User talk:Punkalyptic/Archive 1

Blanking
You do not need to blank pages to highlight a need. If there's an article there, create it. To continue to blank pages is disruptive and could jeopardize your editing privilege.  Tide  rolls  01:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. I didn't realize you had reverted the edits in that particular page, apologies. I was about to open a talk section for the need of an article creation. You did not give me any time to finish what I started. Anyway, apologies again, did not mean to cause disruption. Punkalyptic (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand completely. Create the article first, then worry about the redirects. Cart before the horse, etc.  Tide  rolls  01:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, sir! By the way, since you are the first person to kindly step into my quarters and break the deadlock, I hereby offer thee my hospitality; wine, a cigar perhaps.. sorry, got no emblem :p Punkalyptic (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Morning277 (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made quite a few of corrections and additions, always backed with references and in no way my work had any vandalistic intention. I will talk this through with you on your page to remedy the problem, if there is any. Thanks Punkalyptic (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Wild Arms series
I removed it due to the reasoning in WP:NAV: There shouldn't be a red/non/section/dupe link in a navbox, because navboxes are for navigating to unique articles. I have no objection beyond that, so if you or another manage to split the article and have that article pass WP:N, then feel free to readd.

As for "I cannot even begin to name vg template examples where the same has been done.", no, you probably can't find many, if any. :^) And I will just as quickly remove those links too, due to the reasoning presented in WP:NAV.

On a side note, if you are going to add things in parentheses like that, please add them as a sublist, i.e., which renders (when the  CSS class is applied) as 1 &middot; (1.1) &middot; 2 (2.1 (2.1.1) &middot; 2.2) . That's more correct from the list point of view. --Izno (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1
 * 1.1
 * 2
 * 2.1
 * 2.1.1
 * 2.2


 * It would be appreciated if you read the essay at WP:NAV. It explains why anchor links (among others) aren't useful to the reader, and can create an inconsistent user (reader) experience. Remember, navboxes are for navigation, not for listing each and every variant of every game ever.
 * Almost every game you've seen in parentheses, and this point I was not disputing, has its own article. Feel free to dig, but you're probably going to find at most fifty templates of approximately one thousand which do have anchor links (~5%). And I actually know, because I think I've edited just about all one thousand of them in the near past. Most of those anchor links, again, I would remove, because that's not helpful nor consistent to the average reader. The behavior of the template itself with an anchor link is inconsistent, and the behavior of the page (being zoomed to a section) is inconsistent, among other things.
 * It's not a typicality. It's a reasoned response to navboxes having been overstuffed with low value links. The information itself may have value (and I won't dispute that it does or doesn't), potentially enough for its own topic (as in, having its own page). It's just an anchor link has far less value and usability than a primary link. Please read WP:NAV for a bit more information on why I say what I say.
 * Lastly, if an article gets split out, I won't say a word. I might oppose the splitting, say, on WP:N grounds, but beyond that, I think NAV is persuasive in its arguments that those types of links should be avoided. --Izno (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I found in my edits of the various nav templates that "we good editors of video gaming" are really bad ones when it comes to inclusion or exclusion of a link. And, to take your argument to a somewhat untenable position, where's the line that we draw in the sand about what kind of game or its original source? I know of hundreds of articles that could be in the navbox, and which aren't even remakes, but actually new games (a number of Command & Conquer expansions come to mind). But I don't think those should be included any more than this one, because we have redirects and categories to deal with those games which don't have their own articles. /shrug
 * That said, WP:NAV is only an essay. It's good advice rather than a guideline or a policy. Do what you want. But that doesn't mean I won't disagree with you, and we wouldn't want to war over it. --Izno (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

For video game directors use "director", not "designer"
And don't capitalize random words, such as "open" in "Action-adventure, Open world". --Niemti (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)