User talk:Red Phoenix/Archive 2

Great to see you!
It has been five years, my life has changed greatly, my skills and abilities have changed and my knowledge have changed :) I think we could make some astounding contributions together-- that is is you are truly all for bringing WP:SEGA back to life :)  Simon  How can I help? 05:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

God of War: Betrayal FAC
If you have some spare time, could you review this article? -- JDC808  ♫  04:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, I've left you some comments. Sentence and paragraph fluency seem to be an issue in some areas, but I'd be glad to help you reach FA status on this article with some comments and fixes.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 15:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've responded to all comments and done some work to the article. -- JDC808  ♫  17:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=556672571 your edit] to List of Sega 32X games may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

I think I got the ropes, but don't scare me like that.
When I saw learning learning the ropes I thought for sure it was that Admin again. He doesn't seem to get that my arguing only occurs with Thomas.

Anyway, are there any articles lacking storylines? I have played a bunch of games, but the highlights:

Pokemon: All the main ones Mystery dungeon Ranger

Mario: Paper Mario Mario and Luigi Series

Legend of Zelda: A bit spotty. No specific pattern.

Also how do you add stuff to your username. Admin priveledge?

TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 06:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha, ha, I gotcha. Let me tell you, I'm no administrator, so I wouldn't worry about that.  Regardless, from the look of your talk page I'd say you really don't want to be arguing with anyone, including Thomas.  As for those topics... well, I couldn't tell you for sure, but it wouldn't hurt to take a look at them.  It seems you have quite an interest in Nintendo, so you may want to see if the Nintendo task force has any notes on some of these that need to get done.  That might be a good start if you're looking to find what you have an interest in.  I should note, though, that you do want to be careful with how much game detail you add to story lines.  I'll direct you here to WP:GAMECRUFT note 5: "Excessive fictional details: A concise plot summary is appropriate to cover a notable game, character, or setting. Information beyond that is unnecessary and should be removed, as articles should focus on the real-world elements of a topic, such as creation and reception."  Basically, keep the plot short and sweet, and stick to the main ideas.  Not to worry, though, as many details on development and reception can be found via this page, which has a list of some sites considered reliable by the Video games WikiProject, and that list is not all-inclusive, but make sure to watch out for those sites not considered reliable.  Essentially, that'll kind of distill down some of the Wikipedia policies a little bit and make them simpler, and that should get you started off.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 12:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not worry that you were an admin. I just thought it was the one that jumped into my conversation with Woodroar. He just assumed that because me and Thomas did not get along means that I argue with everybody.

I will take a look at those links, thanks.

TheUnknownNinjaNN2(Talk,Always willing to discuss this subject) 16:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

List of Kings Island attractions FLC
I have addressed your one comment on the review page.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 01:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

LeBron James
Hello sir. First off, apologies for not getting back to you sooner, and thank you for reviewing the article. I was unable to make the changes as I was on vacation. I will finish them up ASAP, re-nominate the article, and let you know in case you're still interested in reviewing. Cheers.--Ktmartell (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Changes have been made and the article is re-nominated. I put comments about the changes in your original review section. If you're still interested in re-reading, please do! Thanks!--Ktmartell (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Hey, no problem. Sorry you had to wait so long for that; I hate to see that backlog on WP:GAN spiraling out of control.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 14:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.  INeverCry   21:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Fuck peer review
Thanks very much for your help with the Fuck peer review.

I've responded to your helpful suggestions, at Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1.

Thanks again, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. Let me know when it comes to FAC, I'd be glad to throw my hat in the ring and help again.  Also, if you happen to be interested, I've left a request myself at WT:LAW.  Happy editing!   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 16:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll try to take a look soon, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

That signature is blinding.
Read the title. The yellow text in your section is blinding, and it's a bit annoying. I don't even know what it says! It's too bright to read! Could you make it a little darker? Cheers! -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 08:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey bud, if you're going to raise a concern to an editor you've never met, you might want to be a little more polite and less biting. I might recommend that you review WP:EQ.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 02:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I am usually nice, but my approach here was kind of rude. And thanks for the link. I was just saying that, in my opinion, your signature is a bit blinding. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 03:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Mega Drive/Genesis RfC
Hi, Red Phoenix. I was taking a tally in the RfC, just to have a rough idea of how split the editors involved are - not because I think a straw poll is how we should decide this matter. However, I noticed your original input here was later contradicted by your further thoughts on the matter here. In the interest of clarity I was wondering if you would consider altering your original input in the RfC (e.g. to strikethrough the "Speedy close, title as it is" and enter your updated position) so we have a more accurate record of where each editor's opinion lies. I hope you don't find this suggestion too brash, it's just that my first instinct was to make a comment under yours demonstrating your later position and then had second thoughts and decided approaching you might be a less inflammatory way to go about clearing up the inconsistency, and make things clearer in the long run. Thanks. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've struck out about half of it, leaving in the points of how I've argued for Mega Drive before and my stance on the article consistency. Seeing as how this is apparently once again a matter that is not going away (and let me tell you, I had to fend off a LOT of these discussions to switch it from Mega Drive to Genesis back in 2008 when I was most active), I would say that if this is going to come to a head again, that Mega Drive is the preferred choice.  I do appreciate you bringing this to me, and I wouldn't say it's too brash at all; I would only suspect, however, that any comment marked "Speedy close" is going to be ignored later on as we definitely will be proceeding with the RFC instead of trying to brush this off.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 15:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Dragon Quest VII
Thanks for the through review of the article based on the established criteria! I'm glad it was so ready for promotion, I hope to eventually have a green button next to each of the Dragon Quest articles :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm always glad to review upon request, so if you get them ready, let me know and I might be able to spare you some waiting time at GAN.  Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 16:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

GA nomination of Sega v Accolade
GA nomination of this article has been successfully passed and the article is GA. Your work on the article is highly appreciated.Suri 100 (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you!  Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 11:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

FLCs
Hey, commented/supported your Sega 32X FLC. Can you come back and remove/add to your oppose at the Mystery Dungeon FLC? -- Pres N  22:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I can take another look if you've changed out the GameSpot links. I know it sucks about that too: that Sega 32X list you supported was an FL once that relied on GameSpot and lists from Sega-16, etc, which turned out to be user-contributed and as such ended up getting the list removed from FL status.  I'm lucky I had just one Japanese-only game to source in Sangokushi IV and that Famitsu's website had something about it.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 23:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

iMessage
You can iMessage me at " syole@syole.com " Skype at " Syole_X1 "

 Simon  How can I help? 14:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sega Mega-CD, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Audio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Reviews
Thanks for the reviews! Its good to have someone be thorough and to push these articles forward using the GA process, and take the time to do that. Thanks much! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem. I enjoy doing GA reviews, especially when trying to push my own up, lol.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 00:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations
In case you aren't aware... J Milburn (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was not aware. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 13:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your attempt to review. With that closed, God of War II is at FAC if you wouldn't care to review it. -- JDC808  ♫  21:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind at all, but it may be a couple of days until I can get to it. My work schedule is pretty abrasive for the moment, so trying to do much here on days I work is pretty tough.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 02:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, no problem. -- JDC808  ♫  04:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2013
MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 16:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Your technical move request
Hello Red Phoenix. I [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequested_moves%2FTechnical_requests&diff=563324312&oldid=563321393 declined this request] as a technical move, since I think it would be controversial. If you still think it's a good idea, you can open a regular move discussion at Talk:Sega Game Gear using the instructions at WP:RM/CM. Note that this move was proposed in the past and it did not get consensus. You can still see the old discussion on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised it's been that contentious over the years, then again, I'm surprised it's ever been an issue at all. It's fine, though, what's in a name?  Past consensus shows no reason to move, and I'm not going to edit war over it since it's not necessarily at the wrong name.  Instead, I spent the entire day rewriting the article and have since nominated it for GA status.  Thanks,  Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 20:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Matt Leto
I addressed all the issues, thanks for the good review! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well done. I have passed the article.  Good work.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 00:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Sega 32X
Hello Red Phoenix!

Regarding the GA review of Sega 32X, I'm rather busy at the moment, so if you wouldn't mind being patient, that would be great :). Cheers. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 01:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Rani Mukerji/archive1
Hey Red Phoenix, the comments raised by you at the FAC have been addressed. Please take a look. Cheers! -- smaro jit  HD 17:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sega CD
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Sega CD you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Numbermaniac -- 03:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Sega v. Accolade
Congratulations on the FA! You did a great job with the article, and it is well-deserved. Indrian (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sega Game Gear
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Sega Game Gear you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of ChrisGualtieri -- 19:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sega Game Gear
The article Sega Game Gear you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Sega Game Gear for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of ChrisGualtieri -- 03:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sega CD
The article Sega CD you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sega CD for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Numbermaniac -- 23:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol, that's cool. Anyway...

The console that ends with " ega CD"
"I just don't see an end to this, or even a reason anymore to keep working on this or on the Sega Genesis article as I was planning."

I've already made that decision and to be honest, I feel better for it. Don't get me wrong, I want to edit them, especially to explain the innovative European "brand cool" advertising style that went on to help PlayStation market to 20 to 35 year olds in Europe. But, given the persistent battles and the "I'm the king of the castle" stance of both sides when they're the ones in power, I can't be bothered. :-( There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that need help and with much pleasanter environments too.  - X201 (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but you know, I'm still a Sega enthusiast with an agenda, X201. I just got Sega v. Accolade to FA, Sega 32X to GA, and hopefully soon Sega CD and Sega Game Gear as well.  Sega Nomad is next on my hitlist, and I still maintain the dead WP:SEGA.  It's really such a shame that there is such a debate, and those in the arguments have to resort to name calling, blind accusations of bias and nationalism, etc.  It's not fair for the editors who actually improve these articles, as SexyKick, you, and I have done with Sega Genesis, and I've done with Sega CD.  Also, most awesome name for a new section on a talk page ever :P  Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 12:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I wish we had moderators so we could avoid having to put up with the same IP hopper who can't put down the WP:stick. z.z-- Sexy Kick  21:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

GA-DYKRfC
Hi, would you like to elaborate on your !vote? :) -- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 01:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I will, possibly tomorrow or the day after. Not a whole lot of time tonight.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 02:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sega Game Gear, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battery life (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sega Game Gear
The article Sega Game Gear you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sega Game Gear for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of ChrisGualtieri -- 03:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sega Genesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emulation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2013
MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 11:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Sega Genesis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Amp, Bootleg, Watts, Arcade and TCI

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sega Genesis
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sega Genesis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- 11:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Genesis updates
Hey Phoenix, just wanted to drop you a line and say that I think your work on Sega Genesis is fantastic. It's already looking much better than it has in years. Additionally, the new flow of the opening paragraphs definitely seems to support a less US-centric view of the console than they used to have, and I'm beginning to agree with the various editors who've pointed out that the article title and opening sentence may be a bit awkward (naming the Genesis first but basically working around it to focus on the Mega Drive as a concept). I'll wait until you're done with the major edits (and I'll help where I can, though you have far better sourcing than I do), but I'm thinking it might soon be time to revisit the title discussion one more time.

Now, before you say "Oh no, not this shit again", let me explain: As you know, I've always felt Mega Drive was more reflective of a worldwide view - the article clearly states that the Genesis title was only ever used in North America. Traditionally, we've held to the NA name because most of our sources are based in the US and notability was established there more than anywhere else. But given your work and some new light being cast on similar controversies and advertising blitzes in other countries (mainly in the UK), the points that pushed consensus toward Genesis may not hold true anymore. This new info (which we've been telling others to bring to the table) would be enough, IMO, to make a strong case for putting the title back to Mega Drive and establishing a strong, stable consensus for it for the first time in the article's history. (And maybe then we can finally bring that god-forsaken discussion to a close.)

What do you think? &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 01:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, let me just say that you're actually reading my mind on that; I was thinking the same thing myself. The one issue we've always had with the title debates is that the article has never really told what is the full story of the Genesis/Mega Drive worldwide, and we've all been referring to what we know as gamers and gaming experts.  Instead, even in the days I had this as a GA on my resume (aka before I retired in 2008, lol), it's relied on bad referencing and shoddy coverage, not to mention a lack of a worldwide view in many areas, as well as original research.  I still have to weed out History, Legacy, and a paragraph or two in Peripherals, as well as add a Game Library section (where Sega Virtua Processor and likely also Internet services will be moved to), but I agree it's made significant progress.  It'll also likely lead me to make a couple of touch up edits to Sega CD and Sega 32X, the former of which I'd be glad to reconfigure back into Sega Mega-CD if a new move discussion favors Mega Drive.  Last step would be to rewrite the lead to refocus on the new main points of the article... and why were Sega's three online systems for the Genesis never mentioned before?  Just seemed very strange to me.


 * The way I see it is this: I'm fully planning for this to be an FA-quality article by the time I'm finished with it. Having written an FA before, I'm fully well aware of FA standards and intend to hold this article to it... that and it would be kind of ironic that both the SNES and Genesis articles would be featured.  To accomplish that, not only does the article need to have its improvements finished, but also this awkward "no consensus" on the title has to be put to rest, or else it can be argued that the article is not truly stable and does not deserve such status.  My only question, once I'm finished with the improvements, is what process should we use?  WP:RM is logical, but given the past controversies and the likely "blood feud" to result, WP:RFC might be another reasonable way to approach it.  As an admin, I hope you might be more sure of which one to use as opposed to myself; it's been quite a while since I've been involved with most of Wikipedia's central processes.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 04:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think RFC would be better for that, given the past controversy, but unfortunately we've had little success getting people to respond to RFC requests. RM would probably look at the past history and say they won't touch it with a ten-foot pole, so I'm going to assume that we'll be on our own until we can show that the folks who were previously arguing for Genesis are willing to agree on Mega Drive and that this won't turn into another quagmire.  Basically, I'm all for moving it to MD if the sources and prose really do point to that as the proper title, but I know there'll still be some folks who will stick to their Genesis guns no matter what, and the last thing I want is for this to just blow up again like it tends to every time it comes up.  So what I'm hoping we can do is, first within the VGProject and then for a wider audience, show that we've actually fixed the problems in the article that have led to many of the "USA Centrism" accusations lately, and then get people to discuss the title based on the new content in the article, and not just on the "traditional conjecture".
 * My goodness, I've been watching too much "Yes, Minister". I'm starting to sound like a politician. :) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 06:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking at it a bit more, perhaps WP:RM would be a good starting point after we have some basic discussion. I'll poke around with a couple of the other folks familiar with this issue and see what they think. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 06:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You do that, I'll keep working on the article :P  Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 06:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose any more re-titling discussions. Its insane how much time is wasted and how worked up people get over it. Absolutely against opening that can of worms again. (Side Note: Sorry Red Phoenix, Keifer linked me to this discussion, and I replied assuming that it was to the Sega Genesis talk page. It wasn't until I had already posted that I saw it was actually your talk page. I apologize for using such strong wording when it probably appeared that I barged on to your talk page and started answering questions no one asked me. Sorry!) Sergecross73   msg me   15:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I appreciate your apology; I'm sure it ended up quite awkward and I've got what you're saying. I think the idea Kiefer and I had is that Sega Genesis has never really been a fantastic article and it's left everyone assuming what they know about regional notability without a quality article that really establishes that.  Now, I've worked hard all day yesterday to really fix a lot of the issues, and I'm still not done (but am hoping to be done by this evening, I have to finish rebuilding Launch, Console Wars, VRC, 32-bit, and about half of the Legacy section yet), but this will be close to an FA-quality article when I am done with it today.  The one IP address who's been calling everyone "yank" has been blocked for a month, so his personal attacking input would no longer be present.  It's just a thought that very soon we'll finally have the article to match the words; that the article itself will finally be standing strong enough that it will serve as the core instead of what we all assume we know.
 * On a side note back, do you like the changes so far?  Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 15:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article itself, looks infinitely better than whenever I've read it in the past. Good job on that, it looks great. Sergecross73   msg me   16:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Serge, sorry to make that intro to the discussion as awkward as it was. Let's continue the titling discussion on my talk page?  I absolutely understand the "not this crap again" response, and frankly that would be my first reaction to someone else suggesting it to me.  But I do think we might have something here, and I want to discuss how feasible a renewed discussion on the renewed article might be - not necessarily saying we should go for it, but I want to study the possibility a bit more closely, to see if a good, hard look at the article might sway people to think differently about the topic. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 04:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, I don't mind if you keep it here; my talk page doesn't usually see a whole lot of action anyway. Kiefer, I should note that I have finished the rewrite and am confident enough in it that I've nominated it for GA status.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 04:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Awesome! I should have a bit of time to give it a good reading (and do some copyediting if the need arises) tomorrow.  About to head to bed now, tho.  Congrats on your hard work, and best of luck on the GA!  Based on the small bit I read and revised last night, I'm pretty certain it should be an easy pass. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 04:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's only the fourth time I've sent this one to WP:GAN... not kidding. With just a tad of cleanup, this ought to be an easy FA pass, too.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 04:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Kiefer. (I'll respond here to keep the discussion centralized for now.) I'm sorry I was so against even discussing it. You may have a point; atleast you are talking about introducing a new approach, versus the same ol' "This aint fair!" or "Anti-region conspiracy theory" type arguments that are brought up time and again. Let me know if you start actively start up those discussions (I tend to take it off my watchlist, as I tire of all the arguing) and I'll try to participate at least. Sergecross73   msg me   15:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was basically my point - it's one thing to just rehash the old topic over and over again. As you saw, that was getting us nowhere.  But now that Red Phoenix here has actually gone and addressed many of the points that were contributing to the perceived NA bias, now we have a new article on which to base the discussion.  As I mentioned, what I've read so far of it (I haven't given the whole article a thorough read yet) looks like it has a much more worldwide view than it used to, so there's likely a stronger case for "Mega Drive" being more correct over "Genesis" now, as opposed to the two being equal as they were before. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 18:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I've had more time to read the article in more detail now, and I've been doing a fair amount of copyediting to help fix some of the issues brought up in the GA review. The more I look at it, the more convinced I am now that we really should be able to move the article to "Mega Drive" after the GA is done - I keep coming across places where the console's title is used in a region-neutral context (in which case we should follow the article title), and only a few places where we need to refer to it in a region-specific context. I've been tagging each of the region-neutral instances with HTML comments noting this, so that they should be pretty easy to find should we change the title. What I'm finding as I do that is that NA-specific Genesis mentions are very few and far-between, and are mostly isolated now to sections that have to do with NA-specific topics (eg. VRC/hearings, US network services, etc.). Most of the console's development info, tech specs and general history is region-neutral, and we now have more weight on non-NA topics (eg. system variants) that were more obscure before.

Basically, the way I see it, there's probably a much stronger argument for Mega Drive now than there's pretty much ever been before (at least as long as I've been involved in the dispute). I must be going crazy, because I'm actually kinda looking forward to starting that conversation now. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 00:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's something I'd like to look at, but not until the review is done. Finishing up any issues and establishing the article's good status will help to show that this is a much-improved article that is reliable and accurately reflects the points.  This review is crazy hard, by far the hardest GA review I've ever been put up against... I'm glad to have you, User:Indrian, and User:SexyKick helping out since I work a job where I'm at work 12 hours a day and that makes it tough to try and knock out so many notes in a short time frame.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 02:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to have you help push it the rest of the way that I couldn't. I could have stopped the article from being delisted, but I didn't understand what I had been reading at the time when I saw that notice. I also didn't know how to appeal the delisting. That's always been a big regret. I'm very glad to have KieferSkunk, and Indrian along here as well. Let's keep going and hit that Featured Category by having all GA's for these articles. That's exciting.-- Sexy Kick  03:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sega Genesis
The article Sega Genesis you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Sega Genesis for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- 16:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The Half Million Award
The Half Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

Well done! Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   18:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sega Genesis
The article Sega Genesis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sega Genesis for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- 18:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Sonic Adventure 2
All right. I am doing Sonic Adventure 2 and planning to get this up to GA and I also plan to get Sakura Wars up to GA status as well. I have had over 10 GAs and 10 FAs (one of which is the Final Fantasy XIII article and the Kingdom Hearts series). For a good example of what a GA article on a VG looks like, see Crash Bandicoot 2: Cortex Strikes Back and Crash Bandicoot: Warped. You can also help edit the article as well. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'd be glad to help on Sonic Adventure 2, I was considering it myself for a project here soon. Between you and me, I've still got my copy of Sonic Adventure 2 Battle with over 200 hours invested and all 180 emblems, along with a rare "Tails" Chao, courtesy of Phantasy Star Online.  Also, I've got a few GAs and an FA under my belt myself... in fact, my FA is on the main page today.  I've never really done a game article itself (you'll see most of mine are 16-bit Sega consoles and the infamous Sega v. Accolade law case), but I think this'd be a great start to doing some game articles.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 00:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Keep up the good work. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Precious
  Sega saga

Thank you, returned phoenix, for quality articles for the Sega task force such as Sega v. Accolade and List of Sega 32X games, for placing recognitions of others before your barnstars, and for quoting "Don't give up. Don't ever give up." - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Is the Genesis title FAQ doing us any good?
It appears there may be some consideration for just outright deleting Talk:Sega Genesis/FAQ - it doesn't appear that many people see it as doing any real good for the title dispute. Aside from the current argument between me and Dream Focus, at least one other editor feels there isn't any reason to add a mention of the GA and the shot-down RM to the FAQ's history. So if it stays as-is, then it will appear that regardless of the GA work, there's been no change to the article's status, the title consensus, or the need for new information, since the last consensus discussion back in July. That, to me, feels like we're doing people a disservice, and personally I'd rather just take the whole thing down if people are just going to object to actively maintaining it. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 23:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey
I really don't know where to start, I get a little overwhelmed every time I visit WP:SEGA, I'll come back if you can help me get organised and understand what's what =)  Simon  How can I help?  02:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd love to help get you back into the swing of things; I am definitely fully back now myself and it's taken some time to get there, too. I know exactly how you feel; a lot has changed since our heyday as WikiProject Sega in 2008.  Let me know when you see this: I've used something kind of new, called the ping template, which should leave you a notification that I've called for you here; no more talk page bouncing back and forth like we did in the old days.  I'll start working on the major changes, but it's a lot, so it may take a little bit to write.  I'll do that at WT:SEGA so we can have an explanation for everyone who may come back (maybe User:Fairfieldfencer or someone else might come back again too someday?)   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 02:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Read :D. I have so much to say to you, but if I start, I will end up writing a whole article, oh it's good it see you are back in action, so very good, reminds me of the old days  Simon  How can I help?  03:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Back and better than ever ;)  Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 04:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Fuck featured article candidate discussion

 * Fuck (film)

Notifying you because you participated in the Peer Review.

Fuck (film) is a candidate for Featured Article quality &mdash; comments would be appreciated at Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC) Indrian, thanks for your interest in the subject, comments would be appreciated at Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1. And Red Phoenix, I'm so glad you checked out the documentary, that's great! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't mean to intrude, but I just wanted to say that when I saw this section title show up in my watchlist, I thought this was going to be some diatribe about how hard it is to get anyone to agree on certain Genesis/Megadrive issues before bringing it to FAC. I am glad I was wrong! ;) Indrian (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha, no problem, Indrian. I actually quite enjoyed reviewing this article when I peer reviewed it and it caused me to check out the documentary myself.  But you do have a point, that's for sure.  Also... my talk page is on your watch list?   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 03:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Only because we have been working so closely on the Genesis stuff. I am not stalking you or anything. Indrian (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not bothered or anything like that, no worries. Just thought it was a tad unusual, but hey, there's a reason it's technically possible to watch list a user talk page, and I'm cool with it.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 03:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014
Hi, if you haven't already, you should consider signing up for WikiCup 2014. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Was wondering if you'd seen this yet
- X201 (talk) 09:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

AfD closures
Hi, I believe that when an article is closed Keep, or Redirect, the talk page is also updated so future editors are aware of the AfD history. eg. Just noticed this wasn't done: Articles for deletion/David Orme, Articles for deletion/UPENDRA 2, Articles for deletion/Prince Phobos, Articles for deletion/Cedric (W.I.T.C.H.) and probably others. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, no others as far as I know. It's funny there isn't a guide for this; I've been trying to teach myself how to do it by looking at diffs and source codes in order to take a more active role at WP:AFD.  Regardless, I appreciate you keeping me apprised of the situation and will ensure that such is done in the future.  Thanks,  Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 02:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Sega v. Accolade
Renaming the title was re-proposed. Join in. --George Ho (talk) 09:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Genesis FAC
Congratulations! This article sure has come a long way in a short time, and I believe this would have never happened without your passion to see the article improved and your patience in mediating the controversies that still engender strong feelings with this article. I will be on hand to help address any concerns raised at FAC. I feel we should be able to successfully shepherd the article through the process. Indrian (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Indrian. Don't forget, I've noted both yourself and SexyKick as co-nominators of this article, too.  I couldn't have made it happen without your devotion to accuracy and exploration into what are normally considered reliable sources and finding out what is accurate and what isn't.  I think that in the end has solved a lot of the controversies in itself, and I don't think this article would be in the shape it's in without your contributions as well.  As for the "patience and mediating" aspects, thank you.  I'll make sure to look your way if I consider another RFA again at some point ;)  Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 17:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words. As you say, this truly was a team effort.  And you would surely have my vote at RFA; I believe you would make a great admin. Indrian (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sega Nomad
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sega Nomad you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of New Age Retro Hippie -- 19:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

regarding phantasy star online and other versions
talk:Phantasy Star Online here u can see the discussion going. i do believe we can find enough information on Episode I&II to merit its own article if it has its own expanded episode (episode II and IV) and make it easier to navigate through the gameplay information since the additional features in 1&2 and blue burst can be moved there.Lucia Black (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I've responded with my polite opposition, but I hope you and I can work together to make this a high-caliber article.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 19:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sega Nomad
The article Sega Nomad you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sega Nomad for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of New Age Retro Hippie -- 00:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Indiana State Road 930
The article Indiana State Road 930 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Indiana State Road 930 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Imzadi1979 -- 05:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Genesis Lead
Per FAC, I have begun a complete overhaul of the lead at User:Indrian/sandbox by blending elements of both the current lead and your version with a few additions of my own. It is nowhere near finished yet, but suggestions and feedback would be greatly appreciated. Indrian (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Indrian. I'll be glad to help.  Some of the reviewer's comments irritated me, though, so I'll try and blow off some steam before I get too deep into this.  I have to work tomorrow but I'll be off the next two days after that and will have time to pitch in some more.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 02:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand. Anyway, I have now finished my first pass at the new lead, which can be found at the link above.  I want to emphasize that this is a rough draft version and I myself do not consider it ready for deployment.  It is far enough along though, that I think it best to garner feedback from other interested editors.  It addresses some of the concerns raised at FAC about length and technical details while providing at least a sentence or two of coverage regarding every major section of the article.  I know you prefer fewer paragraphs in a lead, but all five in this version are fairly short, so it mostly moves along.  Certainly open to finding ways to trim and consolidate though.  Anyway, all constructive feedback is welcome. Please leave feedback on the Genesis talk page to keep everything in one place. Indrian (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not bad, but I'm sure you already know how I feel about a 5-paragraph lead. I've posed a slight alteration on Talk:Sega Genesis as a suggestion, but I mostly used yours to make it.  Maybe it's worth a look, too.  I'm just hoping this doesn't turn out to be another naming debate by proxy on this lead and the way they open... it kind of seems that way from the IP user's first comment on the FAC page.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 18:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The Copyeditor's Barnstar

 * Oh, it wasn't much, really, but I'm glad to have had the opportunity to help you out, Cirt. This may be one of my favorite barnstars yet that I've ever received.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 22:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, good, I'm glad. You're most welcome, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 09:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Sega Genesis FAC
Greetings, Red Phoenix. I can see that you're having an unpleasant time at your FAC, and I'm sorry that it's causing you undue stress. The only time I submitted an article for Featured status, it caused me a lot of stress as well. (It ended up not passing due mostly to a lack of support; one of the main reasons I review FACs is so that fewer nominators have to see their attempts wither on the vine like I did.)

Even though I've never actually had one of my own article make it to FA status, I have watched as a lot of nominees were successful, and a lot of others were unsuccessful, and I think I have a pretty good handle on what makes a nomination tend to go well. Do you mind if I give you (and and ) a little advice? (It may be useful here or, if the nomination is not successful, it may help to make the next one go better if you decide to renominate the article later on.)

The most successful nominators are unfailingly polite and concise. They never say anything negative if they can avoid it, and they never use more words than they have to in their replies. Any request that they can possibly meet, even from a rude reviewer, they just say "Good idea, fixed" or "Thanks, hope my change fixed it." And when a reviewer's complaints are vague, biased, unactionable, or just plain bone-headed, they see if there is anything they can change in the article (no matter how minor) to make the reviewer feel like their issues are taken seriously. When they have to say no to a change request, they do so with as few words as possible.

What you want to avoid is having long, emotional debates. Other reviewers see that, and they subconsciously think "Well, this article is getting enough attention, I'll review something else", or "That looks unpleasant, so I'll review another nice bird article instead." Don't give reviewers more to read than you have to, or they'll tune it out. (Note, for example, 's successful strategy at Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1. He kept the FAC page looking clean, to invite more eyes. He complied with every request he could, even when he might not have been entirely convinced every change was needed. And he gave quick, polite replies to everyone, even when they opposed.)

Surprisingly, I've found that having multiple nominators often makes it less likely that the nomination will succeed. Multiple nominators means more people talking back and forth, increasing the amount of discussion without increasing the number of supports. Besides, would I rather have someone co-nominate with me? Or have them say "I've been involved with this article, so I'm not an outside commenter, but I think the article fulfills our FA criteria and I support it being featured"? I'll take the latter choice every time; even if the FAC delegate doesn't count that support for much, it still gives a positive impression for other reviewers.

This nominee may well pass. I'm sure the delegates will count careful, informed reviews much more than long blocks of text about trivialities and old grudges. But if it doesn't pass this time, I'm pretty sure you could get it to pass on a renomination, if you go about it the right way. It's a great article, and I hope it does pass eventually, whether this time or the next. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your advice, Quadell. In reality, the FAC has been only a small bit of my stresses as of late, but it has been one.  This isn't my first go-around at FAC, but my other one, current featured article Sega v. Accolade, was much less stressful, likely because it was an article that hadn't been touched in years and no one really maintained until I did.  When I took Sega Genesis upon myself again—I was first an active editor in 2008 and got it to a GA as "Sega Mega Drive" before retiring later that year; it was then demoted later, and I returned to Wikipedia in 2013—I knew it was contentious, and my involvement with the naming debates actually brought me into it.  I always do like a challenge.


 * Honestly, I had not anticipated such a reaction to this article from the FAC reviewers, including things I've very adamantly stood against for some time (i.e. the IP editor's thought to completely cover every third-party variation in significant detail). Then, I can see how I've made some things worse in this, and I'll admit I've had out-of-Wikipedia stresses beyond belief lately, but that's no excuse.  Kind of feel like I got suckered into such a response, but I think things will still work out.  I'll be addressing 's comments in the next couple of days; they're my first days off in a week, so I'll have time to sit down and calmly work through these things to garner good supports.  Normally I'm much more careful than that; I watch my responses on Wikipedia very closely and normally I'm a very cautious mediator.  I work through and solve problems with others, and a large part of that is because I'm looking at a future RFA run when I'm more firmly re-established, but that's just normally the kind of editor I am.  Even I'm caught off-guard by the power this article has seemed to have even on myself to inspire contention.


 * I felt the need to co-nominate this article with Indrian and SexyKick (and would have as well with KieferSkunk, if he had not become so upset himself with contention on the article as to be voluntarily desysopped and leave on extended wikibreak) because without them, this article would not have been where it is now. I know Indrian and SexyKick give me a lot of the credit for the article, but I give a lot to them for their incredible work with it and believe firmly they deserve to be recognized for this featured article as well as I do, because I could not have pushed this article to such high quality without either one of them.


 * Thanks for the advice, I appreciate that you're willing to come to bat for me and all of the hard work that has gone into the article. I still believe it'll pass as long as I can ensure that SnowFire's comments are addressed and a little more feedback comes in; without a response from the IP or from Indopug to the return comments, consensus will favor the addressed comments and return feedback.  Your feedback has been immensely helpful to the article, and I thank you for it, and wish you luck in getting yourself an FA in the near future—there's just a wondrous sense of accomplishment that comes with taking on a challenge and turning it into success.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 03:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

A reference problem
Hi! Some users have been working hard on Category:Pages with broken reference names. Here you added a new reference  ref name="Retro Gamer" but didn't define it. This has been showing as an error at the bottom of the article. " Cite error: The named reference  was invoked but never defined (see the help page). " Can you take a look and work out what you were trying to do? Thanks -- Frze > talk  09:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a typo in the ref name field. No reason to panic; it's been addressed.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 14:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sega Meganet
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sega Meganet you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Quadell -- 21:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sega Meganet
The article Sega Meganet you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Sega Meganet for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Quadell -- 14:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sega Channel
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sega Channel you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Taylor Trescott -- 14:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sega Meganet
The article Sega Meganet you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sega Meganet for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Quadell -- 21:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Million Award
The Million Award is an initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content. You are also welcome to display the following userbox:

Your GA nomination of Sega Channel
The article Sega Channel you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Sega Channel for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Taylor Trescott -- 17:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Genesis Promoted
Well, an epic fight with many twists and turns, but what a result! Congratulations all around!!! Indrian (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on bringing the Genesis article to FA! Well done. :) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 17:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kiefer; good to see you're still around. Thanks to you too, Indrian.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 17:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm checking in from time to time, but focusing on more real-life stuff for the time being. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 18:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I haven't had as much time as I'd like for this lately myself—let's just say the retail industry isn't kind to its managers this time of year. My next targets are Sega 32X and Sega CD for FA status and a Genesis featured topic; hopefully you'll be back soon enough to take part if you're interested.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 18:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sega Channel
The article Sega Channel you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sega Channel for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Taylor Trescott -- 22:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

EGM yearly console reviews
Here's a few of them.-- Sexy Kick  02:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, SexyKick. That will prove quite helpful.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 13:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Sega Genesis
Very exciting, shame I missed it during all the bustle of the holidays. To avoid references going dead, why don't you use a web archiving site? There's http://www.webcitation.org for on-demand archiving, and http://archive.org/web/ which archives automatically (but does not allow on-demand archiving) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll look into archiving; it's been merely a time issue as to why I haven't yet.  Also, you haven't missed all the fun just yet; Sega CD and List of Sega CD games are at FAC and FLC, respectively, and you'll likely see Sega 32X and List of Sega Genesis games at each in the next couple of months :P   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 01:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Coulda sworn I'd reviewed a Sega list some time recently. I will try to drop by one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You did, that was List of Sega 32X games, and I'm still grateful for your feedback there—making that list an FL really brought me back into the swing of Wikipedia. The trick here is that the Sega Genesis had two add-ons, and both it and its add-ons each have separate game libraries, so yeah, deja vu.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 02:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

is there any way I can instant message you though something?
see title -  Simon  How can I help? 16:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have an AIM account (redphoenix526) and an iMessage account (tjheath@indiana.edu).  Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 16:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2014 WikiCup!
Hello Red Phoenix, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition will begin at midnight tonight (UTC). There have been a few small changes from last year; the rules can be read in full at WikiCup/Scoring, and the page also includes a summary of changes. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work, and nominated, in 2014 is eligible for points in the competition- the judges will be checking! As ever, this year's competition includes some younger editors. If you are a younger editor, you are certainly welcome, but we have written an advice page at WikiCup/Advice for younger editors for you. Please do take a look. Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! , and  17:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Tom and Jerry 2013
Hi, Red Phoenix, I'm contacting you because you contributed your thoughts in this AfD regarding a rumored 2013 Tom and Jerry cartoon. A user has nominated the existing article (which is nothing more than a redirect) for deletion, on the basis that 2013 is over. But the user's other activities raised some red flags with me. Firstly, it's a brand new user who seems familiar with modifying templates and nominating pages for deletion. Secondly, the 2013 Tom and Jerry cartoon was poorly sourced to begin with, and it appears that they are attempting to prolong the whispers by creating a new article on the subject. I was hoping to get your thoughts on the matter. My instinct tells me that the user could be a sockpuppet of a previously banned user, probably KuhnstylePro. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies for my tardiness in responding; I took the last couple of days away from my computer. It looks as though the matter has been resolved through a pair of speedy deletions, but vigilance may be required going forward unless reliable sources come to light.  I'm not familiar with the previously banned user, but in cases of WP:SPI I find it's best to use WP:DUCK in these matters.  If it seems obvious and there's a significant amount of reasonable suspicion, it's time to raise the question, as long as it can be backed up.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 19:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the reply. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Menacer print sources
Resident Segaman, I had never heard about the Menacer before your WTVG thread and if you were to ask me, I'd say consensus is against keeping the article right now, but that didn't stop me from working on a private userspace draft. Regardless of how the merge goes, I like tough odds, so I dug into a bunch of print sources and tried to pull one out against the merge I once proposed. I'm struggling to find print coverage of the peripheral's development and discontinuation, which either means that none ever existed or that it's in some obscure trade publication. Based on your previous work in Sega, I thought you may have some ideas for magazines and time periods to check. czar ♔  05:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ... resident Segaman? I'll have to keep that one in the back of my mind as the most interesting thing I've been called, ha ha.  If you're going to look for print coverage, Electronic Gaming Monthly and GamePro issues from around that time would be good resources, but by far and away my two most useful sources when working on these articles are Retro Gamer, which is a retrospective magazine about old consoles and games, and Sega-16, a site ran by video game journalist Ken Horowitz, and that has a lot of unique things such as interviews with former Sega executives and developers.  Honestly, though, I think you're going to have a hard time with this one because Menacer wasn't like the Super Scope which gained a lot of cultural publicity—it was just Sega's light gun peripheral, wasn't compatible with games using the Konami Justifier, and didn't have a lot of games for it.  You don't need a ton for a development section—Sega Meganet gets away with hardly anything at all—but there does need to be some substantial things going on here in order to justify keeping this article, in my mind.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 13:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Appreciate it. I had EGM and GamePro covered, though I can't find EGM 39 (if you have any tips). Do you know of any way to search Retro Gamer back catalog? czar  ♔  17:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, actually they have an app on the App Store for iPhone and iPad. Usually I'll use Google to determine what issue has an article I want (their "Retroinspection" series is fantastic for past game consoles) and then buy the issue I'd like to use.  Some of them are available online, though, and Sega-16 actually has a permitted-use mirror of the Retroinspection: Mega Drive article, which might have a mention of Menacer, but I'm really not sure.  So far, I'm actually pretty impressed with the improvements made to Menacer so far; funny how a heated debate will tend to—pardon the expression and the bluntness—kick the ass of some editors and encourage them to contribute to content improvement.  In any regard, I'll be quite content with the end results; either the article is merged away or improved to show the topic could actually meet WP:WIAGA with some effort.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 18:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sega 32X, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 3D (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=590850322 your edit] to List of Sega Genesis games may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * |1994
 * !scope="row"|' Zhuo Guǐ Dà Shi: Ghost Hunter''

New proposals at Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014
Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sega Saturn
Thank you for your improvements to the Sega Saturn article. I highly recommend making use of the Guild of Copy Editors --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the Guild, but knowing their backlog I don't have much faith that they will ever really get to touching it. That being said, it certainly could use a copyedit, absolutely, as well as fleshing out in some areas such as adequate development, reception, etc.  In all honesty, however, my work on Sega Saturn is done for a while and I plan to distance myself from it for at least a couple of months.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 01:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I still recommend nominating it for the Guild. It may take upwards of a year for them to get to it, but a copyedit by them is always beneficial, even if it is just minor. I'd nominate it myself, but I have some other articles I wish to nominate. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't rely on it. Honestly, I think you're more likely to unearth a copyeditor at WT:VG than there. Tezero (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not even going to look at it, to tell you the honest truth. I'm brutally busy at work as of late (hence the temp wikibreak and late response), not to mention I feel like this article got usurped from under my feet midway through its GA review by editors who had a direction to take it but wanted someone to actually go through and rewrite it so they could work with it, which I did not see coming and did not want (no, no WP:OWN, but I built it the way I did for a reason).  That's why I won't touch it with a ten-foot pole for at least a few months.  Right now, I'm not satisfied with the direction the discussions are taking this article and would rather not get involved in a pointless debate.  Let those who will take up the mantle of having it copyedited if they really care.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 03:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Harizotoh has suggested it to the Guild. If you disagree with the changes being made, I suggest you speak up. Right now, there is a debate on the talk page about the "Reception" section, and you could help us establish a consensus.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I really would rather just stay out of it until the smoke all settles. Unlike Sega Genesis, I never had a Saturn, so I don't have that personal of a connection to it—I only really came to it because  asked me to have a look.  The Saturn article talk has a tendency to turn me into an expletive-screaming troll off-wiki, starting with the GA review which really infuriated me on the way it was handled on some aspects, and then the sudden interest spike because the article wasn't completely crap anymore and everyone decided to inject themselves into it with that.  I wouldn't say I'm inflexible on article structure, but I have a tried-and-true formula I use for consoles, and my FA and GA list all uses that specific structure, from consoles to network-based services.  As such, I really don't want to make things unnecessarily worse by letting that frustration with all of this leak onto the encyclopedia and result in a series of incivility that gets us nowhere.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 02:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you find the talk page disagreements that infuriating, then perhaps you are making the right choice, although I would take the renewed interest in the article as a compliment if I were you. As one of the opportunists you inspired to jump on the bandwagon, I will refrain from pestering you further.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate that, at least for a while until I'm not frustrated with it anymore. The talk page agreements have only poured fuel on the fire from what was a few points on the GA review that really sparked it and probably soured my partnership with  on future articles for some time.  Namely, that had to do with the "truth" and what seems like speculation being preached as being more accurate than what was verifiable in reliable sources, which I didn't disagree with all of them but had a lot of trouble believing those that were based off of forum posts and sources I could never read for myself that I was asked to throw in.  Now, I kind of feel like this farce has continued into "let's tear it all apart again", and I just don't have the mental energy while on a very high workload off-wiki at the moment to keep up with that.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 16:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And there it is. I have stayed out of this discussion because I find sulking to be quite unseemly and have no desire to stoop to what appears to be "your level" nowadays, but as you have decided to call me out openly, I suppose I feel compelled to respond.  Sega Saturn was not ready for GA when you nominated it.  You decided to take the article on based on the request of another user, which is fine, but then you plowed through it quickly, made little effort to find sources (there are numerous magazine scans available for free on the Internet from this period and you could have asked others for help acquiring any newspaper articles behind a paywall, of which there are also considerable available for this period) and actually misquoted your own sources on several occasions in your great hurry to wrap things up.  You also admitted to copying large sections of other articles without stopping to see how well the material fit in this article, which led to several serious organizational issues. As a result, the article required a lot of work, which you then nearly abandoned halfway through because you felt unable to cope with some of the challenges your rushed edits caused.  While I agree with you that another user should not have tried to reorganize the article midway through the review, he proved quite amenable to halting his work for the duration when I reached out to him; another thing you could not be bothered to do yourself.


 * Now you go about making defamatory claims regarding me "taking forum posts over reliable sources" which is pure poppycock. If you would have actually read those links I helpfully provided, you would have seen that they contained magazine article scans from 1993 presenting rumored specs.  Those magazines were sources relevant to the article, and the discussion contained in those posts only help to place them in context.  Did I ask you to source to a forum post?  Absolutely not.  Did I insist that you include info about the SH1, which was mentioned by name by Mean Machines in 1993?  Of course not, because the info was still not solid.  Did I insist that the GigaDrive be removed as an official 32-bit system code name?  Of course I did, not because of forum posts, but because the name first appeared in a rumor in 1990, and we have a source straight from the Sega Saturn development team that confirms the system was not being designed until 1992.  If you have read Retro Gamer closely (and I have read them all since I own them all) you would know that their console history articles are actually full of errors much of the time, because unlike their "making of" articles they are not always based on direct primary sources.  I am not concerned with "truth" -- if I was I would have never passed the Saturn article as it is certain we do not know the "truth" of the system yet -- but I am concerned about good research.  If Wikipedia is going to be taken seriously and if it's GA and FA articles are going to be worthy of those titles, then they need to be as accurate as current reliable sources allow.  When a reliable source can be clearly shown to be in error factually, then that material needs to be qualified or excised.  I gave you the option of qualifying the GigaDrive material and leaving it in, but in what I can only assume was a fit of pique, you decided to remove it and get a little self righteous about it instead.


 * You've done some good work on Wikipedia, which I have commended before and will do so here again. You also had a right to be upset about the one time in the review that I got a little self righteous, which I should point out I quickly apologized for and explained that it was based on a misunderstanding on my part.  It's a shame though that you apparently consider your organizational scheme to be sacrosanct and your sources to be beyond reproach, as this appears to be inhibiting your ability to play nice with others.  Wikipedia is collaborative, and your attitude here shows some serious WP:OWN issues.  I have been here a decade and don't plan on leaving soon, so if you are going to continue nominating articles for GA and FA, you are going to have to continue dealing with me.  I promoted Saturn to GA and have supported several of your FA endeavors, and I expect I will continue to do both activities in the future.  This is because I can disagree with someone on particulars but still work to advance the project on the whole.  I hope you are capable of doing the same, but your recent behavior leaves me in doubt on that point. Indrian (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey—looks like this dialogue is heading in unproductive directions. It's worth keeping in mind that any perceived attacks are likely just misunderstandings, so let's acknowledge this and find common ground. I think everyone in this thread does and is doing truly excellent work, and I hope all would agree that we respect each other enough to hat this conversation with no hard feelings and make amends when cool heads can prevail. czar ♔  21:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sega Saturn
The article Sega Saturn you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sega Saturn for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Indrian -- 18:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Sega 32X to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,326 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 10:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Red, I think it'd be pretty cool to nominate Sega Genesis for TFAR. : ) Sexy  Kick  15:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I was actually hoping to do that as a date-specific one for August 15th, the 25th anniversary of the Genesis' release in North America (we missed the original launch, the FA would have had to have been done two months before it actually was). I've had one on the main page already, and that was Sega v. Accolade, which was pretty awesome.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 16:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be jawesome.-- Sexy Kick  18:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Our Recent Issues
I fear this message will be "archived" or deleted outright since that appears to be your method of dealing with material that makes you uncomfortable rather than engaging with those whom with whom you disagree, but I have a soft spot for difficult causes, so I'll make an attempt to open a dialogue.

GA review is a dialogue, not a dictatorship. I had strong thoughts on certain portions of the article and offered my opinion on those points. Several other users did the same. The point was to have a nice back and forth to improve the article to the point that it was ready for GA status, which, I should point out, was ultimately accomplished. At points you seemed interested in that dialogue, while at other points you refused to speak to your fellow users and almost walked away from the entire process. I found this behavior frustrating, as you no doubt also found some my requests or other users attempts at reorganizing the article equally frustrating. That's fine; collaboration is often difficult and strong opinions can make hard going. It's worth remembering, however, that out of that crucible a GA-quality article emerged.

I am saddened that you feel the effort was wasted, and I apologize for any hurt feelings that arose from any misunderstanding promulgated by me. I stand by my belief that the article was rushed into GA before it's time and that your WP:OWN stance hurt the process, but I am happy to admit on the flip side that I became too contentious on a couple points as well and probably did not indicate as well as I could have that I was interested in having more extended discussions on certain points to work through some of the sourcing and accuracy issues. We are all on the same side, and it does no good for either of us to put our backs up and claim some imaginary moral high ground. User:czar attempted to broker reconciliation and you responded by immediately silencing him. I am offering the same, and I hope this missive does not receive similarly poor treatment. Indrian (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , with respect I have to say that you have misunderstood what I have done by archiving the discussion. After uncovering the messages left, I archived the discussion and filed it away into User talk:Red Phoenix/Archive 2 in order to end the arguing and give it a peaceful resolution without inciting.  I felt as though there would be no resolution from the way we were headed, and actually took czar's suggestion to hat the discussion and keep it from blowing up any further - a fresh start from the beginning would actually prove more fruitful, in my opinion.  Since I feel you're sincere in trying to reopen the discussion, I would be more than glad to respond sincerely and hopefully clear the miscommunication.  I wasn't seeking to call you out on the posts either - apparently I guess the u template sends a message the same way the ping template does, which I was mistaken about and was not expecting the resulting long-phrased response.  However, I'm a manager in the retail industry, and I preach to my employees that 90% of contentious issues are simply matters of miscommunication, and I hold true as well that that is also the case on Wikipedia, and simply the case here as well.
 * I don't disagree with you that the GA request was premature, but I felt that the issues with and the resulting discussions including his indefinite block as a sock of Jakandsig forced my hand into working on and rushing through the article as soon as possible, with the knowledge that obtaining a GA rating would silence any further issues on that front due to his supposed claims of deletion for quality.  His claim that he was working with me was false - I gave some tips and said I didn't disagree with removing unsourced material, but that was it, and he tried to claim more, and I didn't want that to fly.  Sega Saturn was certainly on my list of projects, but I did want to do other articles first, like Master System, Sonic the Hedgehog (character), Phantasy Star Online, and Hyperdimension Neptunia (video game).  The crisis prompted me to begin work quickly, but that doesn't mean it was short - I sat at my computer for about two or three days straight, investing about 18-20 hours in all into the rewrite on a couple of days off from work.  Some parts of it I felt very uncomfortable working with, like the Saturn's technical detail and facts about it, such as its quadrilateral rendering, which led me to relying on sources used previously with questionable reliability.
 * When it came to the review itself, I did agree on several of the points, absolutely. We collaborated well on most of it, and I felt very comfortable with adding or changing anything which explicit sources were provided for and that I could review.  I actually did read thoroughly every resource that was provided by you in the review, including the forums, scans, etc.  There were tricky parts, no doubt... you have no idea how many sources out there say that Bernie Stolar was the CEO of Sega of America, though the press release indicates otherwise, a fact that is not lost on me as strangely and bewilderingly inconsistent among media entities.  Some bits of the review, though, felt very snappy, and those points got under my skin, I will admit.  I didn't feel comfortable stating that GigaDrive was a rumor in the media, for instance, because we didn't have a source that said it was a rumor (for all we know, it could have been a precursor project and then actual "Saturn" development began in 1992, who really knows for sure?  That's speculation, but it's also speculation in my opinion to say it's a rumor when a source doesn't say it was a rumor).  I claim no "moral high ground", though - I think we ended up at each other's throats because we couldn't phrase our comments in ways to convey no hostility intended in critical commentary and response to critical commentary.  Certainly I will admit I was stressed during much of the review - my current workload is very high, and has been since a couple of days after the review began, and likely will continue through the next week at least.
 * I also don't deny having some WP:OWN for any of my contributions, but it is incredibly frustrating to spend all that time to fix an article's major issues and then suddenly that generates interest in the article to where most of it is changed. It does make me feel like my work has been taken advantage of for the gain of others who weren't willing to invest the time to do those improvements, and I've only been sparked to feel that way because it happened so soon that it's clear the page has been watched by some who haven't made those kind of edits when the article wasn't in good shape.  It goes without saying I like working on those, even though it's tough, and it can make you proud if you rewrote 90% of an article so it's mostly your contributions and not those of past editors.  It's part of why I define myself nowadays as a WikiDragon, which I read and know it's not a serious page but feel it's actually a pretty good sum of what I am as an editor.  That doesn't make me morally superior, but it does make me very proud of my contributions.
 * It was actually looking to send you a message last week to ask that we bury the hatchet, but couldn't find the words to do so. Ending it now would be a good thing, in my eyes.  I'm still not sure I would want to touch Sega Saturn for a while in any regard, just because I do have other projects I want to work on, including Dreamcast on top of my current list above and getting Sega CD through an FAC.  I'm also not sure, but I think you should be aware of this, which SexyKick started a couple of weeks ago.  For now, I'm still on a wikibreak due to the issues with my real life workload at the moment, but I wouldn't mind collaborating with you in the future again if we can keep that scenario from ever playing out again.  Let's call a truce and agree to understand each other on this matter and put aside our misunderstandings.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 23:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the thoughtful response. This situation has been weighing on my mind, as I never intended to alienate you, as you are an editor I do respect.  I fully admit that my tone occasionally veered in the wrong direction at times in the GA; there was a lot to process and mark up, and in my haste some things did not come out as well as they could of and I also misread some of your replies and took them the wrong way.  I truly regret those slips. I hope we can put this behind us and collaborate in the future. Indrian (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It has been one on my mind very much as well; without your contributions starting at the Sega v. Accolade FAC, I might not still be motivated to be editing here and would have entered retirement again. Never once did I think about removing you from my recognitions page despite the strife.  I too deserve some fault for editing while under stress and allowing myself to "snap".  As long as we can get past this situation and let bygones be bygones here, which it appears shouldn't be a problem for either of us, I don't see why we couldn't work together again in the future.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 00:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter
A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. , who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sega Saturn Talk page
Please come and see my concerns at the Sega Saturn Talk Page. TheRealAfroMan (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Master System
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Master System you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Indrian -- 18:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup error
Hi there- this is just a quick note to apologise for a small but important mistake in the last WikiCup newsletter; it is not 64 users who will progress to the next round, but 32. J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Master System
The article Master System you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Master System for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Indrian -- 19:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Master System
The article Master System you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Master System for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Indrian -- Indrian (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Warning
I know you want to adopt a new user, but Potatoechip is highly likely to be the latest sockpuppet of banned user Jakandsig.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't yet seen evidence to conclude that, although I am mindful of the Jakandsig situation and have been since the Sega Saturn reworkings. Trust me, ever since User:JeanLatore got me in 2008, I've always been very cautious on working with editors in such situations without doing my homework first and proceeding with caution but with good faith.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 00:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes
That would be very helpful. Thanks for the offer. Potatoechip (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Being a new user can be a little intimidating at times, I know, but it's certainly worth it once you have a good know-how of the ropes.  There are a lot of areas to start with around here, but I'll just start with four basic points as things you should check out:


 * As you may have caught, you should see a little "notification" next to your username at the top of the screen. Usually it has a number in it to let you know if you have a new notification - in this case, you'll see one because I've used the ping template to let you know I've left you a message here.  It's a good way to get someone's attention to another page, especially when trying to keep discussions altogether on talk pages.
 * Eventually, you should check out all of the links next to your username at the top of the page, but two very special ones are "Sandbox" and "Watchlist". Watchlists are really useful: click the star next to "View History" on a page tab and it'll add it to your watch list.  Then, you can check your watch list to see when the last edit was and its edit summary at any time, which gets really helpful when trying to follow discussions or monitoring edits on pages you're interested in working on.  The sandbox is also useful because it's basically some free editing space to do some test edits, work on projects that you need some space for, etc.  It's a neat feature.
 * Behind Wikipedia are a few key policies to any article; the three keys are that they are verifiable, have a neutral point of view, and do not contain original research. There are some other rules as well you'll find as you go, but always remember, if a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it.
 * Lastly, I encourage you to check out some good articles to know what quality looks like and what kinds of things are common in high-quality articles. The Manual of Style is very helpful, but don't worry about memorizing all of it or anything like that; though it is nice reference material.  I've got a few featured articles I've worked on as well which may serve as a good reference: Sega Genesis, Sega 32X, and Sega v. Accolade.
 * Beyond that, I'd definitely encourage you to pick an article you'd like to work on whenever you'd like to go at that and I'd be glad to give some pointers. Some editors tend to do a lot of small maintenance-type edits and spend a lot of their time on that, but I tend to spend my time rewriting articles to improve their quality drastically.  Over time, I'm sure you'll figure out where you fall into that, but the encyclopedia has space for editors of all kinds here.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 22:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Well if you don't mind I do have an article in mind. I have a lot of links, but not sure how you guys do those numbered brackets. Potatoechip (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a great guide on how to do that at WP:REF.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 00:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

So do I just wait or can I still ask you for help? Potatoechipdeluxe (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC) So do I just use this or...? Potatoechipdeluxe (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * you know a person who can do the check on me? Green guy won't do it for some reason. Potatoechipdeluxe (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Little tip; creating a new account because one was blocked is not the way to fix it. That's a violation of WP:SOCK.  Try utilizing WP:GAB instead.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 00:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:APPEAL.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 02:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

What's going on?
Do you know why my other account was blocked? Potatoechipdeluxe (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * czar ♔  16:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Right after the last confirmed sockpuppet was blocked, this person comes along and starts complaining about refs and POV at underdog Sega consoles. The last 20 times this happened, it was a block evading sock... If you guys disagree, feel free to bring him to SPI. But I've been dealing with this same guy's editing from proxies for the past month or so, so I've done this enough to be personally convinced.  Sergecross73   msg me   19:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I trust your judgment on this one, Serge. Still, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to take it to SPI anyway if for no other reason than establishment (not to mention building a case against Jakandsig; when might a community ban for excessive sock puppetry be in order?)   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 01:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Red Phoenix, are you fully aware of all of the sockpuppetry documented in the archive? Suffice it to say, the case has been made.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am more than fully well aware, TTAAC, but just as I do in research in my job, it's always important to document everything. There's never any harm in not being as thorough as possible, and the behavior of this one so far has been a little different.  Jak's made it difficult lately with his consistent disruptiveness to assume good faith.  I have no doubt it simply could be a change in behavior to seem different, however, so an SPI couldn't hurt, and it may be time to consider bringing this somewhere to talk about a community ban of Jakandsig for such repeated sock puppetry.  He's proven, even if Potatoechip does not prove to be Jakandsig (though I am growing quite a bit more skeptical and have seen more signs lately), that he has no intention of doing this the proper way and respecting his sanctions, and he wishes to continue his behavior.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 01:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ummm, no refs were complained about? Didn't even know how to make them. I don't understand.
 * Sorry, not refs this time, but wording. I'm referring to this, where you started discussing the article's wording mere minutes after your last few accounts were identified as socks. Anyways, sorry Red Phoenix, I won't drag anymore of this onto your talk page. Sergecross73   msg me   18:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Now the timing I had not caught... that does raise the level of suspicion. It's quite all right about my talk page, Sergecross; I've seen worse here.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 01:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The numerous alternate "Potatoe" accounts created to harass Sergecross' user talk have Jakandsig's signature all over them.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing good articles
Please read it. And don't throw fits in future when people point it out to you.

Some help with Bandai WonderSwan
I was wondering if you could assist me in this article. I've been very busy myself with other projects, and it takes me more time translating then anything. And for some reason, all the reliable sources tend to have a variation of the history of the wonderswan, and not all of it is consistent. Lucia Black (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to help, but I do have some projects I'm working on as well. What kinds of things do you have in mind?   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 02:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to find any reception and legacy or anything history related. i find alot but its all so inconsistent, that i tend to deem it unreliable when it comes to the wonderswan. Lucia Black (talk) 05:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that I can help you with, although it may be until Wednesday until I can really dig in. I've had to sort out such inconsistency a bunch with quite a few articles before; it's not too bad a process to sort out, in my opinion.  If you have access to the Retro Gamer article referenced in the article, that'll be one of your best bets; if not, I suppose I wouldn't mind spending the $5 necessary to get it on my phone and review it.  I've worked with the "Retroinspection" series before; it's sometimes a little patchy on accuracy but is usually chock full of reliable information for all four facets of a good video game console article (history, tech specs, game library, and reception).   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 01:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, i have access to the article thanks to another editor. I covered most of what the article had to offer. It was only two pages long. The next 2 covered specific games on the wonderswan. Anyways, apparently theres another more recent Retro gamer issue covering more WonderSwan information. SO i'm still trying to gain access to that one. Other than that i am grateful for your assistance on this article. Lucia Black (talk) 04:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool. Lucia, I'll recommend we go ahead and shift over to continuing discussion on this on the WonderSwan talk page so we can really dive into what it's going to take.  That way we can also collaborate and hash out the issues together.  I'll go ahead and watch list that page until I can start research and review on Wednesday.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 00:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok i've made the new discussion there. Hope it turns out great. Lucia Black (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * here you go:. Lucia Black (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wonderful work, Lucia. I'll have to read this over for sure.  I apologize I haven't been able to work on this much; I've been sick the last few days.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 20:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's from dandy sephy. i was able to add info i'm sure there's a lot more, but i just wanted to make sure i didn't leave any missing info so i left it in your care. Don't worry about it. i understand how it is when you're under a project and suddenly an illness stops you. Lucia Black (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 April newsletter
Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's, whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included, who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and , who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from, tiger from and The Lion King from. We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to and  for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Mega Drive \ Genesis edit changed back in Master System article.
Hello Red Phoenix,

A few days ago, whilst reading the Sega Master system page on Wikipedia, I noticed a section entitled 'Transition to Sega Genesis and decline' - I changed the heading to 'Transition to Sega Mega Drive and decline'. The reason I did this, simply, is that the Mega Drive\Genesis is a Japanese console in origin, and is known in Japan as the Sega Mega Drive. Furthermore, the console is known in Europe as the Sega Mega Drive, in Brazil as the Sega Mega Drive, in Australia as the Sega Mega Drive, and in Asia as the Sega Mega Drive. (South Korea aside, which has it's own unique name)

In North America, Sega was unable to call the console Mega Drive, due to a trademark dispute, and had to change the name to Sega Genesis.

It seems pretty clear that Mega Drive is the senior name for this console, with Genesis the secondary \ alternative title. It is, simply, the Sega Mega Drive, also known as the Sega Genesis, and not the other way around.

Checking back on the page a few days later, I noticed that my edit had been changed back, with the following explanation offered - 'until consensus changes, Genesis is the name of that article and its use here is for consistency.'

Whilst that is correct, it simply points out a second 'incorrect' usage of Sega Genesis as the senior name for this console. Surely changing the name of the Mega Drive\Genesis article to 'Sega Mega Drive' and leaving my edit intact, would have been preferable to removing my edit, so as to avoid inconsistency with an existing 'incorrect' article title.

You say in your explanation that 'until consensus changes, Genesis is the name of that article' - if I may ask, the consensus of whom? People in North America, who called the console the Genesis when they played on one in the 90s? Surely the consensus of everyone in Japan, Europe, Brazil, Australia, and Asia (south Korea aside) is already that the console is the Sega Mega Drive, also known as the Genesis in North America.

The view of Sega themselves, is that the console is called the Sega Mega Drive, with the alternative title of Genesis in North America.

I gather, from reading some of the comments on the discussion page, that this is probably not the first time this issue has been discussed, and I assume, as previously mentioned, that the lack of consensus was from North American users of the console. However, I assume that North American views on this issue, or any other for that matter, are not held in any higher value than the views of those from any other area of the world.

I wouldn't expect there to be a consensus in North America that the console is called the Sega Mega Drive, but surely there is consensus (as it is factually correct) that the console is called the Sega Mega Drive in the vast majority of the rest of the world, including the country of origin.

Given all this, it seems strange that the console is still the Genesis - also known as the Mega Drive, and not the other way around. If the console was known as the Mega Drive everywhere in the world apart from Finland, would this still be the case?

In short, can you give me your opinion as to why a console known as the Mega Drive in it's country of origin, and every other major market in the world, which had to have it's name changed in North America to avoid a copyright dispute, should not be primarily known by it's original, more widely used title.

Many thanks,

Stew M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.130.50 (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is an FAQ on Talk:Sega Genesis specifically for these questions czar ♔  06:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Stew: I actually happen to share your opinions on a lot of these matters. In the past title debates, I've argued for Mega Drive, and I happen to be American.  The factual statements you make are correct, but various arguments have resulted in, believe it or not, no consensus at all.  It's not that there is a consensus for Genesis, it's that there is no consensus for either title and per a policy (WP:TITLECHANGES), the title defaults to the first title used when the article was no longer a stub, which was Sega Genesis.  The talk page's FAQ that czar linked above contains all of the arguments both ways and an explanation of the situation, but one consensus was established: Further debate on the matter without bringing new facts that haven't been talked about already are now considered disruptive, because this is a war that has been happening since 2006 and has never resulted in a clear direction either way.  At this point, it's not worth arguing anymore, but it is important to establish consistency across the encyclopedia so as not to confused readers unfamiliar with the subject material.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 13:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Red Phoenix,

Thank you for the reply.

The article you mentioned states - 'If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed.'

I think that also implies that the opposite is also true, and that an article title that has been stable for a long time, that does have a good reason to be changed, should be changed. So my edit was in keeping with the guidelines, as anyone with any knowledge of the subject matter would accept that the name of the Sega Genesis article should be changed to Sega Mega Drive.

I accept that, due to the lack of consensus this is not possible, but I think that demonstrates that the people involved in the discussions attempting to establish the consensus were ill informed, or refused to reach a consensus for other reasons. This is, as you, or anyone else familiar with the subject matter will know, and issue in which an obvious consensus could have been quickly reached.

I didn't realise that any further discussion of this matter without bringing new facts would be considered disruptive, having not been present for the original discussions. It seems clear though, that new facts aren't needed in this case, as the existing facts are more than enough to settle the issue.

I wont read the original arguments now, as this seems to be an issue that has been settled (albeit incorrectly), so we will leave it at that.

You say 'it is important to establish consistency across the encyclopedia so as not to confused readers unfamiliar with the subject material.'

This is true, but it is also equally important not to confuse readers who are familiar with the subject matter. In this case, I am familiar with the subject matter, and I was confused by the usage of Sega Genesis as the default title for the Sega Mega Drive. :D

I suppose that is that then. Nice talking to you.

Stew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.130.50 (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm a little unsure as to where the confusion lies, to be honest. Admittedly, I knew of the UK and US titles before Wikipedia started up in the first place, but I notice if I type "Mega Drive" into the search box, I get an article that starts "The Sega Genesis, known as Mega Drive" .... and has a picture with the logos "Sega Genesis" and "Sega Mega Drive". What precisely were you confused about? Anyway, the reason I came here is to reassure Red Phoenix that my recent comment on Talk:Sega Genesis was a swing at the IP who's made the same rude comments again and again and got blocked for it, not to either of you. Happy editing! (And if you think this is bad, try Talk: London derry, which is far worse.....) Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   16:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

I was confused about the wiki article using Sega Genesis as the senior title, when Mega Drive is the senior title. Mega Drive is the original title, the more widely used title, and the title that would have been used everywhere (S Korea aside), including in North America, had there not been a copyright issue.

I was also confused as to why my edit was removed, when it seemed to be a edit that improved the overall accuracy of the article.

Red Phoenix has explained that, while he agreed with this, due to previous problems, the issue is 'closed', for want of a better term.

I don't think anyone is trying to change the name, but when a console has 2 names, 1 of which can be pretty conclusively shown to be the senior, original title, it seems strange to use it as the alternative title.

It's not the most important thing in the world, as you say, but it is strange, and I thank Red Phoenix for explaining the politics that prevents it being changed.

Thanks,

Stew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.130.50 (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's been ongoing for years, and I had to get used to "Mega Drive" myself when I started, having always known it as a Genesis until I started working on Wikipedia. Actually, having participated in several WP:RFC debates about it stretching as far back as 2008, I've seen really good arguments for both sides .  Certainly I share the same view on the title itself in that Mega Drive I believe is the "senior title" and favor it personally, but did you know Genesis was its first title in an English-speaking market?  Sales figures have also shown, while progressing this article toward featured article status, that 40 million units were sold worldwide, with about 20 million in North America, creating almost a 50/50 split on "Genesis" consoles vs. "Mega Drive" consoles sold.  I don't argue these points myself, but they happen to be some of the valid points brought up by the other side.  This has, in effect, been a major contributor to the 50/50 split in support, and as a result, the remaining articles have also fallen in line (Sega CD vs Mega-CD, for instance).  As one of the most frequent contributors to Sega articles, though, I make sure to use caution when proceeding with this issue and usually take the stance that I refer to the console as "Genesis" in order to maintain consistency, except when referring to a region-specific usage, i.e. comments referring directly to the release in Japan or Europe (it still makes me cringe to see "Japanese Genesis", for instance).
 * Side note, Stew: Have you ever thought about registering an account and working on the encyclopedia? It's a great way to spend free time constructively and can be very enjoyable.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 22:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

I think with things like sales figures, etc, you can create enough of a counter-argument to avoid changing the name, if you set out to stop it happening. You can chip away at the argument, but ultimately, the Mega Drive name being the name in the country of origin, plus all other major non-US markets (Korea aside), should carry the argument.

If a console is named the Mega Drive, and has its named changed to Genesis to avoid a copyright dispute, it is the Mega Drive also known as the Genesis, not the other way around. There isn't really a strong counter argument to that. I think pretty much everyone (outside of the people discussing it on wikipedia apparently :D) would accept that.

Regardless, correct or not, it seems this issue has been settled.

I will consider registering and making some edits \ improvements, but as this situation shows, it can be more complicated that it seems. :D

Thanks,

Stew 92.236.130.50 (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You ought to read through the archived discussions on it at some point; it's actually quite an entertaining read in my opinion. Certainly some issues on Wikipedia are complex, yes, and this particular one is listed at WP:LAME for a reason.  On the whole, however, learning the policies and styles of the encyclopedia makes Wikipedia fun and enjoyable, and lets editors make brilliant, well-sourced articles.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 00:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Question
I was wondering, could you provide page numbers for the Electronic Gaming Monthly sources you added to Sega Saturn here? I only ask because all of the other magazine/print sources have page numbers. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't have the 1996 page number; you may see if Indrian can lend you a hand. For 1998, the page number is 51.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 00:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Nikkimaria (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: I advise some caution...
Huh. Well, then, perhaps it may as well, in the wider WP:VG community's eyes, be just me populating that section. I appreciate you pointing that out, though it was nice to have an ally while it lasted. (A well-esteemed one, anyway...) Anyhow, do you know any way to get the RfC process to actually... happen? I'm completely inexperienced with it. And by "widely construed" do you mean that it's generally interpreted too loosely or just written too vaguely from the start? Sorry if this is an unorganized heap to throw at you; there's just a lot relevant to the discussion. Tezero (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * if you read WP:FICT, it basically says now just to follow WP:N. It used to be quite specific, however; I feel as though it's been watered down due to consensus issues.  I believe WP:RFC will have all of the instructions you are looking for.  Always glad to help.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 01:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've requested, er, comment. I hope some kind of agreement can be reached. Hell, even if they decide that every single Sonic character should be merged and every other video game character down to the individual villagers in Minish Cap deserves a full-length article, at least I'll know for sure that it wasn't just WP:VG being weird. Tezero (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Trust me, if it gets down to villagers in Minish Cap, they are NOT deserving of a full-length article. WP:UNDUE has to apply here; it's a shame it doesn't seem to ever be applied in quite the right fashion.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 03:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of WonderSwan
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article WonderSwan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Indrian -- Indrian (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of WonderSwan
The article WonderSwan you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:WonderSwan for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Indrian -- Indrian (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment re WonderSwan
I'm here with a concern that is so exceedingly minor as to be unworthy of the GA Review. What makes Capcom's support for the system "significant" enough to single it out in the lead as such? The source cited for the one sentence mentioning Capcom in "Game library" does include the publisher as one of several "key players" on the system, but it also notes "their investment in WonderSwan was less comprehensive than their Neo Geo Pocket support". To go by that article, Namco's support sounds more notable: "[Namco] went the extra mile for WonderSwan...the Bandai/Namco partnership surely helped pave the way for the Bandai/Namco corporate merger." But maybe there are different sources which explain the text used in the lead? Just a thought,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In the time you took to write that up, you could have just as easily made the change you felt was right. Just a humorous and well-intended bit of food for thought.  No, the selection of Capcom is no more or less than a random selection as with Square; as I interpret it, there were several key contributors and developers, and I just picked two when putting together the lead without trying to decide if a developer was more "notable" in terms of the console.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 03:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

here is a translation of the site the new editor posted...i'm not so sure what it all means, i hope you could understand it. （周波数連続変化）を使う Lucia Black (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of WonderSwan
The article WonderSwan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:WonderSwan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Indrian -- Indrian (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

WonderSwan
I've nominated the article for DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/WonderSwan if you want to have a look. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've never done a DYK before, so that's pretty cool.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 11:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Jun Senoue mentioned in Retro Gamer
Hi Red Phoenix, here's the relevant snippet from the article you requested. Senoue is mentioned at the bottom of the paragraph. I hope it will be useful to you. -Thibbs (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Smith, Sean. "Company Profile: Sonic Team." Retro Gamer. No.26. Pg.27. 22 June 2006.

FA congratulations
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Sega CD to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon (either on a particular date or on any available date), please nominate it at the requests page. If you'd like to see an FA appear on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with about 1,305 articles waiting their turn at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 22:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for WonderSwan
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

WonderSwan...FA potential?
I was wondering if the WonderSwan has potential of being FA. i usually believe the biggest issue with "featured" is the high-quality sources, and it seems to fit that. Would you like it if we put it in peer review to see if anyone finds anything worth noting. I may just be too hopeful though. so if you see any issues that can't be fixed right away, let me know. Lucia Black (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Biggest thing it needs for an FA run is more fleshing out. There needs to be more detail in the history, more critical commentary in the tech specs and reception.  Period-based reviews are going to be important, too.  I think it's perfectly feasible, but it'll require a lot more sources for more fleshing out, and I did the best I could already with what I have access to.  It's quite possible someone at the VG project may have more that could really help out, though?   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 12:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I know User:New Age Retro Hippie is good with finding sources but maybe we found them all. I'm still considering looking up the Japanese sources, even though its a bit of a nightmare. But hopefully more is covered in detail. Period-based reviews is also a difficult thing for a console that only released in Japan. Lucia Black (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Sega sources
Hey. After providing scans for the Sega Saturn article, I happened to browse through the other Sega console pages—and I noticed that almost all of them were either good or featured. Really, really impressive work. Do you plan to follow up your Genesis topic with a Sega consoles topic? If you ever work on the Dreamcast page, feel free to hit me up for sources. I have a ton of EGM and Next Generation issues from that period. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the compliment. I do plan to do Dreamcast and Sega Pico later on and would eventually really like to do Sega and Sega Sammy Holdings, although that will be a massive undertaking.  Right now, though, I haven't had much time or motivation to do a whole lot of editing.  This happens periodically; I do a few different writing projects, and right now the other major one I do is peaking and has most of my interest, but I still come on to check on everything and will be more active as my interests shift again to keep things fresh.  It tends to work in cycles to help keep my mind interested and helps me to do better work.  When I get to those points, I'll be glad to hit you up for some resources.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 02:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's exactly how I used to work when I wrote articles, so I understand. Glad to know that the Saturn hoopla didn't turn you off the whole project. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been there before. I made the decision when I came back last year that that wasn't going to happen again.   Red Phoenix  let's talk... 03:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter
After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's, whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from, a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of.

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. and 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2014
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)