User talk:AeronPrometheus/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Image tagging for Image:Aeronprometheusmichaelangelo002.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Aeronprometheusmichaelangelo002.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:InMyEyesMidiheadRemixsample.ogg

Thanks for uploading Image:InMyEyesMidiheadRemixsample.ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 15:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:MAX300SuperMaxMeMixsample.ogg

I have tagged Image:MAX300SuperMaxMeMixsample.ogg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 17:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:YourRainRAGEMIXsample.ogg

I have tagged Image:YourRainRAGEMIXsample.ogg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 08:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DDRELEMScover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DDRELEMScover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposition for deletion (Consolidated with User talk:NE2 & Talk:Ddr games)

You deleted the proposals for deleting two deprecated redirect pages without citing a cause or entering discussion on the matter, what is your reasoning for keeping these pages alive? AeronPrometheus (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirects are never "deprecated". Please read through Wikipedia:Redirect; thank you. --NE2 22:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for getting back to me. According to the article you linked, Wikipedia:Redirect, the redirects should be considered for deletion because they redirect a general search to a sub article of the main topic of search. Forcing a search revealed the main Dance Dance Revolution articles for both redirects, however redirecting puts the searcher on a list that does not quickly link the user back to the main article.
I have moved and consolidated this discussion to one of the redirects for further consideration of the proposal to delete them. Discussion should continue until a decision is reached as per Wikipedia guidelines. AeronPrometheus (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Please do not reinstate a prod template after it has been removed. If you think these should be deleted, take them to WP:RFD, but it is unlikely that you will be successful. --NE2 22:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Please be civil about this, a proposal to delete is not a deletion. If you feel strongly about this you should voice your opinion here and not take it upon yourself to police an article you have no history in. Please do not remove proposals without first dispelling the legitimate claims of the proposal. AeronPrometheus (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Please stop. Once a prod is removed, it cannot be placed back on. --NE2 22:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Consider having a look at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.--Addhoc (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
More specifically, to WP:PROD. Although NE2 did not comment in their edit summary as required it is correct that a PROD cannot be re-instated. You may still request deletion, but not via this method.LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempts to help the issue, Addhoc, however NE2 is unwilling to bring to light his reasons for action and is being condescending towards me. Appropriate reaction has been taken.

NE2, I am perfectly willing to discuss your reasons to keep the pages, however you have not yet even told us why you deleted the proposal in the first place. I'm not attached to the idea of deleting them that's why I put the proposal up, to discuss the matter with others and get a better idea of what to do. If you would please follow Wikipedia guidelines and discuss the issue instead of throwing it out the window that would be preferred. AeronPrometheus (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I pointed you to Wikipedia:Redirect, where you can read up on what redirects are used for. --NE2 23:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that is not a substitute for assuming positive intent. I wish you were open the idea of communication besides linking articles to do the talking for you, much less give a reason for your actions in the first place.
Thank you for that link, LessHeard. I had already read that page but didn't look hard at the part regarding this issue (As it wasn't an issue at the time).AeronPrometheus (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Dance Karaoke DKara (Consolidated with User talk:Closedmouth)

You didn't want to read my explanation for keeping the redirect alive? It's better to contribute than to discourage other from doing so. AeronPrometheus (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? --Closedmouth (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Listen to other people's point of view before acting, that's part of being a Wikipedia user. I'm willing to listen to yours, but instead of communicating with me you acted as if it didn't matter. I don't mind, I can ignore this, unless you try to stop the page from reoccurring when I need it to be there. I'd rather work with you than against you, what say you? AeronPrometheus (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you're complaining about. Under WP:CSD#R1, redirects to non-existent pages should be deleted, with no exceptions. Once you've created the article the deleted redirect was pointing to, you can easily recreate the redirect. Simple. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
That's what intend to do, seeing as how the order I originally wanted to do it in got you riled up. AeronPrometheus (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sleeping Dogs (Consolidated with User talk:Phuzion)

Dancing Stage MegaMiX wasn't complete, which is why it was in the sandbox. Now instead of properly polishing the article I have to quickly tie it off, you didn't even proof read it. I know you were trying to help, but did you know what was going on? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved the page back to where it was. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Phuzion (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you trying to be funny? Thanks for moving the page back but next time don't, A, create a new user sub-page when it already had a sandbox, B, redirect a wiki page to said new user sub-page. I corrected the redirect, if having an empty page is going to set off alarms I'm sending them to you. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Dancing Stage MegaMiX (Consolidated with User talk:Orangemike)

So how long have you been a DDR player? Your definition of what constitutes a "gaming guide" doesn't make sense. I'm suppose to leave out information about the game just because it tells the reader more than they previously knew? Then the whole article is a game guide. The original version of the article was not in violation of wiki policy, at least not in regards to being a strategy guide for gamers to get that upper edge. The new version was even further from objection. So why are you trying to negotiate as much information off the article as possible? Again, how long have you played and been involved with the Dance Dance Revolution series? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The "how you are scored" language is classic gamer's manual wording. The use of the second person ("You can score") is a blatant tipoff that this is non-encyclopedic content. Please do not restore it again.--Orange Mike | Talk 16:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
So if a video game manual said "Running will help you win" and the article says "This is a game where you run", then it's a game guide? The sentences you keep trying to delete are explaining what the game labels "winning" and "losing". Telling the reader how many levels there are in Pac Man doesn't help him win the game.
Here's a brief introduction to DDR game play. The letter grades are your score, you only get to see your letter grade after the song is over and there's nothing you can do. Your numerical score is different, you see that during play. However neither of those are going to help you if you can't step on the arrows correctly. Knowing what letter grade you can get won't change a thing, you still have to be able to play the game right. The article explains the premise of game play, and how the game responds. It is not a guide of any sort, you can call it a manual if you want, this is after all an encyclopedia. But if you continue to edit war over this before discussing your obvious POV in the talk page, porperly, then it will continue to get dealt with according to wiki guidelines. Your edits are quickly approaching intentional vandalism. Talk first, the page will still be there when an agreement is reached. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This is not DDRpedia. I'm just trying to keep the tone encyclopedic here. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Bemani's Dance Dance Revolution section (Consolidated with User talk:Phuzion)

How is your edit a "serious improvement"? You remove the title list, which all the other major titles have, therefore making the section not fit with the format of the rest of the article. You also unnecessarily paraphrased or removed valuable information, and did not use the {{main}} template correctly. Unless you can back up your reasonings for this edit, I will be reverting it to the previous version. Phuzion (talk) 08:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The list of DDR games was badly formed and out of date, and redundant. Is there really a need to have a "sample" list when the full list is a link away? I realize that it sorta looks out of place at the moment, but as far as style is concerned there's a great deal of work that needs to be done to that article. All I did was touch the area that my current project is focused on. I plan on doing other Bemani series when I'm done... in 2021. If you really hate the changes made switch it back, I'll come back and repair the whole page when I have time. Also please explain to me the misuse of the Main Article template and demonstrate how I was suppose to use it. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The proper usage of the main article template would have been, for example, if you had listed a few games from the series, then posted {{main|List of Dance Dance Revolution games}} over it. I realize that in the end, the lists will have to be removed from the article and all placed into their own articles, however I think that it should be done all at once. For now, I am going to put the list back into the article so that there is continuity between each series. Phuzion (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
That is not how the Main Article template has to work, all that is required is a description of the information. There doesn't need to be a repeated piece of the list. Deleting information is one thing, replace it with better prose and formatting is another and it's something ALL the Bemani articles sorely need. Don't wait for a big event ot make changes you know are needed, this is Wikipedia, go make the list articles now even if all they are is stubs to start with. Then additional editing can occur along the right path as people find it in them to add to it. I can tell that you actually care about these articles, sometimes I feel alone in that gesture, but don't limit yourself. And if you feel that you cannot take on that kind of a project now why are you denying others the right to make the needed gradual changes? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll begin working on making lists for each series, and adding them appropriately to the article. I'll probably put the link to the list right next to the actual title, in slightly smaller text, and bracketed. Let's start using the Talk page for the article, though. Maybe a to-do list and such? Phuzion (talk) 08:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Capitol idea, gimme a minute to give the list a look over. Prolly should have refreshed the whole page when I made those changes, I guess I need to follow my own advice. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Concerning DDR: Mario Mix

Hello Aeron, the other day you reverted my edits on the article of Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix eventhough it were perfectly good edits - according to WP:VG/GL, which I can only assume you are familiar with, since you are part of the Videogame Project. The lists of enemies in the so-called Mush Mode are not to put in. Further more, there isn't any indication that the name of the game is MARIO MIX (capitalized letters). The sources listed in the article itself don't give any reason to think otherwise: [1], [2], [3], [4]... The only one that actually uses MARIO in that form, is a Japanese website. I find it odd you also changed Nintendo GameCube into GAMECUBE. Anyway, I'll redo my edits, and hopefully this time you won't change them back without any reason. --Soetermans (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but apparently you made the same edits to Dance Dance Revolution: Hottest Party - there is no reason to assume whatsoever that the title is in capital letters. I'll de-capitalize them there as well... --Soetermans (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

MOS

Please take a look at WP:MOSTM, which you are screwing up DDR articles by ignoring. The Mario Mix one is a good example, where you went through and capitalized things that aren't suppose to. You also screwed with many DDR redirects, causing me to have to get an admin involved to help move them. I know you are new, so I won't get too angry with you. Just remember that we follow correct grammer and capitalization, not however the trademark owner wants us too (hence why we have "PlayStation 3", not "PLAYSTATION 3".) TJ Spyke 10:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in, Spyke. Aeron, I hope you're okay with this. --Soetermans (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
How was my above post rude? I was letting you know the correct way to do things, all of the DDR-related moves I made were correct in that that are how they are supposed to be named. We don't use odd capitalization like "Dancing Stage TRUE KiSS DESTiNATiON" just because Konami wants us too. I suggest you don't start reverting my changes because then I will have to do the full move request (which takes 5 days) and it will end up back at the correct title (the ones I moved it to) anyways. I don't recall changing anyones comment other than the table on 1 page (and all I did was fix the links, I didn't change their actual comment). I am trying to help you out since you are new ("newbie" is not an insult, "noob" is the insult version. "Newbie" just means you are new) and don't seem to quite grasp things like MOSTM work yet. TJ Spyke 12:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Out of line (Consolidated with User talk:TJ Spyke)

TJ, I dunno what I did to your Wikipedia to make you so upset with me but allow me to explain a few things to you that would server you in the future when interacting with other Wikipedia members.

First off, assume positive intent. You did not. In fact you went so far as to spam other pages about how terrible I am, very immature for someone in their 20s. You also chose not to discuss the issue. It seems you were not aware that a conversation regarding the naming convention of the pages was taking place in Talk:Dance Dance Revolution Extreme, a subject that should be brought to light with the entire video games project. Dance Dance Revolution games are tricky, it's easy to reformat them with "encyclopedic" rules but the titles are so convoluted that some of them are going to come out looking little like they were intended. If you read the comment I left on the talk page you'll see an example of how "proper" formatting leaves the title looking worse than having occasional caps.

You also made some very simple mistakes, and going so far as to call me a "newbie" might have been premature in light of some of the things that you did. First, you edited another user's entry on a talk page, that is not very smart. I realize that the old version of the table had active links but that was not yours to edit, it's archives for posterity and should not be altered, even by the person who posted it. Second, you made a series of needless changes to the DDR Navbox, editing the links is fine, so that each link is bold when viewed from the respective pages but your edits to the visible text left the box looking sloppy.

You also did not follow procedure when moving pages, as an admin had to walk around behind you patching double-redirects that you created due to not properly checking the "What links here" page for each page moved. Since you brought this editing streak upon yourself you should have at least taken the time to properly reseat all the redirects associated with each page, and made sure that they all worked before moving on to the next. And there are probably more redirects that the admin who worked diligently to correct your mistakes may have missed.

Finally, as for the edits you made and had made for you, more discussion is required. The case of DDR pages and how they are titled are not simple, some DDR titles are but some are not. And you made some mistakes with the moves you performed as well. According to the policy you passed out like candy, DDRMAX should be DDR Max and there in lies the problem I outlined on the DDR EXTREME talk page. So some of your changes (according to you alone) need to be changed again, and again, this issue needs to be brought up with a larger group of people that are experts on DDR and video games before a final decision can be made. And aside from the titles I will continue to spell the game names correctly and with proper syntax because it would be misinformation to do otherwise, if you have an issue with this as well I would suggest bringing it up with the video games project also.

I'm reverting the talk page you edited, I'm also reverting the visible text on the DDR Navbox, again objections should be voiced before acted upon. I wonder how much you personally know about the DDR series, although that's a question likely to remain unanswered. Nevertheless I'm going to continue to improve the articles with the best of my knowledge as that's why I am here, why everyone SHOULD be here for. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you took the time to write that long post, I will reply to each point:
I did not "spam" other peoples pages. I posted on 1 persons page (the person you seem to have a problem with), to let him know that you just went back and reverted his edits (in the process making the article have wrong names, bad links, and be an eyesore in general). Check out Newbie, it is usually not a derogatory term, it's just a nickname for someone who is new. I admit I am wrong though since I accidentally thought your log said January 2008 instead of January 2007.
Why does something like making article titles follow Wikipedia guidelines something that has to be discusses? All of the articles I moved were to the correct way to capitalize them according to WP:MOSTM? As for your specific example, is "Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME" an official name of the game and the most common name? If so, then "Dance Dance Revolution Extreme" is the correct name of it and where the article should be according to policies and guidelines here.
As you said, I didn't change anybodys actual post, all I did was fix the links (redirects bother me and are a little annoying). As for the template, that is a toss-up. While what appears in the template doesn't have to have the same capitalization as the link, it looks better IMO that having every other word capitalized ("EXTREME", "MAX", "HOTTEST", etc. is an eyesore).
I was actually in the middle of fixing double redirects (check my edit log), although I didn't touch the ones that I needed an admin to move. I thank the admin for fixing the double redirects, but I would have gotten around to them as quickly as I could.
I admit that the DDRMAX articles are a bit more of a problem since I am not 100% sure where they should go, but they are currently better off than they were before. I would agree that the names of those ones can be discussed, but the rest of the DDR articles are fine and at their correct capitalizations. Spelling and capitalization are two different things. You should not continue using odd capitalizations for the names though, the correct thing to do is to mention Konami's preferred capitalizations once (at the top of the article), and then use the capitalization that follows English rules in the rest of the article. I don't like doing it on certain wrestling articles (like "TNA Impact!", which is supposed to be "TNA iMPACT!" according to TNA), but I do it anyways. I think the VG project would agree with me, although Wikipedia-wide guidelines trump any one Wikipoject's opinion anyways, so even if the VG project agree with you for some odd reason it wouldn't matter since MOSTM is crystal clear on this. It doesn't matter what DDR fans or Konami say, DDR article names have to follow the same guidelines and policies as every other article. Another example is "k.d. lang", that is how she wants her name capitalized but her article is at K.D. Lang for the same reason.
I have never played any of the DDR home games and played maybe 5 minutes max at an arcade one (there are no arcades near me anymore since they are practically dead in the US and the one I played was at an amusement park. The home games are too expensive for me to spend the money on when I don't have much spare spending money and don't know if I would enjoy it, so spending that much money when I know I can't return the game if I don't like it doesn't appeal to me). That doesn't matter though since anyone can check and see if something follows or violates MOSTM. The only way DDR Extreme could be "EXTREME", for example, is if "EXTREME" was an abbreviation for something or an acronym (like SCUBA is). TJ Spyke 13:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a shame that so many people have to hide behind policy to get their way, as you exhibited today. So many users forget why Wikipedia exists.
I know you have a set of rules that you want to follow, you think that policy is golden, right? The only problem is that you seem to only want to follow a personal selection of policy, you're not even consistent with your misinterpretation of the law. You spent so much time reciting MOSTM that you forgot things like Assume good faith and Be polite. You were hasty and so busy trying to make yourself look good that you thought I didn't know what I was doing, using a derogatory term to define me then backing up and claiming that there was no adverse feelings behind it. Even if I were a "newbie" you broke your precious policy in that regard as well by not being Welcoming. Oh and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, you managed to ignore the four major rules of communicating between users all at the same time... And you want people to side with you while you quote policy?
You need a refresher course in Wikipedia policy and guidelines and since that's the language you speak you may as well speak it correctly. (And yes, they're only guidelines). Start with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, pay attention to the first paragraph. Also, Wikipedia:Etiquette since you've forgotten these altogether. Believe me, I want to believe that you're trying to do your best to help, I've had run ins with other users... some listen to reason and some don't. But the lofty attitude you carry yourself with combined with the haphazard way you conducted your edits and how you now defend yourself by repeating what you've already said and ignoring the mistakes you made... How am I suppose to regard you?
Funny though, after all was said and done, you admitted that you weren't "100% sure" of how to deal with the problem. That's the first step. The second is to leave this problem to people who do know how. I would be one of them, and while you obviously have a tender sore for the way I uphold policy I know this series very well and you for lack of a better word, don't.
Even funnier, if you really do uphold the letter of the law over the spirit of the law, you have to admit that out of all of them I referenced the only one that "trumps" all others (At least according to the creators of Wikipedia); Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Drummania

Thanks for editng the Drummania article. I look forward for more edits to the page and do give comments. 165.21.155.92 (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Taskforce for BEMANI

I have created a taskforce, and I hope you express interest on it (: Fireblaster lyz (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Let's spring into action. Where should we start first? If you ever need to contact me, IM me at MSN, by adding @hotmail.com behind my wikipedia's user name. Fireblaster lyz (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Decorum (Consolidated with User talk:Eusebeus)

Hello Aeron. It is always a good idea to take up disagreements with editors on their talk page. But edits like this [5] are unhelpful and indecorous. I suggest you take a quick glance at WP:DTTR which explains why such messages can be considered rude (even if unintentionally so) by established editors. Cheers, Eusebeus (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that was a carefully thought out and custom written response to Ned's "solution" to the problem. The policy you quoted had something to do with not using a boiler-plate response. Sorry you disagree, friend of Ned, but I made the comment in response to his being lazy and using the Undo button instead of taking note of changes made to the template since mine were applied. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
That's fine, I was just noting that pasting things like trivia and preview templates onto the pages of regular contributors is generally considered unnecessary and indecorous. Eusebeus (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh those, does him being "established" make him above the law? I picked two appropriate notices (could've applied more than I did) and followed proper procedure when adding them to his talk page. Simple as that. A parking ticket is "indecorous", but it's there to remind people that they shouldn't park their cars in certain places. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not on Template:Fire Emblem series. Thank you. Pairadox (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been desperately attempting to get Ned to discuss his woes with my edits, and in addition to his not being able to provide a reason for his reverts, never mind personal preferences, his mass-undos have destroyed other edits made by me and other users. A good example is the Fire Emblem Navbox. His edits have been objected by other users and admins, as far as assuming good faith goes I'm the only person to have communicated with him at length about this, not that it's helping. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

e-AMUSEMENT & BEMANI (Consolidated with User talk:Fireblaster lyz)

Please note that the above-mentioned titles are captialised for a reason. Refer to the Japanese web if you are unsure. http://www.konami.jp/am/AM/eamu/

I will revert edits made to it unless you have various reasons to do so. Fireblaster lyz (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that the above titles are TRADEMARKS as stated in the Wiki's MoS and are in compliance with Wiki's MoS. Fireblaster lyz (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as much as I'd agree with you and want the same thing, Wikipedia needs a more standardized style of text formatting. See WP:MOSTM to get a definition, I've been called out for this before and I tend to agree. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Here, let me quote the relevant parts:
  • Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official":
    • avoid: REALTOR®, TIME, KISS
    • instead, use: Realtor, Time, Kiss
and
  • Trademarks beginning with a one-letter lowercase prefix pronounced as a separate letter do not need to be capitalized if the second letter is capitalized, but should :otherwise follow normal capitalization rules:
    • avoid: EBay is where he bought his IPod.
    • instead, use: eBay is where he bought his iPod.
If you need further help with this, TJ Spyke is an expert on the subject, tell him that AeronPrometheus sent you. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Template issues (Consolidated with User talk:Juhachi)

What browser are you using? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, can you show me which pages are acting up for you without the clearall tag? It might be the way they're coded. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I use Lolifox, but it's just a mod of Firefox 2.0, and when I open up Wiki in Firefox 2.0, the same thing happens. For an example, here's an image comparison between, when on lolifox, I see the template with the break-all tag (top) and without the tag (bottom). I checked {{Navbox}}, but there doesn't seem to be any break-all tags placed at the top though.--十八 20:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah! I see what's up now. That's not a problem with the template that's something that can be fixed by creating a double return on the pages the templates resides on. I hate it when boxen and text butt up against each other too, but putting the fix in the template itself creates another problem that cannot be coded out. This is why I always take the fix to the actual page, putting +1 bytes on five pages is better than +5 on the template itself. Yeah it's a tradeoff, but this way when multiple templates appear on the same page they don't create an unsightly gap between themselves. Not that these two in the example would, it's just a matter of course. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I updated all the Key pages with the extra break; such a pain. :P --十八 21:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a labor of love -_-... --AeronPrometheus (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)