User talk:Frecklefoot

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

For older items, see:

List of Pre-Made Characters in The Sims

This recently created article appears to be covering a list of pre-made characters in The Sims series and SimCity 4. While this might be an opportunity to finally merge articles for individual families or individuals such as Bella Goth and The Langrabb Family, I doubtful whether this whole topic deserves any articles at all, as it seems to be a little on the fancrufty side, and was thinking about a VfD on this article for confirmation. What are your thoughts? ╫ 25 ^ring-a-ding 14:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC) ╫[reply]

I agree. Why not add them all to VfD? — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bella Goth, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pre-Made Characters in The Sims and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Langrabb Family. ╫ 25 ^ring-a-ding 18:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC) ╫[reply]

DYK update

On [[Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2016/October#Redline (1999 computer game) 2016|Redline (1999 computer game) 2016]], Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Example, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Error: Invalid time.&end=Error: Invalid time.&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Example Example), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

- Mgm|^(talk) 09:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Explosion o' Vanity Page

Heya Frecklfoot - I stumbled upon an anonymous users (User talk:71.112.119.194) change, and happened to look at the list of changes they had made. This user seems to be on a bit of a vanity rampage, so to speak, for an indie game company they clearly have some relation with. This user added a page for their little three man indie company (they do have some titles they have released, so they do in fact exist, and I hope they do well). However, the page really strikes me as Ultimate Vanity Page, and doesn't seem to bear any resemblence to other similar company pages. It is blatantly non NPOV (not in the "BEST COMPANY EVAR!!!" sense, but more in general tone in that even a kid reading it would be clear on the fact that a very interested party wrote it).

I left a "holy crap! way non NPOV! Way advertisement/vanity!" message on the discussion (and a note on the users talk page mentioning it) that I'm sure they haven't seen and probably won't notice. As well, this user has gone on a bit of a trek through wikipedia, adding mention of their games and links to these games pages that this user is in some way related to. In short, the user has shown up to Wikipedia for pretty clearly the sole purpose of vanity-ing in their company and games and people (the main employees now have their own wiki page too, now).

Anyhoo, I am not l33t in the ways of the Wikipedia, and so I figured I would seek out a seasoned veteran of such things on the games related topics to take a peek at all this and see what they think. The contribution list for the user above (the company page is the Digital Eel wodge of entries) demonstrates what I refer to. So, if you might have a moment to take a look and see whatall you think of all this, that would be awesome. Thanks! Dxco 02:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking for my assistance. I took a look at and wikified and NPOV'ed the page. This included having to just delete a large amount of material, but there was no way to NPOV it. It looks like they listed all their "publishers" in the external links section, which is totally unnecessary. Take a look now, and make any furhter changes you think it needs. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Castle wolfenstein

thanks for taking care of that, I should have made the adjustmensts myself instaed of just being lazy :| --larsinio 15:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Videogames infobox template

Hi. Since I had some difficulty navigating the various discussion pages on this project, I thought I'd just ask you. I really like the infobox as it is right now but I've been thinking that it would be interesting to add "composer(s)" beneath "designer(s)" in the box. I know most people really don't think much of videogame music (and the genre is often a bit neglected), but there has been an increase in appreciation over the years. At least in Japan the phenonemon is a lot bigger, and there are already quite a few "big names" out there (Nobuo Uematsu, Richard Jacques), not to mention classic videogaming scores (Quake 2 by Sonic Mayhem, the Castlevania series, the Sonic the Hedgehog series,...). Nowadays even regular music artists have begun to write videogame scores (think Chris Vrenna's Alice score). Anyway, point I'm argueing: composers shouldn't be left out in this infobox. As it is right now I don't really find a place in the box to put the composer (to list them as "designer" seems too much like a stretch to me). Let me know what you think. --Steerpike 22:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think, if you haven't already, you should bring this topic up on The Project talk page. That's what the project is for. I'm sorry you have trouble navigating the discussions page, but all you need to do is go to the very bottom topic, click the edit button (I'm not sure where it is located on all the different skins since I'm using the classic skin), and add your topic to the bottom. It's really just as easy as you added comments to my Talk page here.

As for my personal opinion, I really don't think it's necesarry. But, if I were a video game composer, I'm sure I would feel differently. If it were added, it would definately have to be an optional parameter since many games don't even have "composers" (think of most of the games from the home computer era—many had no music at all). But this is just my opinion. Get input from others in the project. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, I will. --Steerpike 15:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vg, Cg, CVG

I still recommend against reinstating the article for the time being because the source information (required for Wikipedia's GFDL licencing) is split over too many articles. This needs to be resolved by an admin who understands how to fix all this. If you want to set the gears in motion to getting this fixed, I recommend discussing this with User:Jnc. Ask him about looking into fixing the page histories. At least find out what he thinks before proceeding. K1Bond007 21:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking into the situation some more and I think I've come up with a solution. Essentially, "Computer and video games" began as "Computer game" and was moved. Around December (20-28) 2004, "Video game", a seperate article at the time was merged in. So what I think I want to do is is just archive the current "Video game" article at, say, Video game/Old (any archives we make would be noted on the discussion page). Next, I think we would either delete "Computer game" and move Personal computer game there or we would simply redirect it to "Personal computer game"— the two share only a few sentences.

This is a mess and theres really no way to merge the histories as I previously thought. In the end, following your plan, "Computer and video games" would simply get moved to Video game (the contents of this previously moved to the archive) and then your new edition would be pasted over the new Video game. Does this make sense? Going ahead with this or not I think I'm going to archive Video game anyway (I'll have to sort out the discussion stuff too) and I'll note the discussion stuff on the discussion page.

I am more and more agreeing that the whole "Computer and video games" deal needs to be changed to simply "Video game", I just want to see a plan. If we iron this out, I'll aid you in anyway in making this happen with the CVG project. I just want to know what articles we're going to end up having and which we won't need and how the article of Video game will be treated. My current belief is that Video game isn't anything really more than an umbrella term and should be treated as merely an overview of the industry with links to Console game, Computer game, Handheld game, Arcade game, whatever. Then we'd have to figure out some of the rest, categories, history of video games (ridiculously named "History of computer and video games" then broken down to "History of video games (whatever generation)"—ridiculous being the History of CVG to History of VG.") etc.

Hate to drop all this on your doorstep, but... things aren't that great to begin with and it all needs to be cleaned up anyway. Let me know if this is something you wish to pursue. K1Bond007 21:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me (I think), but I'd move computer and video games to just computer game, not personal computer game. Just my preference, of course. I'm not sure why you want to get rid of the video game article, since I wrote it to replace the computer and video games article (unless you just think it sucks :-). I have less time to spend on Wikipedia as I used to, so I don't have much time to contribute to this whole effort, though I'd like to see it happen. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you got confused. Let me try to draw a picture here :D

Step 1. Move Video game to Video game/Old or archive or whatever.

Step 2. Move the current Computer and video game article to "Video game." (may require deleting the redirect of "Video game" to "Video game/Old", I don't know. We'll see.

Step 3. Paste Frecklefoot's Video game article over the new "Video game" article.

Step 4. Cleanup.

This move will probably necessitate a poll or more discussion at the WikiProject because a lot of things will get changed. So we'll definitely do the first step then discuss the move with the Project and continue on (assuming agreement) with steps 2-4. I do have some problems with your revision of video game and I went through and edited another version that puts more emphasis on the umbrella term of video game. I haven't finished going through the entire thing, but the intro and the first section is what I think the article should have. I also moved some sections around to give the article a little more cohesion and flow, but like I said, I really haven't read all of it yet. See User:K1Bond007/Temp2 - feel free to edit it if you approve. K1Bond007 20:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I like your plan, and your rewrite. I'll wait till you post it to make any changes. If you bring this up at the project, let me know and I'll give it my vote (sorry, but I have so little time nowadays, I'll need a heads-up). Sounds good, good work. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 05:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New article for Don Bluth Productions

Any objections to moving most of the info from "Career" to a new article about Don Bluth Productions? Most of that info applies to his production company and not him personally. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:18, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

It's fine with me. Copperchair 5 July 2005 06:53 (UTC)

Ditto. -- user:zanimum

Picture of Orson Scott Card

You had commented on Talk:Orson Scott Card that you had a picture with eprmission but that pictures such as that were not allowed. Did you see {{PermissionAndFairUse}} or {{withpermission}}? What rule were you referring to? Thanks! -Scm83x 20:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote to an address from his website. At first they said they'd love it. Then I explained the GFDL to them and they balked. They said they'd love to have a better picture on Wikipedia, but only Wikipedia. They didn't want it going to others (under the GFDL). So they yanked permission. If I could guarentee it'd only be used on Wikipedia, they might be more open. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help watch Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr.

Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. will be featured on the Main Page on the 23rd. Vandalism will probably be frequent that day. Could you help in monitoring the page? The 23rd starts at 7 pm ET on Dec 22nd, since wikipedia goes by UTC. Thx in advance. Trödeltalk 01:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a Mormon?

Are you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? So am I! --71.111.209.99

Yes, I am. But did you have a question relating to Wikipedia? — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]