User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 69

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi Sergecross, I see you were involved in this RfC about adding years to navigational templates, and commented on Jax 0677's talk page after (

Yeah, the only real consensus in those discussions was to be following

WP:BRD, and that they shouldn’t be mass-adding or mass-removing then. So any time he adds it, and someone challenges it, it should stay out unless a separate consensus arises out of a discussion. Same goes for removing it from ones that already have it. Jax 0677, what’s going on here. Finding it hard to believe you forgot this, or don’t understand the situation... Sergecross73 msg me

18:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Reply - I am the one who created {{Bad Bunny}}. Someone else simply beat me to adding the article for the first studio album, so I then added the year to the album. Now that I think about it, I guess since someone else added the album, I should leave the year off of it. My mistake. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I’m fine with that response. Looks like we’re good then. Sergecross73 msg me 17:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey there. Just wanted to know if its alright to remove my own messages on other user's talk pages? Thanks. Namcokid47 (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

If they haven't been replied to, yes. -- ferret (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Yup, this. Usually it’s fine as long as you’re not doing it after it’s been responded to. People are generally considered in control of their own talk page though, so if were talking about Huet, so it’s not totally out of line for him to have restored your comment on his talk page (albeit confusing, as I’m not sure why he’s prefer to keep your relatively ordinary rescinded comment on his talk page.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses. Yeah, I'm not sure why either - maybe his ego likes knowing I was wrong at one point? I tried removing it again but he later re added it, so I'll likely just let it be. It's not a big deal, really.Namcokid47 (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey I was wondering if you could check the Elvis singles article out. It looks confusing because some user decided to split the singles into different sections and he added a B-side section. I ask this because I like reading articles on Wikipedia and it really disturbs me that there is a B-side section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryan1518 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

i apologize for my actions from corrupted behavior by editing things i was very wrong i'm sorry. all i want is to edit the right corrections sources on concept albums and i just want to know if any albums is a concept album that is right source or wrong source, please just give me a chance.Johnny758 (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

It’s very simple. You already know how to add sources, it’s just that your sources don’t say anything about concept albums. You can’t just add Allmusic reviews randomly. The source has to say “(Album) is a concept album”. If you can find a source that says that, you can add it. If the source doesn’t contain the words “concept album”, then don’t add it. If you can’t find a source then don’t add it.

If you still don’t understand what I mean, just check the article itself. There are literally hundreds of examples of how to do it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

i edit the concept albums on t.i.'s album t.i. vs. t.i.p., it's a concept album and i didn't write the reviews on the editing of list of concept albums source on t.i. vs t.i.p.. is it a right source or wrong source just let me know if it's not good.Johnny758 (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that’s good enough. While I prefer sources that literally use the term “concept album”, the source says things like “album’s concept” enough to see that probably what they’re driving at. Sergecross73 msg me 21:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Now we really could use an admin's input at this discussion:

I’ll take a look at it tomorrow. Sergecross73 msg me 03:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, could you please explain why you undid my edits to the page? The information contained in it was (and now is again) very inaccurate regarding the The Legend of Heroes / Trails series:

- The Trails in the Sky trilogy does not "collectively make up the sixth entry in the series". Falcom last used a numeral next to "The Legend of Heroes" when they first released Trails in the Sky (the first game in the trilogy), for Windows PC in 2004. For the PSP re-release in 2006 and every subsequent re-release, they dropped the numeral. The sequels, Trails in the Sky SC and Trails in the Sky the 3rd, never had the "VI" numeral in their name in any release ever. You can check the validity of this in Falcom's website, as well as the game box shots available on www.gamerankings.com .

- Likewise, Zero no Kiseki and Ao no Kiseki never had the "VII" numeral in their names, they simply released with "The Legend of Heroes" prefix, same as all games in the Trails universe. Again, it doesn't make sense to talk about these 2 games as "the seventh entry" in "The Legend of Heroes" series.

- The point of talking about "arcs" is exactly the very nature of the Trails series: all 9 games released so far take place in the same world, they share locations, characters, and an ongoing, overarching plot. The Trails in the Sky and Trails of Cold Steel subseries are 2 story arcs in this universe.

I suggest you first research about these games (Falcom's official Kiseki page and XSEED's Trails page are good starting points), take a more thorough look at my edit, and decide if it doesn't add clarity, accuracy and information to the page.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.50.119.210 (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

These were largely not the things I objected. I was against your removal of the “Trails to Azure” names (Yes yes, I don’t need another fan reminding me it’s unofficial. It doesn’t matter. English sources commonly use them, so it’s more helpful than throwing a “n/a” down) and I didn’t think some of your note contributions were helpful. (You changed the note for Second Chapter to “The second chapter in the trilogy.” The title covers that just fine, we don’t need a redundant note like that.) This is why you shouldn’t make so many changes in one edit, to prevent confusion like this. Please split these changes into multiple edits to avoid confusion like this in the future. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

Enterprisey • JJMC89

BorgQueen

Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

Enterprisey

Guideline and policy news

• A
  activity requirements
  for administrators.
• Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

• A
  WP:PERM
  , where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

Hi Sergecross73. I hate to bring something like this back to you, but looks like we have a disruptive move case similar to what Flooded with them hundreds did (back under TheMagnificentist) with those discography redirects I made. Now, one thing I want to make clear is, you know I've had to accept users not wanting to create content over redirects I made. Whatever. But they need to do it the right way. The user MaranoFan has saw fit to move my redirect for

I've requested it to be moved to the appropriate title at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical_requests#Uncontroversial_technical_requests. No need for action against me, I apologize for the out-of-procedure move. Everything is fixed now so I'm unsure why Ss112 is seeking drama here.--NØ 12:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeking drama, I'm informing an admin who I consider experienced in this matter who (along with several other admins who noticed) previously warned Flooded with them hundreds against this in the past and is the part of the reason they got page-move restricted. Ss112 12:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

This is the first instance of me making an out of procedure move so the

WP:AGF thing to do is to cut me slack instead of trying to get me "warned". This is all unnecessary drama considering your redirect is still going to be deleted and the article will be moved at the end of the day. I had no disruptive intent, so stop.--NØ

12:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

You didn't think doing this wasn't allowed after being on Wikipedia for...how many years now? I'm not going to "stop" and avoid asking for you to be rightly called out for this behaviour. You lost any assumptions of good faith from me a while ago when you kept stalking me, so no. Ss112 12:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

So you create virtually every single article about pop music on wikipedia, update charts on almost every song article, but yet everyone who edits pages related to the same topics is "stalking" you? Makes sense. (sarcasm)--NØ 12:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Stop playing dumb. Making content related to something you've never edited before right as I was is not coincidence, especially as you've had problems with me for months now. I'm done annoying Sergecross73 with replies now, and so should you be. Ss112 12:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

"Making content related to something you've never edited before right as I was is not coincidence" -- Thats your bad faith assumption. Its a very likely coincidence considering this song is making huge moves on Billboard this week. But its not like bad faith is unexpected from you, considering you've already called me "an absolutely ridiculous piece of work" a few months ago.--NØ 12:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I already told you you lost all good faith assumptions from me when you stalked me, and personally attacked me several times. I think you've just proven you're still stalking me and keep tabs on previous drama. Holy crap, can't relate. Honestly, some editors appear to have nothing better to do than sit at their computers and watch my every move on an online encyclopedia, create drama with me then point their fingers at me and say I'm creating the drama. I'm actually done here. Sergecross, I am so sorry for all of this, I know you absolutely hate this drama trash. Ss112 12:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll also apologize to Sergecross for this happening on their talk page. Ss112, you need to stop creating drama. It doesn't matter if you have been here for 2 years or 12, AGF still applies to you so stop throwing around serious words like "stalking". I guess I can claim you "stalked" me to this article too (which, by the way, is about an obscure song that isn't charting anywhere), but I'll refrain because I'm not petty. I'll request you to leave Serge's page alone, though.--NØ 13:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

You link to an article you made (Out of Love) from an article I literally made (The Pains of Growing) then claim I'm stalking you... The lack of self-awareness... I can't. Ss112 13:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

So are you actually gonna leave Sergecross's talk page alone or will you just keep throwing out meaningless apologies for it in the edit summaries but still continuing anyway? Email me if you want to have an actual dispute resolution instead of causing chaos and drama. I'm done here, and apologies to Serge. Please feel free to delete or hat my comments from here if you don't want this on your talk page.--NØ 13:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I've messaged you on your talk. Ss112 13:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that Ss112 has undone his reversal of my move, and has also in process deleted the WP:RM discussion I linked above. And I have admitted my mistake and agreed not to repeat it. I would say that no further action is needed with regards to either of us. Once again, apologies for this lengthy discussion being on your TP, Sergecross73.--NØ 14:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

(

Flooded w/them 100s

12:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

You were warned by several admins; what the definition of gaming was is not the real issue. I suppose all the editors who create redirects on Wikipedia (just about all of them) are gaming the system by your definition, then...? Nice hot take. You were not creating content by moving discographies, you were moving content created by others and adding onto it. That's not really justifiable by "I made an article for this already" via G6. But sure, annoy Sergecross with 20 more replies justifying your past behaviour that you're still restricted for. Ss112 12:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The difference is those other editors don't create redirects for the sake of it, you've clearly shown your obsession with redirects many times through all these disputes, snarky edit summaries and creating tens of thousands of redirects of music-related pages. MaranoFan is

Flooded w/them 100s

13:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm interested in music and always have been, so there's nothing being created "for the sake of it". But even if I did have an "obsession" with creating redirects, so what? That shouldn't concern you. Editors can make articles for those topics themselves. Nobody's stopping them. There's a whole process to do that. I don't see you criticising all the other editors out there who make plenty of redirects? You keep ignoring that point. You've also made a tonne and still do (and probably will after this). Your actions are still considered disruptive, you can't justify it by offering a new hot take and getting into semantics about what G6 does and doesn't say. I don't think your play will be accepted in the future. I'm just trying not to annoy Sergecross more than I already have. I don't care what you think of me. Ss112 13:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Meet me at the

Flooded w/them 100s

13:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

(

Sorry all, it was a crazy busy day over here. Will look through this shortly. Sergecross73 msg me 23:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Okay, my conclusions on all this.
  • Ss112 is correct that these sorts of page moves that MaranoFan did one of are not the way to go about doing things.
  • It seems that MaranoFan acknowledges this, and agrees to not do this anymore, so as long as it doesn’t become a pattern, it’s fine. Unless it happens further, I’m fine at leaving it at that. If it happens further, then we’ll need to talk again.
  • Flooded’s claim that Ss112’s high volume of redirect creation is bogus. The redirects are generally plausible search terms and valid. My only objection is the arguments that have ensued with his redirects are legitimately G6’d, but as far as I’ve seen, he’s largely dropped that for quite some time, so there’s no problem there.
  • Flooded’s page moves were strongly and clearly deemed disruptive and not okay, especially with some of the investigating coming to the conclusion that some could not possible be accidental (like the one where he used bizarre obscure characters to create an article at a new location and avoid working off of a redirect.) Regardless of how many times he changes his name, it doesn’t get him out of the fact that he’s at his final warning as far as those shenanigans go. Do no go into that again.
  • I think that covers everything, though let me know if I missed anything. Sergecross73 msg me 00:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Serge. We've got a problem with

Sorry, I looked into this, but forgot to respond. I agree that you’re in the right here, it’s pretty clearly fancruft. But I couldn’t find anywhere where it was really explained to them, so it’s hard for me to really take much action here. I think they really just need to be informed as the next step. Sergecross73 msg me 15:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I've discussed the matter on User talk:Sjones23#Fancruft on Power Rangers pages. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. As per my request on WikiProject Video games, you implemented page protection for Knack II on 24 January, to expire 7 February. Please could you extend the protection as it's only been 2 days from it being lifted that more vandalism has occurred. Thanks. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. For now, I’m going to hold off on further protection - 1 bad edit in 4 days isn’t all that bad. But if a couple more happen, let me know and I’ll re-apply. Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 21:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

As you wish, although I guarantee more will come over the next month or so. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wikibenboy94: Page protection policy requires us to wait until there's a need, and to keep the protection as short as we can. One edit is not enough for re-protection yet. -- ferret (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Yup, exactly this. I don’t doubt you WikiBenBoy - you are probably correct technically, but policy requires me to be reactive, not proactive, so I really need to wait until it gets a little worse. Sergecross73 msg me 23:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Sergecross73:, I wanted to reach out and use your expertise on a few things. I'd also like to hear what others (@Ferret:, @Arkhandar:, @Smuckola:) have to say if you want to include them or you want to move this conversation as it may be more appropriate somewhere else. It's long, so read as much as you feel welcome to get the idea.

Predicament: So you're likely going to be pissed at how unnecessary and absolutely trivial this is, but it's driving me crazy and I figured I'd ask: punctuation in video game titles. It's not important in the grand scheme of things and most people could care less, but going through the list of games and seeing them written out, I'm going insane. "Why doesn't that have a colon? Well, whatever. This one too! Wait, now this one has an extra colon!" This hurts me more than it should.

Upon investigating the Wikipedia pages for the games in question, the first one I went to conveniently had a (heated or, let's say, passionate) conversation that you were a part of. Mind you this was five years ago, but I agreed with several editors in how Fire Emblem Awakening should undeniably have a colon after the series title. "I mean come on, every Fire Emblem up to that point had a colon before the subtitle. Why change it up now?" Sigh... I let it go for a whole two minutes until I scroll down and see Mario Tennis Open. "What the.. No, no, this is a cruel joke. Other Mario Tennis games have colon before the subtitles, why not this one? Mario Tennis: Power Tour, Mario Tennis: Ultra Smash, even the newest one! ...Oh. Nope." Mario Tennis Aces does not have a colon. Not on Wikipedia, not on Nintendo's site, not on the game itself...

Conclusion 1: So maybe you've seen a pattern. There are other games this applies to, but it was around this point I caught onto the pattern. Here's my theory: you should not put a colon if the subtitle is one word. "Ahhh... I see. That's... well, marginally better." The OCD part of me wants to have the colon, but I guess that's the English rule. Maybe I missed this is English class, because I don't remember this being a thing. Okay, well I can accept that. Let's carry on. This checks off most of the time, actually, with a few exceptions that we'll get to. I kept going through the list: Mario Strikers Charged, check; Super Smash Bros. Melee, check; Metroid Prime Pinball, check. "Okay, now we're talking." I keep going and see Wii Play: Motion, Star Fox: Assault... "Sunuva." Conclusion 1

Conclusion 1 (Corrected): Revised theory: you may use a colon if the subtitle is one word, but it is not required. Okay, now that theory does in fact check off the vast majority, but still not all. "Okay, phew. Scared me there, but nothing too harmful. What's this though..."

Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers (video game) -> "Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers (video game)"

• Reason: Chip 'n Dale with the colon is the name of the TV show Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers and mobile game, so it's the one left out. If it is in the same vein as Donkey Kong Jungle Beat, then so be it, I won't touch it. But from searching the internet, it is divided on the proper way, so do we stand with the most 'proper' way, as seen from other material it was featured in? Based on the verdict for the first game, the second would be changed as well: Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers 2 -> "Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers 2"

Kirby & the Amazing Mirror -> "Kirby & The Amazing Mirror"

• Reason: The most correct way would likely be to say "Kirby and the Amazing Mirror" but the boxart shows a capital "T" and the lowercase "the" looks incorrect succeeding the ampersand. To the reader, it sounds as if The Amazing Mirror is supposed to be important, apparently even as important as Kirby in this case with the use of capitalization.

"Sonic Adventure 2 Battle" within Sonic Adventure 2 -> "Sonic Adventure 2: Battle"

• Reason: Subtitle, disputed between colon or not.

"Namco Museum 50th Anniversary" within Namco Museum -> ""Namco Museum: 50th Anniversary"

• Reason: I could change this one myself since it isn't a full page, but it's on the same list as the others here. Subtitle, disputed between colon or not.

"The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Anniversary Edition" within The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past and Four Swords -> "The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords - Anniversary Edition"

• Reason: Subtitle for the subtitle needs an em-dash. And while this is brought up the page name is misleading as it is currently named. This implies the game is one called "The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past and Four Swords" when it is "The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past" and "The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords". So the page name should be "The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past / Four Swords" based on similar pages.

Marvel: Ultimate Alliance -> "Marvel Ultimate Alliance"

• Reason: Disputed between colon or not. The series isn't Marvel, it's Marvel Ultimate Alliance. And the newest one (3) that is about to come out has its own subtitle that definitively does not have a colon after Marvel. Does that redact the colon from the previous entries? Same for Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2 -> "Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2"

Kirby's Dream Collection -> "Kirby's Dream Collection: Special Edition"

• Reason: No dispute. This one actually just doesn't include the subtitle in its current name. Nothing makes it "special edition", as there is no Kirby Dream Collection: Original. It just came out to celebrate an anniversary.

Metroid Prime: Trilogy -> "Metroid Prime Trilogy"

• Reason: Dispute between names. Well, well, well. So they finally use a colon, but not correctly. It is not a subset of the Metroid Prime games as the colon implies, but a compilation of three games as the no-colon version implies. So on Nintendo's listing for the game, it says "Metroid Prime: Trilogy" but within the description they say the name again without the colon! Going off of the primary source, including the colon is misleading but its usage is not even consistent. It isn't a consensus from my research on secondary sources, as many sources remove the colon and many keep it as Nintendo had it. I should point out that just typing "Metroid Prime Trilogy" will get you more results without the colon as there is vocal support for a rerelease of Metroid Prime Trilogy for the Switch after the announcement of Metroid Prime 4. Searching explicitly for the Wii version will get you the non-consensus I saw.

Skylanders: SuperChargers -> "Skylanders SuperChargers"

• Reason: Official sources from Nintendo and Activision say it without a colon. I hate to undo the proper use of punctuation, but in the same vein as Fire Emblem Awakening, if they choose not to, they do not formally need the colon.

"Batman: Arkham City Armored Edition" in Batman: Arkham City -> "Batman: Arkham City - Armored Edition"

• Reason: Nintendo omits the second colon or dash and just powers through. I was shocked and, dare I say, a little proud that IGN at least does a double dash, acknowledging that it should be an em-dash before the edition suffix. In researching the next game on my list, I am proud that the Wikipedia page for Deus Ex: Human Revolution does the em-dash correctly for the Director's Cut.

Xenoblade Chronicles 2: Torna – The Golden Country -> "Xenoblade Chronicles 2: Torna ~ The Golden Country"

• Reason: Guh. The one time it's seemingly perfect! Wikipedia uses an em-dash, but Nintendo uses a ...tilde. It's literally the art in this case. I thought it was just how they drew it on the box-art but they've used that writing on their website and YouTube promos for it and other have used either way, em-dash (more literally, they used the hypen) and tilde.

1-2-Switch -> "1-2-Switch" (with em-dashes instead of hyphens)

• Reason: Now this one is driving me crazy. Just like in other situations where Nintendo used a hyphen when they clearly meant an em-dash. (think Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Spirit of Justice and Snipperclips Plus - Cut it out, together!) We know what they meant, so it is our job to correct them? I am bothered that everyone online writes it with hyphens as well and the side of the box uses hyphens since Nintendo printed it, but the em-dashes are the correct punctuation there. A pause is intended as in a countdown: 1..2..Switch! They are not connected as hyphens would mean.

Here are two others I've found that I'm not quite sure of the best way to resolve but I figured I'd bring them up in the discussion:

• Reason: This is where that English Nobel-laureate roommate would come in handy. Internet searches are terrible for answering my question to this, but isn't "starring" supposed to be lowercase and then there actually would not be a colon? I can't seem to find something with "starring" in the title, only the advertising on the poster so the grammar for how it would be written as the movie's title is left unnecessary. Otherwise, if "Starring" is capital, I would think there is a missing colon. Same goes for its sequels and handheld remakes:
  Super Smash Bros. for Wii U
  in that the "for Wii U" is two words, but they are a descriptor of the title and are not segmented into the role of the subtitle.

Disney's Magical Mirror Starring Mickey Mouse -> "Disney's Magical Mirror starring Mickey Mouse"

• Reason: Same reason as above, "starring".

Thanks for taking any amount of time to look into this. If any of these get fixed because of me, awesome. But if any don't change, I will try not to judge my entire life-worth on what a website names these games. At the very least, please pat me on the back so I know it'll all be okay. ^_^ --Bchill53 (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

(

oops

00:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Haha probably more time than the total I've spent editing articles on Wikipedia. I hope Sergecross73 is honored at the very least... --Bchill53 (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I am honored. And I will answer you on this...tomorrow. Sorry, it’s Friday night over here and I don’t have time to give this the thorough answer it deserves. I’ll only say this at the moment: We titled it Fire Emblem Awakening because an editor asked Nintendo directly and they responded directly on social media. I remember being there for it. But that’s an extremely rare case and not the way to typically do things at all. It’s just an amusing anecdote. Sergecross73 msg me 00:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

You'll have to read the whole thing. I've now long accepted that Fire Emblem Awakening is correct the way it is, don't worry. :) No rush on a reply, hope to hear from you whenever you get a moment. --Bchill53 (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

(

oops

01:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bchill53: I'm honored that you've pinged me, so thanks. And omg, what a monster of a thread! I'll be sure to read through it all tomorrow and give my feedback. Cheers! ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 01:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course! I know I'm missing others but the few users I mentioned all seem to have been in discussions similar to this in the past and you have been very knowledgeable in your decisions. You all seem approachable, so that can be good but may be bad when a newbie sends you a large wall of text like this. :) --Bchill53 (talk) 06:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's my comment: Names don't need to have consistent rules, besides the implementation of

WP:Move request on the talk page of the affected article. However, I'm seeing more than a few which would be rejected on that count.... --Izno (talk

) 23:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Hey there
  Fire Emblem: Awakening - both situations yield the same result. Readers can search for either, and come to the page all the same. And both names have effectively the same meaning. It doesn't really matter what we call the article. My responses to your examples above varies. Some probably should be moved (Metroid Prime: Trilogy seems...awkward and probably incorrect. Just a guess though) while others are probably fine. But as long as they are recognizable and find-able through searches...I don't feel like it matters all that much. Sergecross73 msg me
  03:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not ecstatic to hear, but I appreciate the truthful response, Sergecross73. I won't fret too much over how things are named based on what I believe is the most 'correct' name. If I see any titles that I blatantly disagree with, I will change them in my own lists but accept how they are on Wikipedia. In that regard, I will try to go ahead and move any that I think should be moved. I started a move on something else before but asked if you could finish it up; do I ask you in the future or finish it up myself? I don't want to bug you too excessively if you don't need to be. Initiating the move was fairly self-explanatory, but I was confused about what to do after that. Although I've accepted a few of the names above, there would still be several that I may plow through and see if I'm opposed by moving them. You may have to wish me luck. :) Thanks! --Bchill53 (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, feel free to run examples by me, I’m happy to give my two cents. I’m just probably going to generally be indifferent if it’s about whether or not hyphens or colons are used. Sergecross73 msg me 03:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)