Someone another

Hello, Someone another, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comment. Can we possibly move your opinion to Deserted island? -- Kleinzach 01:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

A pleasure, and done.Someone another 03:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I just noticed you added the sarcastic gamers AfD to the videogames list. Just as a request, could you make your edit summories when doing that a little clearer? I couldn't quite get what you did just from the edit summary. Thanks! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes of course, sorry. I try hard not to edit without summaries, rattling through, but if they're not readable then of course it defeats the object. :/ Someone another (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I make some pretty obscure edit summaries myself too at times. Sometimes I have to be reminded that what's readable for me, doesn't mean comprehensible for another. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, that was a very kind gesture, I'll try to keep it up. :) Someone another (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I made the changes you requested to President Forever 2008 + Primaries. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs to be done. Thanks for your help! Blandish (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Now that the changes have been made, is this still a stub article? How do you get a GA ranking? Blandish (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello there Blandish. Currently the article is still a stub, before I'd personally upgrade it to a start rating there needs to be some hole-filling and rewriting, it still doesn't resemble a basic article outline. Good Article status is achieved when an uninvolved editor checks the article against a set of standards, and the article is upgraded to their specification. However, there need to be several secondary sources available for an article to reach GA status, regardless of anything else. There's just enough cites to prevent the article from being deleted under our notability guideline, but certainly not enough for GA. I'd hold that thought for now.

What the article needs is the following sections:

The lead. This is the chunk of text that goes before any subheadings, it should be one or two paragraphs, it's the lead's job to summarize the rest of the article and basically tell the reader what the subject of the article is. A reader completely unfamiliar with the subject should be able to walk away with an understanding of the game without reading anything except the lead. It's a 'quick reference', in effect. The lead is difficult to build until the article is fairly complete since a lot of it is a summary.

The next heading should be 'gameplay', which does what it says on the tin, and in most game articles no sub-headings are needed, PF2008 is no different. It should give the reader an understanding of what goes on during play without going into excessive detail. What is the aim of the game? What does the player do? All those subheadings need to be collapsed into paragraphs like this, though there are too many different terms used and it needs bringing down to flowing prose (like this, basically).

'Development' should contain details about how, why and when the game was developed. This information needs citing, as do all aspects of the article. If a reliable source of information isn't supplying the information it shouldn't be in the article. Development is an important part of a video game article, though details on development are not necessarily available, depends on the game.

'Reception' needs to contain how the game was received by secondary sources (IE reviews/previews/features) which are reliable. Virtually every game (unless there are exceptional circumstances, and these aren't) needs one of these if it's to ascend the ratings. It would be advisable to let me handle this, to maintain neutrality.

Sources are king. Reliable secondary sources (like the game tunnel review) not only establish notability, it's preferable to use them to reference as much as possible. Any gaps need to be filled in with primary sources (in this case it would be Theoryspark's own documentation).

And there you have it. To top it off, the images used in the article are waaay too big, we need to keep image sizes down. The text needs rewriting anyway but there are some terms in there which you wouldn't expect normally. I'll try to help you fix these things.

I think there's more than enough there for you digest in one sitting, let me know what you think and I'll try my best to help you hammer out a decent article.Someone another (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey Someone another. This is phenominal information and I'll put it to practice as I rewrite the gameplay section. You certainly have invested a lot of time into this, which I really appreciate. No wonder you got the star. I noticed you removed it entire gameplay section for now and I'm wondering how you want me to handle the rewritten gameplay stuff once I'm done. Should I modify the article, or provide it to you to review first? Thanks again for your help. Blandish (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the history of the page, I noticed why you removed the gamplay section. I originally got that info from the Media package that theoryspark put together, which I would have assumed was designed for public use. It seems theoryspark just recently did a copy and paste from the media info to the web-page. Blandish (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see, sorry for the assumption, at that point in time the article wasn't quite looking as I'd expected, after clocking the similarities between the two texts I copied some over and compared it in the editspace. After seeing some of it was word for word I thought it best to just take it out and start again. The problem with it is that we don't just copy text or slightly alter it and present it as original work, we're supposed to take sources and express them in a way that's neutral, not too detailed or vague etc. etc. It's difficult to get your head around at first, there's a hell of a lot of information to take in about how articles are written here.

I'm certainly struggling with wrapping my head around all this. :) It often seems my ideas of good articles are far from what actually is one. Getting better though. Once I'm through all this, I may just consider a career in journalism. :) Blandish (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

After looking at the sources available coupled with the less than ideal material from TheorySpark, I must admit that the article is probably focused on the wrong game. The original President Forever has a GameSpot review and an article in the... Washington Post, I think it is, as well as some other sources (I think Game Tunnel reviewed it as well). Those are infinitely better at establishing notability and providing good material to create an article from. There's so little material between the two articles we have on PF2008 that I'm struggling to write anything for it. What I'm planning on doing is starting an article here in my namespace (IE just my little corner of Wikipedia here, not the encyclopedia proper) on President Forever. It'd be a lot easier to show you the general sort of material and writing style that way, it'd result in a much better article and some PF2008+primaries detail could be included there in a separate section. I'll get started in the next couple of days when I get a minute. Someone another (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've re-written the whole game-play section so be in a more prose style. I haven't change the article because I'm not sure if you'd like to read it first before I change it or if I should just go ahead and add the stuff. Let me know what you'd like to do. I do like your idea of changing it more to a President Forever series, or something more general like "Political Games Forever series" which would include all the countries. It would be a little harder to write for all countries as the whole election process changes so dramatically for the different countries, but that might not even come into play with the actual article as it may not go into that much detail. Basic principles still remain. I know there are also a bunch of sources for the canadian game. I found articls of CBS partnering with the company and also having a televised interview with the owner. So I can also start looking at preparing a more general article. If you want, I can make any changes to the page you were planning on creating instead of the live page. Blandish (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

You don't need to wait for approval, be bold, if it's a stab in the right direction it can always be tweaked. Someone another (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Added the new detail. Thanks for your help as always. Blandish (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your assistance in the matter of the Yoshi's Story article. We had reached a huge deadlock due Punctured_Bicycle's actions, and, as we said in the Discussion page, neither side responded maturely. However, we appreciate your moderation during this time. We had been working on the Yoshi's Story page for weeks and simply couldn't watch Punctured_Bicycle delete all our work.

The account EliotAndrews actually represents a number of individuals that log in and contribute to articles, and Yoshi's Story was our latest project. (As Wikipedia share its pages with its users, we share this account in a similar manner.) When Punctured_Bicycle continued to delete our work in spite, we were greatly offended. Therefore, we appreciate the guidance you've provided.

We hope to create a neutral version of the page, but we are adamant in our stand that the work is accurate. (After all, most of us here lived through that "era" in Nintendo's history as teenagers; We witnessed everything unfold firsthand.) We don't want to "protect" the page as much as we want to craft it into the most acceptable version. We would very much like people to read it to understand, not to be offended. Unfortunately, this seems to be a common theme, particularly with Nintendo-related articles. However, with your support, we would very much like to bring peace to the issue.

Thanks again for your help. - EliotAndrews (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello Someone Another. That statement's now been reinstated and referenced. Thanks for the spot!!! Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 10:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

La Repubblica did a news article on their main page for President Forever 2008 + Primaries and I'm curious how to handle something like this. I could use the google-translator to get excerpts. Let me know your thoughts. Cheers! Blandish (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Blandish, there is a way of citing non-english language sources but I've no idea how. I've looked at WP:CITE and some other documents but they're not giving me any clues. I'd suggest having a look through the help files and consulting the village pump if all else fails. Sorry I can't be of any further use. Someoneanother 13:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. i just saw your extremely helpful note at the deletion discussion re Flashtrek. Thanks so much. I appreciate it. your sugegstion is especially helpful coming from someone who clearly wants to adhere to clear Wikipedia standards, yet is willing to suggest positive ways to meet standards and yet to include further content. thanks so much. your comment shows a lot of openness. this is what Wikipedia is all about. i look forward to further discussions. please feel free to add any further comments, ideas, etc, anytime. thanks. (By the way, I noted your great suggestion re the Jays GAmes site, and have already done so and submitted a suggestion.) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think this would be a really useful article by now. Serious games, Casual games, Advergames and so on. I have no clue where to find references. But there does seem to be SOME common sense about what constitutes a type, versus a genre. Either way, I think it would be helpful to have a parallel article to the video game genres article. Actually, the Video_game_genres#Video_game_genres_by_purpose section is very close to what we need, IMO. Anyway, I know you're busy with other stuff. But do what you can, whenever you can. (PS: I gave Vehicle simulation game some work.) 65.95.156.135 (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply