User talk:DJ Kaito

July 2024

Please slow down with your entries on the cancelled video games list. I feel like every entry has some sort of combination of confusing wording, unreliable sources, wrong formatting, etc. I will (and have been) cleaning up your work but when you dump a bunch of sloppy entries at once it really brings down the quality of the article. Please stop.

As I've asked before, if you're short on time, or writing isn't your strong suit, please write up rough draft entries on the talk page first. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, for the short descriptions like Xavier Fox: The Lost City or Zombies, there is not much to write because there are not much articles with informations. at least ot what you consider Reliable sources. IGN, Gamespot, and the none english sources I use are all trustworthy sources I would say. I wonder why you would think otherwhise.

I look how others wrote the paragraphs and try to replicate the important informations out of the articles I could find. Many other entries in this list are also short. DJ Kaito (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:VG/S for a list of usable and unusable sources. IGN and Gamespot are great, but you've also added all sorts of random YouTube channels and obscure websites that generally are not. Being a non-English source is not the problem. The problem is whether or not they have professional writers, editorial standards, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 14:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And another problem is the writing. For example, 9 Worlds. There's misspelled words. There's fragmented sentences. I don't know what it's supposed to mean. It doesn't make sense. What does it mean to be "re-announced"? It doesn't explain what happened to the game. Entries like this are not ready to be added. Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With reannounced I mean the game was anounced in 2001 as it was stated in the polish article. The Gamespot article is from 2006 where they also annouced the game. I do not see any fragmented scentences. Instead of "An acion-adventure game, announced in 2001 for Xbox, Windows and PlayStation 2. It was reannounced in 2006 for PlayStation 2 and Xbox. Both times, it was planned to show the game at E3." Should I write "The game is an acion-adventure game. It was announced in 2001 for Xbox, Windows and PlayStation 2. The game was reannounced in 2006 for PlayStation 2 and Xbox. Both times, it was planned to show the game at the Electronic Entertainment Expo." so that you can understand the context? DJ Kaito (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what "reannounce" means, but I'm not sure it matters: I don't believe that 2006 date in the Gamespot article is correct. The Xbox 360 was launched in 2005, and they were very fast to drop support of the original Xbox. I have no idea why they would "re-announce" a game for a platform that was effectively abandoned a year prior. Do any other sources mention 2006 like this?

The typo is that it's spelled "action adventure".

"Both times, it was planned to show the game at E3" is awkwardly worded sentence. "Planned to show" is not normal phrasing. It's also a bit of an incomplete thought. Are you saying it was announced to be at E3 but wasn't shown"? Mentioning that it wasn't shown.

Thus is the sort of stuff I'm talking about. Every entry needs a re-evaluation of sorts, and you're creating a lot of extra work when you churn out 5-10 of these in a row... Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying it was announced to be at E3 but wasn't shown - yes that is exactly what I mean with that. It was the plan to show the game at E3 but there is no proove out there that they actually did made it to E3 - so it was "planned to show".

That with acTion i really overlooked, I am sorry there.

"reannounce" at wiktionary.org

I only can work with what I can see there with the dates, its weird but it is what it is. DJ Kaito (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what you meant, then say that. Say "The (developer/publisher/whoever) planned to show the game at E3, but it was not present" or something like that. Also, sometimes when websites revise/edit articles, they change the publish date. I fear that may have been the case, as companies were barely releasing original Xbox games in 2006, let alone announcing them. Unless you can find a source that specifically states "E3 2006" or "2006" in the actual article, I do t think your sourcing is strong enough to make the 2006 claim... Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources

Until you understand how Wikipedia identifies usable/reliable sources, please see WP:VG/S for a ton of examples of the sorts of sources that are commonly seen as usable and unusable. You can start discussions at WT:VG if you'd like to propose certain sources be added to the lists too. Please do this rather than continually re-adding them to articles. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 19:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]