the Project. I had been planning to write such an article, but my interpretation of the conflict of interest policy forbade me to do so; fortunately, someone else created a stub to work from. I joined Strategy Games before I understood what the Project was about, and have not contributed so far. Perhaps I should absent myself from the Project.
- My involvement with Wikipedia so far has consisted of preparing a draft of the QT3 article, copyediting where I saw something I could quickly fix, and adding a few references to some physic-related articles. And learning how to work with SVG, using the flimsy excuse that it is the preferred graphic format for Wikipedia. Amazing, the amount of time one can
wasteuse up, learning how to make effective graphics with SVG. - — SWWrightTalk 00:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- No I didn't use a bot to deliver these. All were done by hand. As to the watchlist, I removed many of the people on there as to not have a bloated watchlist. Wikiproject strategy games is really, by it's very nature, informal and autonomous. Whether or not you would like to leave is your choice (you are not the first), but know you are always welcome to come to our talk page or rejoin. If you do decide to stay, I'll shamelessly advertise for you to vote for our collaboration, or just do your own thing with QT3 and SVG.
- The userbox setup I have was made by Master of Puppets, who is currently on break. You are welcome to copy it (I say so on my page) but I won't really be able to help you that much with formatting. If you do have a question, I'll do my best to help, but I would reccomend emailing MoP for more complicated issues.--Clyde (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying! Yes, I can see that watching everybody in the Wikiproject would make your list watchlist unmanageable -- I just hadn't thought it through. Think I will lurk, and maybe contribute in small ways, while I'm working on my primary project (Quantum Tic Tac Toe). — SWWrightTalk 23:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 14 | 2 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
ee mobile
It really should be merged into ee1 article.. the problem is there isn't a huge amount of things to be said about it as it's a very small game.--The Negotiator 15:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- You can go ahead and remerge it, I don't care that much. The only reason I split the article in the first place was because the infobox was bleeding into the references (at least on explorer firefox and opera), and was misleading and bulky.--Clyde (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- probably because there isn't enough content for ee mobile, so heighwize the infobox is larger.--The Negotiator 23:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Still doesn't solve our problem though...--Clyde (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- probably because there isn't enough content for ee mobile, so heighwize the infobox is larger.--The Negotiator 23:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Peer review
Since you helped in my Zelda:LTTP PR, I'd like to hear your opinion on m~y Metroid Prime one. igordebraga ≠ 17:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 15 | 9 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Supreme Commander Cleanup Request
Clyde,
I have been reading a lot of your edits within the scope of the VG project, and just now I saw the 'cleanup taskforce member' tag on your userspace. While I do not really believe in creating subpages and all of the other cleanup formalities, I was wondering if you could aid me by cleaning up the Supreme Commander article.
The current state of the article is some unsourced game guide information plus well-referenced sections on Factions and Reception. The unsourced game guide stuff dates from February 2007, and has been moved around a bit to make sensible sections. Factions has been heavily edited by many people, with lots of copy edits. Reception is largely my work.
Recently editing has stagnated, with mostly copy-edits and reverts for the last couple of weeks. I had been wondering what to edit now, and a run with a vacuum cleaner by a good editor seems like a good solution.
Regards,
User:Krator (t c) 22:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
PS: To avoid confusion later, I read the message on top of this page, and will await a response on my own talk page, or Supreme Commander's.
- I starting doing some cleanup work, and I wanted your opinion on two things:
- Can I get rid of the cquotes? I don't see the rationale for keeping them, and they make the recpetion section seem a little awkward.
- What are your thoughts on me making an article called "Nations in Supreme Commander", or cutting back on the nations section? If I made a seperate article, the part left in SupCom would probably look like this
- Oh and you uploaded the pic in the article without a source.--Clyde (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- One more thing. I know you have some sort of beef against plot and story headings (I think), but what are your thoughts on the current names? Should it be changed, moved around, left the same? I don't know.--Clyde (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- With the lack of images (quite hard for this section - the E3 stand would probably do, I'll see if I can get one of those), I found cquotes a good replacement to make the section something beyond just some paragraphs. Keep them for now please, I'll look into the image.
- An article called Factions in Supreme Commander would be great. Your summary of the current section(s) is awesome.
- Plot and such are good at the moment - could do with less template messages. I'll try to write up something on the setting (time period, tech, etc) myself.
- --User:Krator (t c) 22:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Okay I made the new article and shortened the factions section. The only reason I wanted to get rid of the cquotes was to add a wikitable that had a bunch of scores, thought that might be helpful. On the image side of things, I think an in-game screenshot would be good. Do you own the game? perhaps you could use printscreen to get one. Otherwise I could find one from the wonderful world of cyberspace.--Clyde (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
its a red link..
Do you know what happened to Game Ratio's article? FMF|contact 17:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well according to the log Soumyasch deleted it as an ad and not asserting notability. I guess I'd ask him for the text so you can rewrite it, maybe with more citations so it asserts notabilty.--Clyde (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for all your work reviewing R&C3 it's been loads of help and I'm going to put it up for FAC and see how it fares. Keep up the good work. =) Crimsonfox 18:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 16 | 16 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
FAC notification
I have submitted System Shock to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Here is a direct link to the nomination page. JimmyBlackwing 00:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Your question
I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand what you mean by the question you asked on my RfA. Do you mean Rouge as in Category:Rouge admins, an admin that has gone bad, or both? · AO Talk 20:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- My question was refering to Category:Rouge admins, and was written as sort of a paritally related follow-up to the IAR question.--Clyde (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for explaining. I'll answer it shortly. · AO Talk 20:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Done. · AO Talk 21:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 17 | 23 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Re:SupCom
Yo I noticed that the reception section in SupCom seems to be your baby, but the references in the gameplay section are lacking. An old and widely used trick I've found is to use the description of the game from reviews as refs for parts in gameplay. Basically find a sentence that asserts a fact, and ref it. I could do this, but the time it would take me to orient myself with each reference and find the potential citations would probably take a lot longer than it would for you. Just a suggestion if this is going for GA or beyond.--Clyde (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll work on it. --User:Krator (t c) 11:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
RFA thanks
|
Thank you, Clyde Miller, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course. |
|
Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 18 | 30 April 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: Have fun
Have fun with your new tools.--Clyde (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll try. :) · AndonicO Talk 10:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 19 | 7 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Copy-editing
you should make a template like urgent FACs or FARs except copyediting requests. Maybe article name, status, and reason. Seems like you are getting legit spam from people who need help (I was a lucky one), but you are getting a huge talk page from a bunch of "help me please"'s. Just an idea.--Clyde (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah. My main goal right now is to get every article within the Final Fantasy WikiProject to at least GA status, and we've been making a lot of progress. Copy-editing has been put on the backburner, for sure. People can contact the League of Copyeditors though. — Deckiller 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think if people contact you directly they believe they will get a better response rather than going to the LoCE. The requests for copyediting go back as far as January, I myself having a request going back to March. This could be easily frustrating combined with the fact that the VG peer review has severely slowed down, and the peer review has a backlog has like nothing I've ever seen. You do your thing, but I only wish you could clone yourself a hundred times. BTW, what happened to the third user you adopted? Maybe left?--Clyde (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. Is there any good Final Fantasy or RPG game not on a Sony system?
- P.P.S. You might want to put a sign that says no copyediting right now.
- For good non-Sony system RPGs, you might want to try Chrono Trigger, Tales of Symphonia, or Fire Emblem games. — Deckiller 19:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Timesplitters 2
I reverted the edit due to the removal of the "trivia" section. I figured it probably shouldn't have been deleted, but sorry if I messed up. Omega ArchdoomTalk 04:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, the apologies are all over here. I'm not editing on my normal computer, so I missed that the trivia section was removed. However, the user did do several other things within that edit and reverting them all was perhaps a little quick. I'm gonna restore the trivia, let the guy know what "integrating" means, and suggestion that he use edit summaries more.--Clyde (talk) 04:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- No problems, everyone misses things. =) Omega ArchdoomTalk 04:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
TimeSplitters 2 Peer Review
Hey about your edit when you removed the trivia section, I think it would be better to keep that in there until you can integrate it into proper sections of the article. Also I'd recommend using edit summaries from now on (the box at the bottom) so people know what you're doing and why. Finally, you might want to add something to your userpage since it makes your name a red link when nothing is there.--Clyde (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's funny you should mention Perfect Dark since that was the game I had been basing all my edits to the article on.
- Do you think I cleaned up the external links section enough? I deleted the few fansites and fixed the GameFAQs link.
- I'm a little new to this. PP means paraphrasing right? Is the publication box the box that has all the review scores on it? The reason that was so short was because the Reception section was short and it wouldn't look good to have a really long Reception box next a small paragraph of Reception. I'll add more reviews to it (not now because I'm too tired).
- About the story. I'm not sure how I could add more to the story since there's not much story to the game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wi Account ki (talk • contribs) 06:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
- PP means paragraph, and I reccommend that the reception be expanded. Perfect Dark has some more critical opinions, and more quotes about what they really liked or didn't like. If the text is expanded, I think the publication box should be expanded too (it has no name, I made one up, but yes it's the box with all the scores). I think the external links are good, but if you use the IGN review in the reception section, I would say leave it out of the external links. I'd also say to add "expand reception" onto your nifty list.--Clyde (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 20 | 14 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
re: Request (for later)
Hey when you're back editing, I have a request, but have a good break.--Clyde (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Clyde,
- Although I'm technically taking a break from editing, I do have some free time on my hands, so feel free to make your request, and I'll try and help in any way I can. Cheers, Green451 17:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh well if you have a chance I was working on 1080° Snowboarding, and I'm thinking I'll go for FA with it. However, there is not that much out about an 8 year old N64 sports game. I was hoping you could go over it for copyediting purposes or content (whatever you're feeling), since there hasn't been a fresh pair of eyes on it since Pagrashtak at the PR, and he's now caught up in his own FAC. If you have a chance, any help would be greatly appreciated.--Clyde (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've provided a list of comments (to start) on the article's talk page. Hope they help, Green451 03:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Are we good to go to FAC, or do you still see some problems and want to copyedit more?--Clyde (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've just got one or two more sections to copyedit, which I'm starting right now. Then, it'll be ready. I'll let you know when I'm done. Green451 01:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- No rush dude, I just wasn't sure what was going down. Whenever you get time.--Clyde (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- There we go, I've finished my copyediting. There's just one more question I have, and I've put it on the talk page with the rest of my comments. Green451 02:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Let's see what happens. Thanks for all your help, by the way.--Clyde (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- There we go, I've finished my copyediting. There's just one more question I have, and I've put it on the talk page with the rest of my comments. Green451 02:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- No rush dude, I just wasn't sure what was going down. Whenever you get time.--Clyde (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've just got one or two more sections to copyedit, which I'm starting right now. Then, it'll be ready. I'll let you know when I'm done. Green451 01:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Are we good to go to FAC, or do you still see some problems and want to copyedit more?--Clyde (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
RE Comment
Dude have you quit? Just because your first FAC failed doesn't mean you should give up. It took me two FACs and lots of work to get an article up to FA. If you're still up for it, I'll help you, but now is not the time to give up. C'mon you're so close.--Clyde (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't quit, I just haven't had the time recently due to upcoming exams and such. I'll be able to carry it on soon enough though, but thank you for the words of encouragement. ^-^ Crimsonfox 23:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's good to know. I was just worried because I've seen so many people dissatisfied with the brutal FAC process that they leave. Well if you need help future, let me know.--Clyde (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 21 | 21 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: Question
Hey Jim you finished with System Shock FAC a while ago and I was wondering if you saw this pattern. Did you notice that on the FAC people will go through many articles, make tons of comments to them, then never follow up? This happened three or so times so far for with me so far, and it is slightly frustrating. Did this happen to you, and is this normal?--Clyde (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah. It happens all the time, actually. If you want a follow-up response from most people, the only way is messaging them on their talk pages, and sometimes even that fails to work. So far, this has happened on all three FACs for articles I've been involved with—User:Fieari on Megatokyo's, who I even messaged; several users on Halo: Combat Evolved; and, as you saw, User:MacGyverMagic (who happens to be a well-respected Wikipedian with more than 30,000 edits) on System Shock. I've seen it tons of times on other nominations, too. Not just there, though—it's on everything from talk page discussions to RfCs. It isn't just a common annoyance; it's practically an epidemic. They should really make more solid guidelines about it, but what can you do? I usually just fire off a message on their talk page, unless I don't want to pull them back into the discussion, since they brought up a point that I didn't think was necessary to debate (like in the System Shock nomination).
- I noticed User:Tony1 did it to you on your 1080° Snowboarding nomination, but he often does. Thankfully, he almost always responds when you notify him. As to the question you asked, though, I wouldn't recommend the League to anyone. While they eventually managed to respond to my request for copyediting F.E.A.R., they weren't very thorough. And I still haven't gotten a response for System Shock... almost a month after I requested. They seem to use a fairly broken system, in which articles on less popular topics are snubbed in favor of more recognizable ones. Even recognizable topics have to wait for some time, though. I got lucky finding someone else to copyedit SS at the last minute, so as annoying as that might be, I'd recommend that over the LoCE any day. I can't think of anyone to recommend to you, though, because the guy I asked isn't even normally a copyeditor—he's just a good writer who was willing to help me. I'd help you out, but my copyediting ability is limited at best, and my past self-copyedited FACs have not been able to satisfy Tony1's high standards. Good luck, though. JimmyBlackwing 04:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah I don't Zeality well enough to randomly ask him. I'll have to think...--Clyde (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
2 cols (Empire Earh)
Yo Gig, why two columns? [1] There's only 24 references, and at the time that made the references overlap and become and unreadable. I also was in a discussion on some TMNT game and one of the involved parties mentioned that two columns can mess up on certain browsers. Just thought you might want to keep that in mind. However I don't know if consensus was reached about it, so I'd guess it's at the user's discretion.--Clyde (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, I didn't preview that edit, so I didn't notice the problem with that. Generally, I find it easier to have 2 cols when there are more then 20 refs (that's just my opinion). Thanks for mentioning this, I'll be sure to check it up next time. G1ggy! 23:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)