Jump to content

User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 99

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95←Archive 97Archive 98Archive 99Archive 100Archive 101→Archive 105

Sonic The Hedgehog series sales

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)

1) Complex is a terrible source, and doesn't attribute where they got a figure from. 2) VentureBeat is unquestionably reliable, and says directly that Sega announced the 360 million figure, and *also* state that Sega had announced 350 million the year prior. That further calls into question Complex's figure. -- ferret (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
It might be good to discuss this one on the Sonic talk pages. There's been some past confusion on Sega's statements and figures on sales. I think sometimes they've factored in free downloads of mobile games or something. Sergecross73 msg me 14:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Is Google Groups a Reliable Source?

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)

Hi there! Google Groups is basically a message board/forum. So it can't be considered a usable source on Wikipedia - it fails WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 01:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
What are usable sources that are accepted? Not wiki sites, right? Vecchiom (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
WP:VG/S has an extensive list of examples of sources that are usable and not usable. I'd use that until you start to learn how to identify them on your own.
Side note: It can often be difficult to find exact dates of games in the 1980/1990s. Even for popular games like Super Mario Bros are hard to pinpoint sometimes. So sometimes dates are left vague because it's literally not known for certain. Sergecross73 msg me 01:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Terms and Grammers

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)

Everything needs a reliable source that verifies the statement. You can't just say "fans liked it" without attribution. So, for example, if you want to add something like that, you'd want to do something like:
IGN noted that the fan reception of the game was more positive than critics. Source: www.ign.com/sonic-fans-like-frontiers
Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Im not saying "fans like it" on Wikipedia. And besides, i'm fixing grammer on Wikipedia to make it more fixable and there's no Wikipedia rule saying words "however or despite this" aren't allowed. You don't like when i put that term "However" that"s all because you think it"s not worth it. 2601:196:4A01:D770:E57C:F002:BC41:A4B3 (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Link to the specific edits so I know what you're referring to. Go through the WP:PAGEHISTORY and provide a WP:DIF. Sergecross73 msg me 02:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
What page am i referring to? Cause that's literally on how to use Wikipedia. And besides, you can't revert the term "However" on Wikipedia on my Sonic Frontiers page. 2601:196:4A01:D770:E57C:F002:BC41:A4B3 (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
If you're using different IP addresses, it's helpful to mention specific edits. This is a diff. And you're in the wrong there, by using the word "however" you're suggesting there's some correlation between critical reception and fan reception. There isn't. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 04:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I dug through the page history to see that you're still hung up on some minor wording edits from like February? Looks like multiple editors agreed with me that your addition of the word "however" was awkward. It's as simple as that. There's no rule that says you can't use the word "however" or whatever, you simply used it it in a way that people felt wasn't done very well. Pretty simple. Please drop it and move on to something else more constructive. Sergecross73 msg me 10:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

"Linkin Park's fifth studio album" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Sockpuppet

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)

Well, he shouldn't be reverting you strictly on block evasion until if/when he has enough proof of it, but if we're talking about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giubbotto non ortodosso I'm having a hard time understanding the exact conclusion being made there so far. Either way, Chris Brown related-articles have a real problem with the fanbase coming to his defense and writing more from a fan's (overly positive) perspective rather than a neutral one, so you may want to be aware that you're editing in an area of increase scrutiny. May be good to find some other interests on Wikipedia so you don't get lumped in with all that, which you're on track to whether you're truly connected or not.... Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Heh. You're really misreading that sockpuppet investigation. I'd say a block is soon to arrive and it just hasn't finished being processed. -- ferret (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Foo Fighters images

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)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

added Novem Linguae
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The Smashing Pumpkins

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)

Hi there. Yeah, most of the editors who got it up to FA status long ago have long left, though I've maintained it relatively well over the course of the last 10-15 years, so I feel like it wouldn't take too much to get it back into proper shape. I'm happy to work through things if you want to discuss your concerns/proposed improvements on the article talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Will do. - Dank (push to talk) 23:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm pausing this project for now, but I hope to get back to it soon. - Dank (push to talk) 18:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
No worries, take your time. I want to help, but I've got a couple of other projects I’m working on right now too. Sergecross73 msg me 14:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Concern over One-Winged Devil

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)

Problematic page creation to be sure but "new user"? This is a two year old account. -- ferret (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I was more talking about the edit count being pretty small, but I see your point. Technically they aren't new. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I get it, their proposed edits at the generation article were frustrating because they were repeatedly not appropriate or ill-conceived...but it did appear to be in good faith. Without anything more concrete, I can't really do any sort of DUCK block for socking either.
I can't really do anything yet. I think it'd be best to just go through the usual WP:BRD consensus building process, and give him warnings on anything necessary on his talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

User:XxColgeraIsCoolioxX

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)

Looks like someone else did it first. Sergecross73 msg me 23:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

AFD Discussion for Isn't It Now?

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! --BRIAN0918 16:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads up. I don't believe those sources existed yet at the time of my last search. Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Experienced editor removing future release date from infobox and separating each quote on a new line

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? Ss112 11:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Weird, I've never seen that interpretation anywhere either. I've asked them nicely to stop and only continue if a new consensus is created. Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I make disruptive edits, apparently

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. Ss112 03:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Skimming through some of their edits, I think it's just a newbie struggling to get up to speed a bit. Sergecross73 msg me 11:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

MC Mack

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)

Done! Sergecross73 msg me 19:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Truth Killer

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)

Yes, I can help. Not sure how much time I'll have today, but if not today, tomorrow. Sergecross73 msg me 13:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 Done, Stellar420. It's not amazing or anything, but it should be good enough to keep anyone from deleting it. There's a lot more that could be pulled from this Heavy source, but I'll leave that to someone else. Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks so much!! Stellar420 (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Co & additional producers

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)

Because you both seem to be acting in good faith, and without a prior consensus as far as I could see, here's what I'd recommend:
  1. Start up a discussion on the album talk page. (Pretty much what you just wrote to me but repurposed to be talking to anyone's who's reading it.)
  2. Neutrally notify some Wikiprojects. (For example, go to WT:ALBUMS and start a new discussion that says "We have a dispute over album credits, please comment there. Thank you."
  3. See if a consensus develops.
  4. If it does, and anyone acts against consensus, then action will be taken against them.
Lets see if that works. If it doesn't, I could look into it and give my stance. But if I do that, Id be unable to help you as an admin in the dispute anymore. Sergecross73 msg me 01:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Will do. Thank you so much. Pillowdelight (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Bowsette just doesn't belong there.

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)

Yes, it's about you repeatedly removing content without explanation. And your explanation isn't helping now either. You can't just delete things because you personally don't like them, or they "weird you out". And the entry made it very clear that Bowsette was not an official character. She was not part of the list, she was just a footnote at the bottom of the article in the "see also" section. There's nothing wrong with that. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Users disregarding WP:BRD and restoring stylisations

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. Ss112 18:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Sonic! Software Planning is a separate entity from Camelot

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)

Regardless, they're closely tied to each other, and your article was largely unsourced. It was not ready to be published. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Citing WP:ALTTRACKLIST as a reason to revert again

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? Ss112 09:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

In the most technical sense, if its part of the MOS, it should probably be followed unless/until a newer/better consensus arises. As far as my personal stance goes, I'm indifferent. In my creations, I generally just add whatever track list information I know of off-hand, and then let others add/remove. As long as the information isn't outright wrong, I'm just not that invested in all of that. Sorry, probably not the answer you were looking for, though at least you know that if you tried to change the consensus, I wouldn't be arguing against you. Sergecross73 msg me 17:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

added Firefangledfeathers
removed

Interface administrator changes

added Novem Linguae

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Tricked by a troll?

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? Ss112 11:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Another admin, ScottishFinnishRadish, has now 3-month blocked this range based on Ss112's request at WP:AIV. SilverLocust 💬 11:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Still convinced they were a troll, and they are certainly no stranger to disruptive edit warring: [16]. Just last week restoring a sockpuppet notice to the talk page of an editor who removed content from an article in 2020. And one of the articles they reverted me on they have previously caused to be fully protected before: [17]. They seem to be fixated on that article in particular. Ss112 14:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
@Ss112: I was just letting Sergecross73 know that someone else took care of the situation. (I am content with the explanation for the rangeblock.) SilverLocust 💬 15:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
No worries, I appreciate the heads up! Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Apologies, I had just woke up as this was happening, and was bombarded with at least 3 separate requests through the talk page and pings. I didn't dive into this one right away because it seemed to be lengthy and heated.
I don't oppose SFR's decision, but Ss112, I do think you need to be more careful in situations like this. Honestly, it's a bit hard for me to tell if this person was "acting in bad faith", or "abrasive but acting in good faith". And I'm not alone - at this point it looked like your request was going to be denied while editors noting you were edit warring. I feel like it was close to going south for you there.
I've said it before and I'll likely say it again - right or wrong, there's no reason for you to come on so aggressively on things like this. We're not talking about BLP issues or heated social/political issues, you're just talking about music statistics. It did not need to be so urgent or heated. Is it frustrating when people remove talk page messages without really addressing things? Of course. But that's when you start a discussion on a talk page they can't delete, like a WikiProject or one of the talk pages from where the dispute arose.
I know you don't like hearing stuff like this, but I've seen it happen to too many other good editors, where they get into these heated dispute, get observed/reported to the wrong admin, and get themselves into a world of trouble. I don't want you following that same unfortunate path. Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Serge, I'm not arguing with your point, but the editor claimed their only reason for reverting me was my apparent lack of a source for what I was saying, and said they would admit they were wrong when I provided one. I provided them with one, and they continued on removing my talk page messages with different inflammatory remarks. That's why I think they were acting in bad faith (didn't stick to what they said they would do), being a troll, and am glad they were blocked. I don't see how you can think somebody who repeatedly blanks talk page messages with the edit summaries "Stick it up your arse", "GFY, LOL", "F*** off" (their censorship, not mine), "Fcuk off" (multiple instances), "Fuvk off", and edit wars over bots signing their talk page messages could possibly be acting in "good faith". That's not the behaviour of a good faith editor. Call me naive, but I believed any decent admin wouldn't block me for reverting disruption from somebody who acts like that. Ss112 03:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm glad you have confidence in our Admins. I have confidence in most myself. But I do not have confidence in the ANI populace - that's the whole reason I've created my own "mini-ANI" system on my talk page - because I fear many would not report issues at all if their only option was ANI. If your request at AIV was declined like it almost was, ANI could have been a next step, and I don't know how that would have gone. "The editor was acting like an ass" isn't exactly a 3RRNO bullet point. To each their own though. Some say I'm too careful sometimes, but I feel my cautiousness is part of the reason why I'm still in good standing as an editor/admin for the last 10-15 years. Sergecross73 msg me 16:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Sonic Heroes Remaster

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)

Your edit literally said A remastered version is currently in development. How is that not stating a rumor as fact? What part of that was supposed to convey it was a rumor? Sergecross73 msg me 21:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
It was rumored at the Sonic Central 2023 event that a Sonic Heroes Remastered maybe in development. Im telling the truth. 2601:196:4A01:D770:C67F:2E4:142F:7A19 (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Your edit literally, objectively, didn't give the proper context. At no point did you explain it's an unverified rumor. And even ignoring that, we don't add any content to Wikipedia without a source, let alone random rumors. Unless a reputable source reports on it, it doesn't belong in the article. Unless the likes of IGN or Eurogamer report on it, fansite and social media speculation and rumormongering needs to stay on fansites and social media. Sergecross73 msg me 01:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Chrono Cross under Featured Article Review

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)

I can do some source hunting or something if someone needs it, but I'm not particularly interested in spearheading this. It's already in better shape than 99% of game articles out there. I'd rather work on more productive things than make sure an article keeps its little icon in the corner. Sergecross73 msg me 15:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Change all Midway Games published titles from 1996-2009 to Midway Home Entertainment

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:

  • It was renamed Williams Entertainment, Inc., which in turn became Midway Home Entertainment in 1996. The Texas and San Diego offices were consolidated in 2001. Midway Home Entertainment published and marketed all Midway video games made for home consoles.

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)

I have no problem with that. I made it a bit easier for you too, I changed the redirect so you can just type use Midway Home Entertainment by itself and it takes you straight to Midway Games#Publishing and distribution now. Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Advice on creating a source list for electronic literature?

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)

Hello! I'm happy to help. First off, before I say too much, I want to make sure I understand what you're going for. Is it something like WP:RSMUSIC or WP:VG/S, where you're making a list of sources that are generally deemed usable (or unusable) for use as sources on Wikipedia in the Wikiproject's content area? Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergecross73/Archive_99&oldid=1173915496"