I wanted to thank you for defending me in the case on the "Sonic 2" page edit, I spent a couple of days working on it, and I saw no reason as to why the "Sonic 1" table could stay, but the "Sonic 2" table couldn't.
Hey. I happened to have a look at my wikia watchlist and saw your comment about the tournament bracket on Chaos Emerald Martial Arts Mash-Up leaving a huge blank space. Turns out that's because someone added line breaks to all the smaller chart templates when they were adding categories. I've removed those line breaks, and the blank space should have disappeared. Let me know if you still have an issue with it.
Is this picture an official artwork from Sonic X, or is it a fake? It's because of this user that considered it a fake/unofficial artwork, so I had to revert that tiny edit he made out of all those "gallery update" edits.
Good question, not too entirely sure though. I would say it's real because I could sworn I've seen it used before for Sonic X material, but I might be wrong. Revert his edits until he finds confirmation that that isn't a Sonic X art piece.
Hi! Sorry to bother ya, but I can't seem to work out adding the reference to the "Ghost Town" name source. The name was mentioned in a tweet by someone from the developing team (I think Nakamura) back when TGS was happening. Yesterday the OST release was announced and it showed some tracks to be featured on each disc (A Hero Will Rise and On The Edge). Ghost Town is among the songs found in A Hero Will Rise.
Here's the link. You can find "Ghost Town" among the japanese characters and other songs in the tracklist. Guardian Rock was also found in the "Vocal Traxx" disc, which leads me to believe that it's a song heard in an Avatar stage. However, I cannot figure out which one it might be, so I decided against adding it to the stage list.
Hello Blue. Though I wish not to be a bother, I want you to know that before you go about bashing others from making galleries with what you seem an low number of images, Sonic News Network:Style clearly state that sub-galleries with at least sixteen images are allowed.
Sixteen images seems like such a random and low number to warrant such an article. It's so lazy and unprofessional that when people click on those gallery pages, I guaranteed that half of the articles will be nothing but just a "Screenshots" heading with literally twenty or so images. "Wow! That sure warrants an entire article that sure is big enough for the main article to handle!"
I suggest making a site discussion on the qualifications of a gallery subpage. Fifty images, more than three headings (not counting subheadings, such as a "Screenshots" section split into respective "PS2/Wii" and "PS3/Xbox 360"), because with the current standard we have, it's so easy and lazy to make such articles. It's why I'm so critical about these articles because people will put in literally no effort to make it.
Aren't you being a little opinionated about something that is a trivial matter? While I do not exactly recall the circumstances, I did recall that one of those arguments for using that number was because the number of subheadings that came out of just one gallery section with less than sixteen images really filled up the main article's heading list. You do recall our fights on the Wisp gallery section, correct?
I may also be opinionated regarding my viewpoint, but I think sixteen images are not "lazy" as you call it. I mean, professional wikias like DC Wiki has an entire category that hold just one image (which are their galleries), so who are we to call editors that make galleries for 16 images lazy? Also, having such a number allows us to take action early on. Besides, there are so many galleries now with less than fifty images that undoing them is work that none of us are gonna fix at the current time (I am including both me and you too).
I believe this is not something that is to be considered lazy; just SNN's chosen way of doing things, which there is nothing wrong about.
I took a day away from the matter to recollect my thoughts about this matter and not be fueled by the fire. To respond, I think I was being narrow-minded with the idea of sixteen images being the number. I still think it is too much, in my opinion, since I would much rather have the standard be 25. Sixteen seems too little, but perhaps I am not thinking the way you are about this type of trivial matter,
Also, we are not like the DC Wiki. I believe a gallery subpage should only be created when we have a certain number of images that is flooding an article. Like I said, sixteen to me seems too little but 25 seems the perfect amount.
And I do believe it is a lazy way of editing: literally copying and pasting the images to another article whenever it reaches barely its limit is lazy to me. It's just a way to possess edits easier. Maybe I am not seeing how you think it isn't lazy, but regardless, that is just how I feel.
So you know why I just went along with Ultrasonic's decision until you came in and deleted them. Like with "Hidden Line in Amy Rose article" thread below, I will back off until they are named in the trailers (if they planned to release more) or in the game's released. So forgive me for made a disagree edit on that first time around.
I don't want to be the cause of an argument. I just got caught up in the craze over the White Wispons in the trailer that I really wanted to mention them in some form since they seems to go unnoticed, but in the process I apparently went overboard.
It's unprofessional to put something like "Unnamed white Wispon" on a list that only has properly named Wispons. It's why I added the "While not confirmed, there appears to be Wispons based on the Yellow Wisp and either the Purple Wisp or Violet Wisp based on stock artwork released for Sonic Forces" segment on the bottom of the table, informing the readers that they exist, but we're not properly adding them until officially confirmed.
Indeed. The whole reason of this thread posting on your talk page/message wall was to let you know why I was like that at first. In the future, I should'd check the history beforehand and know that you had done that long before.
But hey, at least I am not on the dark era anymore. Be sure to give Sheena a thank for reshaped me into who I am today.
But there are no following achievements that used Violet Wisp as "name" or "effect"/"description" so far. Not saying that you're wrong, but I catch on what you're talking about, DeCool. However, like Blue claimed in that link I posted in the summary, the official name is required. You can put it under chart like Ultrasonic did after Blue corrected him (see above in this thread for more details).
Again, I have nothing to go against your reason for put the names in the chart - I only wanted to point out the reason why Blue decided to keep the unnamed Wispon(s) out of chart until they gained the official names and effects of how they work.
I'd rather keep it unnamed by the Void Wisp does show up in the achievements, so I don't think it's too far of a stretch to add it. However, I would wait until we know what the Wispon does exactly before we add it to the table, so leave it below the table as a mention.
I see... but it is there as a purpose to keep it from put on by the newer editors (or troll/stubborn ones) in the future. In my experiences, those hidden lines provided more purposes being there than not being there.
But if you want to take it off, that's fine. And you would perhaps have to give more reasons on the talk page of why you decided to take that off. Otherwise, other users/admins would have to disagree you and put it back in or ruined it.
Not saying you're completely wrong. Just like that user you just reverted the edit off was the idea of why I came in here to let you know and encourage you to provide the reason why you disagreed. I do understand that you did explained it in the summary, but it will be ignored in the future (that it got pushed down the list) so... better take an opportunity to explain it deeply on the talk page to boost the option of not have it on the article after all.