Your edits seem to be copying wikipedia. Generally, it's against our wiki's policy for plagiarism so, if you wouldn't mind, please rewrite so those articles aren't so plagiarized. The main issue isn't so much that plagiarism is wrong but, that wikipedia is too formal. References, for instance, are only needed in the development, reception and maybe trivia section. Some of the wording is overdetailed when this is a gaming wiki so we can assume the readers know things about games.
Dark Law: Meaning of Death
Well... Thanks for the correct rename. I forget a space. ._.--CλVλX 18:28, July 8, 2017 (UTC)
Articles classes go like this
- A - Means covers topic thoroughly, multiple sections with subsections that are filled, several links, images, templates and has subpages.
- B - Means covers topic well, multiple sections with at least a paragraph, several links and templates
- C - Means covers the bare minimum an article should have; a section or two with a paragraph, not completely linked and maybe templates
- D - Means covers enough to give a gist of the topic. A couple sentences and the sections are laid out with a filled infobox
- E - means it barely covers topic ie. Infobox but only one sentence or a few sentences and incomplete infobox. (Anything less gets deleted now)
- X - Article qualifies as C or D but, not much more information can be added.
- I think I'll have to keep it in mind me too, for my new pages. ._. --CλVλX 16:21, July 17, 2017 (UTC)
You are getting that category because you type in "fix = a" when it has to be "Fix = a".
For the navboxes, can you please make sure to remove the noinclude categories if you are going to add related pages that aren't explicitly the series of games. That just makes it confusing for those categories.
The game rating boards (like ESRB) did not exist until 1994, therefore it makes no sense to add the ratings for the old games that have never been rated (such as Final Fantasy Adventure). Likewise, PEGI and CERO did not exist until 2003.
Don't add ratings on the old game articles if the game boards didn't exist at the time of the games' release, because what you're doing is that you're just making them up.
I really feel offended on this because my edits are supposed to help nonuser gamers who want to know if the game is appropriate for them or not. Your edits on the other hand are keeping nonuser gamers in the dark making it harder for them to know what age rating it is. Also why use the defunct ESRB rating K-A we should be using the ESRB E or E10+ in its place instead. Also the age rating for the Final Fantasy Adventures are based off the Collection of Mana release.
LaytonPuzzle27 (talk) 21:35, September 26, 2019 (UTC)
FF Adventure is fine since it has a contemporary release but, for other games without a modern release, it's a bit misleading since they wouldn't necessarily get that same rating. It's the same reason we can't invent another country's rating board for a game not rated there. We might get an idea of how it would be rated from comparing similar games but, there can be things we miss that a ratings board might scrutinize like the rereleases of Pokemon which got upped because boards got stricter about gambling. Astrogamer (talk) 04:56, September 27, 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I didn't mean to make you feel offended and I apologise if I have. While I understand that you want to guide readers as to what age groups those games are for, I really don't think that the old 90s games should have age ratings in their infobox if they were never rated by gaming boards to begin with and never been re-released. It's technically false information, and as Astro said we don't know what ratings the boards like PEGI for example would've given if they existed back then in the 90s. 'E' games could be 3 or 7, 'M' games could be 16 or 18 etc. so we can't invent fictional ratings on what we think as we aren't the judges.
For Secret of Evermore, I used the K-A rating as that's what is shown on the box art image. Games like Mario Kart 64 are exceptions as they were released on Virtual Console in 2007 and given modern ratings by every board which you can find on their webpages on Nintendo.
And on one more point (against me), I have to confess I used to wrongly put the old 2003 versions of PEGI and USK images in the infoboxes for the games released in that period before their appearances were updated (such as Mario Party 4). On reflection you were right to revert those edits of mine, i can agree we should just use the present images as using the old ones would confuse the readers. [I'll probably go and delete the old PEGI and USK rating templates].
I hope you understand my points and have a good day,