This page is a selective, manual archive of my talk page. I saved non-notifications that someone may want to access in the future. To find something I haven't archived, try an external search.
@Bobamnertiopsis, the Commons log is here. I don't remember what I wrote verbatim but the gist is that the stage designer has copyright on the look of a private theatrical production. Even though that photo's author used a Creative Commons license, the production design itself was not licensed under Creative Commons, so that permission would need to be secured for Commons to host the image. czar⨹08:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aztez until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ―Padenton|✉18:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Can you please explain this revert a little better? I really don't care but your explanation was a little weird to me. Why would that opening sentence need a cite? Most video game articles have the sentence (so I don't see how it is unnecessary) and aren't sourced (I believe the exception is when it says "universal acclaim"). As for the comma, I'm just going off most other articles that have that kind of opening sentence. Example article. :) —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There were two reverts: one reinserted the comma customary between adjectives (F. Scott Fitzgerald be damned), the other removed the uncited sentence that I also called unnecessary. Everything that can be challenged must be sourced, including that sentence, though I removed it because it wasn't interesting, not because I was challenging it. Metacritic would work as a reference for that sentence, but then the sentence needs to accurately reflect the reviews that varied across five console releases. Metacritic gives the wordage to use whether it's "generally favorable" or "universal acclaim". czar⨹22:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, how was the image created by a blocked or banned user? I am not blocked or banned so how is it in violation of G5? I am also not in violation of any rules as the image (when it was valid) was uploaded with a fair-use rationale fully complete and up to the normal logo standard. Anarchyte (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchyte, that's my error—it was supposed to be F5 (fair use image from a deleted page that is very unlikely to be used on another page). Fixed its log for the record. Shouldn't reflect poorly on you either way. – czar12:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I haven't been on in a while and for the first time there was this notification next to my name, "Your edit on Vainglory (videogame) has been reverted by Czar." I know you were probably trying to revert the page back to before the other user changed the name of the engine, however, I'd just like to point out that past the initial wrong edit, the content contributed is not necessarily false. Your revert reverted the update on the number of heroes available. I was wondering if you noticed this, and if so, why was it not restored? Escapevelocity (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Escapevelocity, for next time, would have helped to have a link. The edits were not reverted because they were necessarily false but because they were uncited, as mentioned in the edit summary. The burden is on the contributing editor to make the fact verifiable in a reliable source. Otherwise articles would be overrun with such fixes and readers would follow the next footnote reference only to find no mention of "12 heroes". – czar05:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you are redirecting articles about "obscure" video games. I think you are making the English Wikipedia a poorer place by redirecting many of those articles (with decent info). --89.180.144.232 (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP is a "poorer place" and even worse encyclopedia when it hosts completely unreferenced articles and no possible sourcing exists. I can't help you without knowing what "obscure" article you have in mind. – czar14:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are just following the "rules" after all. But if you are redirecting these articles, then it's better redirecting all articles about NES/FC games and few other old platforms? What is a "reliable" source? It's sad seeing articles with minimally decent text being "wiped out" like that. I totally understand if you redirect an old VG article without a text, but those with text (edited by different contributors)... and many of those games even have the Japanese Wiki article. I afraid you are just wasting your time, sooner or later someone will revert them again (no, I'm not going to do that, don't worry.). --89.180.145.147 (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A reliable source has editorial/fact-checking oversight, as in not a blog, some guy's website, or a user-submitted wiki. A list of vetted video games sources is at WP:VG/RS. We don't keep articles just because they have "text"—they need to have reliable sources, and if you're talking about the Japanese video game redirects, they had zero. – czar03:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm new to writing articles so I've got still much to learn. I'm not too sure on what you mean by dedicated coverage, e.g. the article for Ben Judd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Judd_(producer) is ok but not for someone whom so far has started up 2 successful game studios and been directing major titles. Sorry for my ignorance. (10:38, 2015-05-15 - Torktumlaren)
@Torktumlaren, the links at WP:42 explain it well. WP reports what the reliable, secondary sources say. Andersson's coverage in reliable, secondary sources is not about the individual's accomplishments but about his companies or games. So he might be mentioned in those WP articles, but there isn't enough coverage about his own actions for us to write a full article about Andersson as an individual without largely resorting to original research (not reporting what has already been confirmed by a reputable source). If this changes over time, and enough information from vetted sources is available, the sections related to Andersson can spin out into its own WP article. Every page is judged based on what reliable coverage exists to substantiate it. This doesn't mean that we look to Judd's article and make a comparative decision because there is a lot of garbage on WP that we haven't had time to clean yet, but that Judd's page might be better off redirected itself. Indeed, all of his coverage is about Bionic Commando Rearmed and not about him (apart from a few similar news stories on his move to DDM). It would be impossible to tell Judd's story without resorting to unreliable sources, so the community doesn't think he's important enough to feature in that detail. Since most of the coverage is about Rearmed, it's best to redirect his article to that game, as that's the connection the sources found important, where he's best affiliated, and where searches about Judd should point for information about the topics affiliated with him. (Side note, you can sign your replies with four tildes: ~~~~.) – czar13:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been gathering sources on Fire Emblem If in a minor way, and I have given editors access to development information on the talk page of Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance, but none of the other Fire Emblem games are pulling on me that much. Awakening was very much something I did for a lark, plus at the moment I'm more involved with completing my work on the Persona 2 games. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought you aught to know. I've done the work I've been planning for Fire Emblem Fates. Feel free to add and adjust. Given that it's looking like it's my kind of story and game (unlike Awakening, which had a really trite story), I may well stick with it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Czar, what's with the heavy Verge bias on the Google Photos article? It's definitely a NPOV issue. I'm just surprised since you're a longtime editor and an admin. - Kollision (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the article the day the service was announced and used what was available before leaving on vacation. That the article used a single source (in my opinion, the best secondary, reliable source for the material) is hardly "non-neutral"—any imbalance is resolved through regular editing as more sources appear. I added a few and have a few more to add. Feel free to boldly fill in the gaps. – czar00:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re: your revert, the reason that a citation is needed, is because I too think the article suffers a pillar-two-issue, from TheVerge being the main source. The particular sentences that I objected to were close summarization of a paragraph in TheVerge. Before my edit, which you have reverted, the article states flat-out that Google launched Google+ to compete with facebook, that GooglePhotos is the "successor" (note lack of qualifier) to Google+ photo-features, that Facebook has the largest marketshare in the online-photo-sharing-subindustry (even TheVerge was careful to explicitly note that is merely what Facebook claims-slash-boasts), and a few other things. Technically speaking, inline cites aren't even required in articles, and inside-the-sentence cites do add clutter. But methinks you should strongly consider junking the close paraphrasing with end-of-a-couple-sentences-cites, and switch to a blockquote, or just eliminate the google-versus-facebook "history" ... the article is supposed to be about Google Photos, and can prolly link to background info in other more general articles about photo sharing as an industry. Although it is true you are definitely quoting/paraphrasing what the journalist at TheVerge said, that's not the same as NPOV, since that one source's summary of the photo-sharing and photo-organizing industry-niche, as a battle between GOOG and FB and nobody else, might itself be biased/flawed/simplified/rushed. After all, he was writing the day the new app was released, after playing with it that day at the I/O conference. Anyways, I don't have enough energy to mess with that article further; the see-also section consisting entirely of Google(tm) products, and the faux-history section composed entirely of Google(tm)-vs-Facebook(tm) were the most obvious warts. I'll leave the fixing, or not fixing, up to your discretion. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Verge is cited there for statements of fact. If you find their characterization inaccurate, the best course would be to put sources that say so either alongside or in place of their reports. The rewrite, with its ersatz quotes and multiple references to the same source in a single sentence, is not helpful to readers. The History section is not just the history of Google Photos (GP) in its current form. It makes sense to include the conception and development of Google+'s photo features, spurred as it was by Facebook, to provide a complete picture to Photos' development. As the source notes, GP is a standalone successor to the G+ photo features. I agree that more can be added on its history and market influences, and invite you to do so, but disagree that cutting down the summarized information already added is the way to get there. – czar17:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi czar, end-of-paragraph-cites for statements of fact is fine, but citing journalistic oversimplification *as* statements of fact is not so fine. Please either blockquote the journalist with full-name-attribution per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV as I suggested before, to show the reader that this is one person's take on the overall industry, or do as you suggest, and provide proper balanced citations from non-TheVerge sources that WP:PROVEIT your contention (shared by TheVerge guy) that Google Photos was entirely and solely and only "spurred as it was by Facebook."[citation needed] As mentioned, I personally don't have the energy for pushing the latter to completion, but I strongly disagree that leaving the multi-sentence-summarized-'history' is the correct path, as you seem to. As to WP:OVERREF, the reason for insertion of a bunch of refs was specifically to visually tag the parts that are contentious, for the edification of potential contributors to help improve wikipedia, and only to a lesser degree, to 'help' readers to understand that everything in those two sentences was to be taken with a grain of salt. I considered just sprinkling [citation needed] tags at all the same points where I mid-sentence-cited TheVerge guy, rather than just at the single CN place where I noticed a gap, but I've always found that annoying. Anyways, as I already said, I won't be working further on GooglePhotos, and leave you to leave it as it is, since you seem fine with it. But despite what TheVerge guys says, the photo-sharing niche-industry is not composed solely of Google-n-Facebook, and for wikipedia mainspace to pretend that is the case, is a violation of NPOV in-the-now, even if Someday it will presumably be corrected/balanced by Somebody... as other folks pointed out, in more general terms, about the NPOV of the in-the-then state of the prose back when the article was first written from a singular source. (Yes, articles are supposed to reflect what the sources say, not what individual wikipedians know to be true... but that means *all* the sources, not just whichever one happened to get written first about the GooglePhotos topic.) The article overall *is* at present reasonably balanced now, with the Dvorak criticism (though he ought to be mentioned in the into paragraph which as of now just says 'best photozapp evah' without qualification), but those two unbalanced sentences on history-of-the-online-photo-storage-and-sharing industry still definitely suffer severely from single-source-overly-simplistic-journalist-disease. Not sure we have a specific policy on that exact malady, but we do have a non-negotiable pillar. Hope this is helpful, talk to you later. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the intrusion. I saw on WP:PRV that you contribute to education-related articles and that you made some very good contributions to the entries of some universities. So I thought I should ask if you would be willing to take a look at the University Canada West article. Please let me make it clear that I have a conflict of interest with the University, but I am determined to work with the community to improve the article in a way that reflects Wikipedia’s best practices. In other words, yes I am a PR guy, but I like to think I am a reasonable one. I used to be a journalist, so I understand how important it is to ensure publicly-available information is factual and unbiased.
You’ll see that the article has a few issues, including a lack of details about the university’s history, academics, courses, etc. You’ll also see that there may be some issues related to original research and undue weight in the Reception and Authorization sections. I believe most of these issues are due to the lack of reliable sources available about the university. Despite that, other editors and I are trying to reach a consensus on a draft that I had proposed, but we feel that we need further input from someone with more experience in university-related entries. Unfortunately my proposed draft has been deleted despite being under discussion (though you might be able to access it here).
I’d be grateful if you could take a look at the original article and share your views with me and the other editors in the talk page. I saw that your main interest is in education as a subject, rather than articles about institutions, so I completely understand if you’re not interested.
@BrandDude, there's a whole lot there and I don't have time to wade into it. If there's a specific concern for which you'd like a third opinion, make the question clear and let me know. – czar00:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Czar! I'm in talk with a dev to get some non-fair-use images from their game, and you've had some experience with the process, so what would be the best way to guide them in that process? Thanks! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉21:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At least a wikilink to some relevant Commons guide maybe? I'm trying to look around but there's just SO MUCH STUFF about licensing and copyright and I'm not sure where to say what. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉11:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been away—hope it doesn't hold you up. Most important is the first email hook that explains (1) that you're writing an article, (2) how they can help, (3) how to donate/license images for free use. I ask the devs to send the text from Wikipedia:Consent (and the stuff they'd like to donate, either attachments or links) to the listed permissions-commons email and to cc me so I can follow up on the ticket. I then upload the material and tag it with {{subst:OR|id=<ticket #>|reason=processing}} to save the OTRS volunteer some time. Make sure they own the copyright to all the material (e.g., audio from videos, rights from photographers). Let me know if you have any more specific questions or feel free to forward me the thread and I can help. – czar00:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. They sent me the image by DM on Reddit already, so I know they're okay with it; I'll upload them with OTRS pending and ask them to send an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org + myself to confirm it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉16:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes devs think they consent without realizing exactly what consent entails. I've had a few retract their word and files once they saw the suggested consent language, especially when they see that cc-by-sa files can be used and sold commercially. I'm grateful for their contributions, but I try to make sure they're crystal clear about what free use entails (saves a lot of frustration later too). – czar19:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be perfectly honest, I didn't know exactly what the license entailed until I just read it myself, and it does go further than I expected; if permission doesn't end up being given, the file'll be deleted from Commons and we'll make due with fair-use. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉20:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I miss your purple/boxed signature. It was easier to "spot" in a thread the your current basic black-text one. Surely some color to set it apart from the surrounding text can't hurt too much? ;p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉20:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I miss it too, but while the purple is royal, the black is less ostentatious. I'll count you in Team Purple, though. (I also use a script that highlights all identifying links to admin pages in light blue, so many sigs are just light blue to me. – czar22:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I considered that userscript, but it annoyed me more than it helped -- most users have easily identifiable sigs, and I also have the userinfo script which puts the rights (along with age and editcount) right at the top of every userpage. And damn! You're clearing stuff out of my to-do list that has been there for ages (because I'm a lazy bastard), thanks! :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉23:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi czar, please, I have a small favour to ask. I have been contacted through email and Twitter asking that if I could add the fact that Sophie Hunter has recently given birth to a son, but the page is protected. There have been two edit requests on its talk page but they are yet unattended. You're the only one I know with the tools who might be willing to help. Or would it be easier for me to nominate myself for adminship just so I can edit the page...? But thank you, I will forever be in your debt. JAGUAR18:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguar, done—no big deal. I know the edit requests are patrolled regularly, but sometimes it takes over 24 hours. Feel free to run anything past me in the future, but no need for debt. An RfA's a bit more complicated... – czar19:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reverting the IP blanking. I'm almost wondering if that should lead to a bit more than a warning since they did make a not so veiled threat here. It's probably an empty one, but a warning might be necessary. I dunno what I deleted of theirs, but there are better ways to go about getting stuff restored. (sighs) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)05:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tokyogirl79, I did think the Level 1 warning looked weak after I posted it, but as long as the editor desists, it serves the same purpose. I'm watching that one page but if they come back, let me or WP:AN know – czar05:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'm hoping that they just went offline and played video games vigorously to work off their anger. I'd much rather avoid an ANI issue if I can help it. (LOL, I think that any ANI regular could probably say that!) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)05:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are non-diffusing because it was decided years ago to have both categories in the articles. Some of the console-only categories were already tagged non-diffusing, all I did was add the others. Users like User:Sergecross73 can probably explain better why this decision was made years ago. SNS (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um... I use it for new editors in the topic area too! It's easy to pick in Twinkle's dropdown. Do you mind me "borrowing" the text in your short version to staple at the bottom of the big one? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉23:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me rip you off! I should mention though, the "to do" and "announcements" links in your template now go to the same place. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉05:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was on purpose. I think if anyone's going to get excited about "the project", it's in interacting with other editors' work or seeing how they can help with a backlog. And I should note that I donate all my contribs to the public domain, so you didn't necessarily need to ask me how I felt about copying the template, but thanks nonetheless – czar14:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On 27 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Aztez, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Team Colorblind thought that their upcoming beat 'em up, Aztez, would empower players because it minimizes direct guidance? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Aztez. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Hello, I would like to protest the removal of all of the content of this game. Please advise the best forum to do this. I disagree that there is insufficient reliable sources, and the page has been used since 2004. Thank you, (User aviators99)
73.39.51.187 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@73.39.51.187, we can start here and if we can't find agreement, we can take it to a communal forum, perhaps the Emacs talk page or Articles for Deletion. What kind of insufficient reliable sources do you have? The page's lengthy existence isn't a factor. Articles require significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Do you have such coverage on this game that I was unable to find? – czar14:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Czar, you have two basic points. #1. you think the AfD is TLDR. I agree, and suggest that I collapse our back-n-forth conversations, now that we have boiled down the sources. (I'm also replying here on usertalk to keep from further adding to the AfD in the meantime.) However, I'm way more concerned about your second repeated assertion. #2. when you filed the AfD on July 6th you said you were unable to find sources where the game was "covered in any more depth [i.e. more than a single sentence] by reliable sources",[2] and after several more sources were provided you still thought on July 17th "there is only one listicle"[3] and now here we are on the 22nd and your position is that "all of your recent links are passing mentions!...those single sentence mentions...". Are you really saying that ALL the provided sources are single-sentences, and/or listicles which you seem to dislike just as much even when they have multiple sentences? If so, then we very much disagree, see below.
I have one basic point: these are the known-so-far dedicated articles (aka zero listicles included) specifically about Dunnet,
These have, respectively, not counting text-sentences in the screenshots: 25 sentences, 9 sentences, 19 sentences, and 9 sentences. Are these the sorts of long verbose articles you would find in some kind of bloated review in a playstation-oriented zine? Nope. Are they dedicated articles, specifically and only about the game, which is the topic of the wikipedia article in question? Yup. Are they WP:RS? Yup. Four sources, including an international one, means WP:N is proven, especially when you consider the WP:RS WP:NOTEWORTHY mentions in completely different fields of inquiry that also exist, across multiple decades.
You disagree? They please say why, specifically, but please stop saying how absurd this is, that somebody is trying to use a bunch of one-sentence-passing-mentions to prove WP:N. That is not what is happening, and it mischaracterizes the sources. With the exception of the Australian source, I posted the dedicated macworld/lifehacker/cultofmac articles *long* ago. Have you skimmed them? If not, please do, they aren't long ... but that doesn't mean they don't have sufficient depth to meet the "significant" criterion, which as you know is subjective. I expect the Dunnet article, once rewritten properly, will have about ten sentences, give or take. Which is perfectly kosher; articles don't have to be the size of 7500-word Skyrim. The rewrite of Jigsaw has five sentences (plus one wp:aboutself-sourced sentence that seemed helpful to the readership so I left it in there). Do you really and truly disagree that the four sources (plus all the other supporting evidence) do not count as 'sources' or are somehow 'unreliable' or are not enough to whatever-it-is-you-think-they-must-be-made-to-do?
If so, then we better call for some second opinions to weigh in, because otherwise we'll just keep going around in circles with each other. If you *do* agree those four sources are dedicated non-single-sentence articles, and just missed them in the verbosity, well then no problem. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one listicle. The rest are copies. Re: your four links, I responded in full at the AfD, but God help us, it will not get us anywhere to keep rehashing the same points. It should be abundantly clear why I think that there is not enough source material to write an actual encyclopedia article about this game. A bunch of mentions do not constitute significant coverage. And for the last time, "noteworthy" has nothing to do with AfD's notability—this discussion is about what broad coverage this game has had to make it important, not a catalog of every trivial way in which it is mentioned. I don't think the refbombedJigsaw is looking so hot either. – czar01:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, we're finally making progress here. :-) I understand what your sentences *mean* now, though I still strongly disagree with your phrasing of those sentences. (Originally I had a few response-paragraphs here. I've collapsed it, to save us both time.)
optional reading
You are asserting that there is a burst-of-coverage-in-2005, and that there is a burst-of-coverage in 2013. That is reasonable, especially for software, per essay WP:NSOFT. It will help the increasingly-adversarial nature of the AfD, if you'll stop calling those bursts "one listicle" since that is un-necessarily-belittling, especially when you don't make clear what you really mean (aka the initiation-source of each burst was a listicle). Ditto for calling sources 'clickbait' and other non-policy-backed-jargon, though I tend to agree with you about the reason the articles in question were written. What we have, is two coverage-bursts, both of which include at least one dedicated article. We also have a mini-burst in 2007, which was "just a listicle" but that explicitly *can* be counted per WP:GNG, which says that 'significant coverage' addresses Dunnet directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content, and is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
Your fundamental fails-WP:N-argument is that the sources are not giving enough detail, right? They do address dunnet directly, four of them, and even the listicles are non-trivial-mentions-that-happen-not-to-be-the-main-topic-of-the-source-material, so those can also count. The disagreement isn't over which sources exist, it's over whether enough detail exists to write a good article. Jigsaw is a really borderline case, since instead of half a dozen sources with some depth like Dunnet, it has exactly *one* WP:RS source with any depth; the reason that Jigsaw gets a pass, juuust barely, in my book is because the english phd prof calls it "notable" and the NYT calls it "acclaimed". I've not seen the WP:BOMBARDMENT essay you mentioned before, but I agree with it, and as you know, I explicitly tried to make Jigsaw differentiate between 'notes' culled from WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLOGS such, versus 'refs' which are only WP:RS (albeit not necessarily in-depth-WP:N-proof).
So basically, where we disagree on Dunnet is qualitative: you think that two-and-a-half bursts of coverage, each source only giving a dozen sentences or so, is not 'significant' enough because there is not enough detail. Right? I disagree, because I think there is enough detail to write up a ten-sentence-article on Dunnet, and I am fine with short articles. (By contrast, I suspect you want every videogame article to have a detailed plot-overview for instance -- which is impossible to do for Jigsaw and Dunnet since WP:RS basically just mention the plot vaguely -- and to me that just means *wikipedia* mainspace should reflect the sources and mention the plot AND THERE IS NO PROBLEM with being terse like that... for me anyways.) The only serious policy disagreement we have, is on the question of whether WP:NOTEWORTHY material in WP:RS sources can have *any* bearing whatsoever on wiki-notability; you, following the essay WP:42, assert it flatly never can. I, following the guideline WP:Notability_(events)#The_coverage, believe that duration of coverage, international character of coverage, and especially *persistence* of coverage across two decades, can in fact have bearing.
Now obviously, one must have *some* dedicated sources, for any of that WP:NOTEWORTHY stuff to matter in terms of swaying the wiki-notability argument... but with Dunnet, we have 2.5 bursts of coverage, including a few dedicated sources (and from a policy-backed-standpoint calling those dedicated articles 'clickbait' is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT ... even though your criticism happens to be pretty much true). While the wiki-notability of Dunnet still requires some human judgement, aka you have to assess ALL the sources and weigh whether notability has been achieved, not merely count up how many big long newspaper articles you have on your fingers, to me it is clearly persistent and diverse and multi-burst, and *enough* depth exists (subjective judgement here!) to write a 'decent' non-permastub article.
To you, any such argumentation is mind-bogglingly-illogical, because rules are rules, and bursts are bursts, and if all the articles are less than two dozen sentences, OBIVOUSLY they are all just retreads, and CLEARLY should be ignored. To put words in your mouth, but not by much, methinks. So we disagree, but mostly on qualitative grounds. The correct way to handle this, then, is to call for help. See suggestion below.
So, getting to the point, I suggest two steps. First, I would like to aggressively collapse down the overly-verbose portions of the AfD -- the discussion about who or who did not canvass, the long back-and-forth between you and me, the long back-and-forth between you and aviators99. Once we are both satisfied that everything that CAN be collapsed away *has* been collapsed away, I suggest we ping some trusted names for help. Here are ten usernames I suggest, left non-wiki-linked so as not to ping them just yet: AmaryllisGardener Secret Salvidrim Scray TP MelanieN Chillum Hahc21 Tezero DocTree. If you agree that these names can be fair and impartial, then after we have collapsed and cleaned up the AfD page, I suggest we should leave a neutral message on their usertalk pages, asking them to please look at the AfD. Even if only half of them comment, that should be enough to determine consensus pretty conclusively, right? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So... can I collapse down the AfD, to elide the TLDR stuff? Or you can do it, if you like. That may be all that we need, to attract some more input, at this stage. But it does need doing, prior to asking other folks to step in for sure, and probably even if we *don't* end up needing to explicitly ask for help. I don't care which of us does it, but one of us needs to aggressively collapse all the back-n-forth stuff, so we can hope to attract new eyes. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to collapse your long analyses or any of the obsoleted discussions that were later summarized, but please leave the notice of offsite canvassing. I haven't seen most of those editors around AfD in a while. Might I suggest one of the templates that asks for a third opinion? I think there's a third opinion noticeboard somewhere too. For what it's worth, I'm not sure where you suggested it, but I'm the last person who would believe in the immutability of rules. I don't feel a need to uphold any sort of principle with this, I just haven't seen a leniency towards sourcing like yours in hundreds of AfDs, hence the party line. So, alternatively, since you've already written enough in volume to twice surpass whatever length the Dunnet article would be, would you want to just write the article using just the reliable sources and the interviews without dragging it out? If you feel that you have enough for a dedicated WP page after all that (and that the text still wouldn't make more sense merged into a place where similar blurbs can be stored), then I can live with that (at least for now). – czar00:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody has enabled a test-abuse-filter, which is keeping me from posting almost anything useful.
* 03:46, 25 July 2015: 75.108.94.227 (talk) triggered an edit filter, performing the action "edit" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dunnet (video game). Actions taken: Disallow; Filter description: ASCII art
* 03:46, 25 July 2015: 75.108.94.227 (talk) triggered an edit filter, performing the action "edit" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dunnet (video game). Actions taken: none; Filter description: Test filter: for testing private filters
* 03:16, 25 July 2015: 75.108.94.227 (talk) triggered an edit filter, performing the action "edit" on User talk:Czar. Actions taken: Disallow; Filter description: ASCII art
* 03:16, 25 July 2015: 75.108.94.227 (talk) triggered an edit filter, performing the action "edit" on User talk:Czar. Actions taken: none; Filter description: Test filter: for testing private filters
Maybe you better give the collapsing-task a whirl, please. I left all the keep-votes and not-keep-ones too of course, but hid away everything save the first two sentences by Ron, and the first two sentences by me. I also hid away all the stuff following 'comment additional...' at the bottom, but left the thread discussion who did and who did not canvass. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I managed to save the collapse-changes, looks like the test-filter bug has been corrected. I collapsed, and then left a new comment at the bottom, summarizing my position, and what I believe to be yours. Feel free to correct the collapse, if you wanted something visible that isn't, or to add your own position-summary-comment if the words I put in your mouth were wrong. Thanks, please ping my talkpage if need be. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Czar, those of us who hang out in the newsroom of the WP:VG Newsletter feel that it's high time you were interviewed. No pressure of course, but would you grant us this privilege for Q4? The deadline is far off in early January 2016 so there's plenty of time to mull over your answer. -Thibbs (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thanks, Czar. Most likely the interview will be conducted by me, GamerPro64, or Torchiest. We'll get in contact when it's set up. -Thibbs (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is time to ask KAVEBEAR to voluntarily walk away from the articles related to the Hawaiian Royal Family. His disruptive editing seems to be traced to this specific portion of his seemingly sole interest in Hawaiian related articles. While clearly an editor worth retaining at the moment, it is time we ask this editor to refrain from the areas he is proving to have an extreme bias with. His user page demonstrates a bias as he has used it to literally add his opinion and biases of historic persons with genealogies and histories linked to living people who have Wikipedia articles. Insulting is only a individual perception, but this user has demonstrated that their bias is probable POV pushing at best, and agenda or advocacy editing at worst. It is possible this editor may need an Arbitration filing. I do strongly believe that editor retention is a real issue here. The editor has been in a number of disputes very similar to this with other editors who have stopped editing altogether. This has really stunted the improvement of Hawaii related articles. But since the editor is also a highly prolific editor in this area, it is possible that getting them to step back voluntarily can keep this from taking up arbcom time.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A show of good faith has been demonstrated, however I don't believe it is not enough to believe that further disruption will not occur ( I have offered good faith truces as well as good faith demonstrations of offering collaboration, information etc., to the user to demonstrate my ability to collaborate and offer a civil path forward as I have done with every other editor I encounter a behavioral issue or severe content issue with, but this editor has by far been the most stubborn about not collaborating) I believe my contributions to the Wikipedia community do demonstrate my willingness and ability to work with others from my contributions to WP:WER, WP:DRN as well as many other notice boards and venues like WP:RSN and community consensus articles like WP:BRD. From the pattern established by the other editor, I believe I may have been to quick to dismiss the possibility of a voluntary IBAN, where the editor, agrees to stop further mention of me in any way, or interact with me on articles, including reverting me, discussing me or mentioning my editing in any manner. I therefore wish to escalate this to some form of official or unofficial determination. Since the editor has extended a limited amount of good faith, but also demonstrated the ability to act in bad faith to further an agenda, bias or personal belief, it is my opinion that the voluntary ban be changed to a voluntary Iban on their part. For now I am disengaging for the night, but wish to state that my contributions to Wikipedia, have shown my willingness to learn and advance to the foundation and the projects core ideas, where this editor may actually have some competency issues. They might be overcome if, we try. I can also demonstrate I have and continue to try with this editor. I do not believe they can demonstrate the same. After years of abuse, it is time this is settled one way or another.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to see you make greater strides to deescalate whatever is fueling this conflict. I see no reason why the correct orthography cannot be discussed dispassionately. If the Hawaii MOS needs to be resolved first, put the discussion on hold until then. Humility and deference are far more effective techniques for finding equanimous common ground than ANI sanctions. – czar17:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't edit schools too often. I just know that elementary schools rarely have articles. Can you help with the redirect? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Czar! Would you please merge Draft:Star Wars Anthology 3 into the Draft:Untitled Star Wars Anthology: Han Solo? I don't know why they didn't just move Draft:Star Wars Anthology 2 to the new title, instead moved it to "Draft:Star Wars Anthology 3" and wrote Han Solo movie makes this one the third anthology film in the summary. But in the sources it is confirmed that the second "Star Wars Anthology 2" is the "Untitled Star Wars Anthology: Han Solo," and there is no "Star Wars Anthology 3" coming ever - for now I mean, not announced yet(even at IMDb, the Star Wars Anthology/project 2 is now renamed to new title). Please merge it and keep the redirects. Thanks. --Captain Assassin!«T ♦ C ♦ G»03:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Captain Assassin!, all of the repeated content makes this very confusing. What's the official title right now? If it isn't "Untitled Yadda Yadda", why not redirect the other drafts to the main draft? I can't histmerge the two you wanted without making a mess because their dates overlap. If the issue is that another article is sitting at the proper title, rename it to another alias and then move as you need. Your main draft is the draft with the longest history so it's fine to redirect the others there. – czar03:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's really a different film coming, I just read the THR news. No need to merge now, and I'm sorry for wasting your time. Thanks for the help as always. --Captain Assassin!«T ♦ C ♦ G»14:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The thing with the dates is that the two pages should not overlap in consecutive edits—the edits to be histmerge should completely precede or follow the other page's edits. The histmerge page has an image of how it works. Anyway, ✓ all done. – czar19:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again here. And tell me one thing, can I nominate the article for DYK? I mean it was already existed but its characters were short and now we have moved a draft to mainspace. --Captain Assassin!«T ♦ C ♦ G»19:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would need to be 5x expanded over [4] (the last public revision before your recent edits were mainspaced). It's also at 1300 characters (short of the 1500 character minimum) so it wouldn't be long enough anyway. At 5x expansion, it would have to be over 4100 characters. – czar19:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Czar. Unfortunately, sites like Metacritic and GameRankings have a long history of posting fake or misleading dates for magazine reviews. This is particularly true of EGM reviews, which are often improperly dated 2003 or 2004. I checked the magazine you mentioned, and all that's on page 189 is a useless summary listing of their original Blast Corps review. I almost certainly have the real review in one of my magazines, but it'll take some digging. I'll get back to you as soon as I'm able to locate it. In the meantime, there are a couple of Blast Corps reviews in the OPA. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JimmyBlackwing, oh well, thanks for checking. EGM doesn't have an index online somewhere? Do you have the Stamper interview in Next Gen #38 (Feb 1998) scanned by any chance? – czar22:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the interview scanned, but I can do that when I scan the others. I managed to find the Blast Corps review, alongside a two-page preview of the game that I'll throw in. Expect scans later today or tomorrow. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man, I absolutely forgot that Payola was coming out/has been released. Just purchased. Thanks ;) Keegan (talk) (wearing his Desaparecidos t-shirt) 23:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ done. Last I checked, it was common practice to leave redirects behind, especially if the Draft redirect might be removed. I do usually move without creating a redirect if the article is new enough that the redirect was never used. Brain on Fire had substantial text at its mainspace location, so it can't just be deleted. I merged it and noted in my merge that it should be fine for DYK (draft mainspaced today, the 18th, and the existing mainspace copy independent of your edits was from the 16th, so that's when the DYK timer starts). If anyone gives you trouble, point them here. The others were fine to move (even Carter) as the primary topics at that name. – czar17:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can't delete those redirects without a reason. Common practice is to just G6 the necessary title once the move is necessary. Usually doesn't take too long. – czar17:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, please sit tight on making a start with the Rare Replay topic as I'm in the middle of a FAC (shouldn't take too long, although it will distract me from any other GA work). So how do you want to do this overall? Should I pick an instalment, then you do one after I nominate one, or should we just write separate articles at the same time? Or make a start on DKC 2 + 3? I don't know what would be more efficient. I may be overcomplicating things but it is a big list though, so there should be some order! JAGUAR22:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer divide and conquer, if that works for you. I prefer to write article from scratch so I can be completely aware of how everything's sourced. It may not make sense to TNT the ones that are C- or B-class, if you have any ideas for splitting those (unless you just want to take them). And if you need help with sources or vice versa, we can cover each other. I have all the sources lined up for Blast Corps, so I'm starting there. (Found some nice Rare sources in the process—check the Rare talk page.) This is going to be a long process, so no rush—pacing myself. – czar09:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like the best idea, I like it. I'll let you know when I'm able to start. I won't nuke any that are C-class or higher, but that being said there are only, like, three in the list! I don't know where to find development sources for some of the older games, but I'll cross that bridge when I get to it... I have sources for Banjo-Kazooie Nuts and Bolts, so I'll be happy to take that. JAGUAR20:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm able to make a start on some of the earlier Rare articles, but I'm absolutely lost on where to find development sources. The good news is that the ZX Spectrum and BBC Micro games are well covered with extensive magazine reviews, but the bad news is that there's nothing else to compare development sections with. The Jetpac series have no shortage of reviews (thanks to the link you gave me), but I can't find any "preview" sources. Time travel back to 1982? JAGUAR18:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Preview" as in info about then-upcoming games? Not sure you'll need it, but any article (preview or not) is cataloged in World of Spectrum Infoseek. Best bet will likely be interviews with the developer, and from that you might only get a sentence or two. It'll be fine if the development section is short—we can only use the sources we have! Some of those interviews I posted on the Rare talk page might have good info. Otherwise try searching for interviews by Rare's old company name, depending on the time period. – czar21:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my absence in this. I'm letting you know that I haven't forgotten about this and that it's always been on my mind, but I'm still in the middle of a FAC and can't concentrate on a writing these instalments from scratch just yet. I'll make a start on this the moment it's all over. However, I have found one or two Ultaimte Play the Game interviews which should prove useful, so thanks for that tip. Rare Replay comes out in less than a week too, just curious if you'll get it as well as I? I can't say I'm too excited as there is no excuse on why they didn't put GoldenEye on there... JAGUAR11:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'm backed up too. In fact, I hope I'm done with my other stuff by the time this releases as well – czar15:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
W-w-what? That was quick. It's embarrassing as I've been looking forward to working on Rare articles for a while now and I haven't even started yet! Good news is I can finally make a start now as I'm waiting for somebody to spotcheck sources for this FAC (which will take time). I was looking for old interviews to help me write development on Jetpac or other older games and found an interview from 1988 which should be helpful, although I'm worried development sections for older games won't be long enough. JAGUAR19:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid there's a problem. I'm working on Jetpac now and it appears that every link to every magazine in the Worldofspectrum catalogue is dead - it just redirects to the main page when you try to access one. I'm not sure how to get around it, this is going to be a setback if it remains this way? JAGUAR12:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguar, I'm not sure when they were de-linked but I know it's been like that for a while. Some are available from WOS home page > Archive > Covertapes and Electronic Magazines and most of the ones I checked were in the Internet Archive (archive.org) so you can google "site:archive.org name of magazine issue number" to get what you need. That said, I think some of their locations are wrong... the page numbers don't exist for their their HCW citation and I couldn't find "jet pac" or "jetpac" elsewhere in the article. But I was able to find CVG, etc. I wouldn't worry about the development sections. Many older games just never received coverage in that way and it would be original research to scrape together primary sources. Just give it your best to search for interviews and dedicated Dev articles and if someone objects to the result, they can be the one to find whatever sources they say are missing. Can't fail a GA for breadth if the coverage never existed. – czar16:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I find it unnatural for any VG article to not have a development section but with some of Rare's earlier games it's just not an option, and I hope any reviewer can understand that. I'm going to finish Jetpac now and should nominate tonight. Rare Replay comes out tomorrow... JAGUAR15:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jetpac is done and nommed now. After hours of researching through old magazines of old 8-bit games and not the usual standards of fresh 90s coolness, I'm starting to feel like an anorak! Might do Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts tomorrow, then Battletoads, like a breath of fresh air! JAGUAR21:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello czar! Can you please review Draft:Sikander Rizvi, the actor got a lot of media coverage, and he is a brother and grandson of well-known actresses. I think the article should be moved to mainspace, his film coming on August 14 (not too far). If you agree then move it to mainspace. Thanks. --Captain Assassin!«T ♦ C ♦ G»08:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Czar! Thank you for reassessing article Crysis 3 and giving some suggestions on how to further improve it. So, I have followed your advice and fix most of the problems you mentioned. Do you think that it meets the standard now? AdrianGamer (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AdrianGamer, definitely an improvement—nice edits. I'm bumping it up but I think it still needs some work on the readability. Lots of individual sentences can be tightened and clarified for people actually unfamiliar with the game:
"Players can strengthen their armor when they are being attacked by enemies." What?
"weapons and Nanosuit can be customized and upgraded" passive voice → "Players upgrade and customize their weapons and Nanosuits."
"Energy for splinting and armor boosting have their own meters in the multiplayer mode" What? (jargon)
Now I can, as a reader, re-read and pick apart these sentences and try to make sense of them, or the sentences can be massaged to be understood clearly the first time. That's where I think the article can go next. Also the plot can be further summarized (too many characters and details, leave out some stuff, needs broader plot arc) – czar17:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please point me to the discussion where the a/m source has been determined to be "unreliable", I cannot seem to find it. Cheers. Keri (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AWB: I made the necessary revisions to Life Is Strange. However, I kept one video interview that just happens to be a DualShockers source. I assumed the bot was only doing what bots do—bureaucratise. I think the video interview speaks for itself. But I'm curious as to what your thoughts are. Cognissonance (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cognissonance, nice! Yep, the video interview is fine as a self-published source (though videos tend to go offline after a while, so it'd be good to have it archived in writing if another site else covered the interview...) But with the unreliable sources tag, the page still has a bunch of references linking blogs and other sites without reputations for editorial quality: continue-play, gameskinny, etc. A list of vetted vg sources is available at WP:VG/RS. There's also a custom Google search for easily searching all of them at once (to source the stuff otherwise linked to unreliable blogs). – czar19:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've now revised numerous references. I'm not 100% sure about some of the ones that remain, like APG Nation's original reporting on the episode 2 leak whose work was later mentioned by Gamereactor. If this was redundant from the start, it can be removed—though I have found Gamereactor to be a trustworthy source.
I thought reference #6—Destructoid—was reliable because of the author's title as associate editor. Researching Paste Magazine, I found it acceptable due to its accolades, traffic and endorsements. The author of the Digital Trends piece had background in The Escapist and Wired and the website also seems to draw substantial readership. Metro has a team of sub-editors to check for accuracy despite its ties to DMG Media. International Business Times checks out, as does The Verge. Reviews from Push Square, Gamereactor, PC World and Headlines & Global News seemed to warrant their inclusion only because it isn't a matter of accuracy, but opinion. I'd like to know if my criteria hold up to scrutiny and hope this post wasn't too overwhelming. I do care about making a good article out of this—and perhaps one day, _a good article_. Cognissonance (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cognissonance, I'd remove APGNation. If the information is important, a reliable source (not some guy's blog) will cover it. Push Square is borderline, so it's better replaced. Even if it's just opinion, we use critics that the public cares enough about to read. I don't really know what to do with Headlines & Global News—they appear to be something between a Huffington Post and a tabloid blog. Less than ideal. I'm not particularly worried about the rest of the ones you mention. It's well on its way to GA, but I'd try to stick with the big name reviewers and coverage as much as possible. – czar16:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Czar, just wanted to check in with you to see if you might have time to look over the The Common Core section I drafted for the David Coleman article. If not, I can reach out to other folks no problem. Let me know when you get a chance. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I got sidetracked. But I won't forget to return to the Coleman BLP, as soon as mayhap occur. User:Heatherer, if you are in a hurry, or would like to get multiple helpers, you can always feel free to use WP:Q facilities -- in particular the teahouse and the live-help-chat (fka IRC channel) are good places to ask for insta-help. Just open up one or the other, explain you have I-work-for-the-company-type WP:COI, and ask for somebody to help you check over the suggested changes at Talk:David Coleman. You won't always get a bite, but sometimes you can get instant gratification thataway. I won't be offended if you tell them Czar and 75108 were too darn slow-pokey. ;-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How beautiful are you to give me a barnstar added with a humorous note. You have just brightened my spirits, Mr. Czar. I need that. Thank you!
And ahhhhhhhhhh! Good catch on pointing out that we already do have rewarding acknowledgements here at Wikipedia in the form of Barnstars. I wonder why I've failed to think of that fact at all since reading the article on me. Good call!
To be fair though and no shade at the individual who wrote that article but it doesn't sound like he's very familiar with Wikipedia at least based on a few other things he wrote, such as about his note on the upvotes and downvotes system he claimed we have at Wikipedia. I might be wrong here but I don't think we have a system for upvotes and downvotes on Wikipedia. I could be wrong but at least I've never heard of it. He notes in the article that one of my edits got a huge number of upvotes and I am confused as to what he exactly he's talking about. Anyways, thanks once again! =) AmericanDad86 (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see TradeInDetectives , Talk:TradeInDetectives , and especially Rubber Road. Suggest that you nominate these (again in the former case) for regular-non-speedy-AfD, and see who shows up to bangvote. This article-group looks like it needs cleaning up pronto, but if we go about the clean-up-process slowly and deliberately, we may flush out more usernames/articles/etc that need attention. As for my AfD vote, if there was any coverage of TradeInDetectives outside q3 and q4 of 2013, I would change my mind. As it stands, I would vote to redirect to a sentence or two in comparison shopping#Niche players, which currently has [citation needed] on a sentence about gamer-specific comparison-shopping-websites. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And in case my chronological explanation at talkTradeInDetectives was too much verbosity... after the original Trade In Detectives was deleted in Nov'14, a sock (now indef'd) re-created the page at a slightly different title, TradeInDetectives, in Dec'14, and the same sock also created Rubber Road article on the almost-certainly-non-wiki-notable parent-corp. Both the new pages need to get sent to AfD please (rather than speedy), in hopes that more socks might be flushed out. Since you are the reason we found these fine folks again, I leave you the nom-for-AfD job, but I don't mind doing it myself if you would rather thataway, for some reason. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wish I could remember where I first saw 'delete and salt with fire' or the equivalent, it always made me laugh, and it's rare to get a chance to use it, so I shamelessly swiped the line. :-) See the use of fluoride salts which is typically heated to ~750decCelcius, and not-quite-so-extremely-dangerous molten calcium-nitrate-salts which max out at ~550degCelcius. In my mind, these are the mechanism used when demonstrating the power of the salt-with-fire admin-bit. If you ever get that permbit, make sure you use it only for good! :-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The removal/redirect of Wii U system software killed Wii Karaoke U, which now redirects (thanks to a cleanup bot) to Wii U#Hardware, where there's no mention of Karaoke U at all. I noticed because I got a notification (since I was the last to edit Karaoke U).
I don't even disagree with killing Wii U system software, but now Karaoke U is IMO dangling. I'm not a regular contributor so I have no idea where to discuss this or how to fix it. Put content back as a separate page? That would probably be fluff again, is Karaoke U notable enough? I guess not. Or maybe just kill the article entirely? Or add a paragraph or so about it on Wii U and then point the redirect there? No idea, but the latter idea sounds best to me. -- LaloMartins (talk • contribs) 15:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good question :-) because it comes bundled? Hysterical raisins, I guess. There used to be a paragraph about it in Wii U, which was then moved to System Software… To quote the Principia, “I don't know, man, I didn't do it.” ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Looks good this way, though. However: does it make sense for the List of Wii U software table to have a link to Wii Karaoke U, which then redirects back to itself? Is there a policy about this kind of situation? -- Lalo Martins (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Silence is its own form of consensus. Nothing has changed. It's made very clear in the video game guidelines (video game trivia #9). If you think it needs more discussion, bring it up at WT:VG. – czar15:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not feel that non-discussion is an implication of consensus; I bet most people probably never even noticed that discussion. I started an AFD across all the articles. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Classic WP etiquette is to raise potential issues for discussion first and to move ahead if there is no strong objection. Different kind of consensus than a back and forth, but still a consensus. Anyway, AfD is the wrong venue, but I noted that there. WT:VG would have been the best venue. – czar16:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what that means but I'm assuming you want the pages deleted since you opened an AfD. No need to discuss here further, thanks. – czar16:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Captain Assassin!, I recommend starting a move discussion for this one, as other editors might disagree and it's better to discuss in advance than to do BRD with moves. There's a fair bit of recentism in searches here due to Cook's recent death. You'll have to have some other and impartial case that one is the primary topic over the other (rather than equal). – czar18:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Captain Assassin!, yep, but you'll need to paraphrase almost all of the quotes. You only need quotes where the author's original language absolutely cannot be paraphrased. Most of their sentiment can be rephrased in your own words. – czar19:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please do a little paraphrase and you can nominate it for the DYK if you want a credit for it? I'll not be able to do it properly. If you don't have time or other problem, then it's okay. --Captain Assassin!«T ♦ C ♦ G»19:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr.K., I see that it was a bad experience last time, but File:Triumph of Achilles in Corfu Achilleion.jpg really should be fine. It has passed life+70, which are the terms for both the U.S. and Greece. If there was any issue at Commons it could easily just be restored here, but we should be all clear to keep it there. – czar18:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot elaborate further but I have reasons to doubt that the picture at Commons will remain undisturbed and I don't want to go through this in the future in any shape or form. Therefore I still request that a copy be kept locally here. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις18:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dr.K , maybe you could upload the picture to one of the non-wikipedia photo-websites that permit hooking a license-text to the photo-file? Just leave the external-non-wikipedia URL as a comment on the article talkpage, or as a hidden-html-comment right next to the photo-reference in the article bodytext. That way, if at some point in the future the commons-hosted copy is deleted for some esoteric reason or other, any editor who sees the pic-redlink in the article will be easily able to download a backup copy from said external-non-wikipedia hosting service, save it on their PC/tablet/whatever, and then upload that fresh copy to enWiki. I've seen some bad calls by the folks at commons before, being over-cautious-to-a-fault concerning copyright (e.g. there was a photo-upload of a cropped pic in 2008, which was deleted as potential copyvio in 2012, and when the original photographer uploaded it again, the *re*-upload was also deleted as copyvio, despite the proof that they were the original photographer in the form of an *uncropped* original EXIF-data). But you have to sympathize with the people who do the hard work there; it is a thankless task, to try and learn the massively-over-regulated copyright laws of a couple hundred countries, and keep wikipedia from being literally taken off the interwebz. Anyways, if you want some piece of mind, and to avoid the hassle of fixing the potential-future-deletion your self, just leave instructions on how the backup-copy can be restored easily from a non-wikimedia website, is my advice. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may note that I just transferred the file to Commons; I must have been thinking of COM:GOF when I did so but the file was uploaded too late for that. I'll attempt to contact the author of the photo for OTRS; if I cannot secure that within the week then both the local and Commons versions should be deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
are you okay with being dubbed a "coot of stewardship"? :-)
Somebody wrote an essay, which is supposed to be about the difference between paid-advocacy-POV-ducks (bad) and coots-of-GA/FA/DYK-stewardship (good), intended as a helpdoc for use by beginning editors, who oftentimes see reverts as rudeness regardless of the intent behind the revert. I've seen beginning editors get mad about insta-reverts to many times to count, so I'd like to have an essay WP:WHYISEVERYTHINGALWAYSDELETED to point them at.
long version , with the definition of 'coot' , the two reverts-of-DYK-stewardship I had in mind , and many other fascinating tales
The choice of 'old coot' as the counterexample is unfortunate, kinda, but I guess it makes sense per WP:NAVEL and WP:DUCK.
slang: "[old] coot: a strange and usually old man; a harmless, simple person; broadly, a synonym for fellow, sense#4c. For example: don't mind him -- he's just a crazy old coot."[5]
noun: "coot [waterbird]: a type of black and gray bird that lives on or near the water; any of various slaty-black birds, genus Fulica, of the rail family that somewhat resemble ducks and have lobed toes and the upper mandible prolonged on the forehead as a horny frontal shield" [6]
I commented on the essay-talkpage, about adding some see-also disambiguation at the top, to narrow the scope down to a focus on the specific difference between a coot-of-stewardship, who will often revert for manual of style reasons or for helpfulness to the readership reasons or other narrow FA/GA/DYK sorts of stuff, which are perfectly fine reasons for a revert, versus an advocacy-editor who reverts for an ulterior motive. Since the essay-page seems to be contentious, with a lot of GA/FA/DYK folks on the essay-talkpage complaining how the essay is a travesty to wiki-humanity and that to even suggest the idea that the behavior of any good wikiproject member could ever possibly be confused by newbies with rudeness.... well, suffice it to say, I thought I should ask you, beforehand, if you mind in the slightest being labelled as a coot of stewardship, which I stress is a good thing, and being used as an example of such on usertalk.
Now, please note that I don't plan on sticking your name *in* the essay (though I cannot control what other editors may do), or even using the scenario as an example in the essay (as opposed to me using it as an example on usertalk), and in fact given the hot wiki-water the essay is already in, plan to keep to usertalk of the individual who asked for my help with the see-also stuff. I don't plan to edit the essay myself at all, or edit the essay-talk again either. Here is the edit-sequence I was going to use, as an example of a coot-of-stewardship making some good reverts with an eye towards DYK-compliance.
17:26, 15 July 2015 Czar (talk | contribs) . . (12,308 bytes) (-537) . . (→See also: "See Also" section rules: links were already mentioned in article; rmv image-related services only peripherally related, if important, work them into the article) (undo)
08:32, 15 July 2015 75.108.94.227 (talk) . . (12,845 bytes) (+631) . . (→See also: flesh out see-also list with the major alternatives) (undo)
08:13, 15 July 2015 Czar (talk | contribs) . . (12,214 bytes) (-409) . . (Reverted good faith edits by 75.108.94.227 (talk): Citation overkill, a single reference is fine at the end unless something needs direct citation for WP:V.) (undo)
07:52, 15 July 2015 75.108.94.227 (talk) . . (12,623 bytes) (+409) . . (→History: pushing the inline sourcing into a couple of sentences, that were mostly based on one journalist's rather flamboyant description (and possibly overgeneralized) of the two corps and their products; maybe switch to a blockquote of TheVerge?) (undo)
As for an example-edit-sequence of a paid-advocacy-POV-duck, I recently made wiki-friends with the singer/co-owner of some talent-agency in the UK, and her talent-agent signed himself up for a wikipedia acccount in *her* name and proceeded to make a medium-long series of self-promotional edits and self-promotional reverts, before being blocked. *She* is now unblocked, and in control of her own wiki-persona, so the story has a happy ending. But it's still a good example of paid-POV-advocacy-duck in action, and a good contrast to your own reverts ... which were fine by me -- the article is already quite good and will keep getting better under your wiki-stewardship I have no doubt -- I would help but I have too litle patience with MOS and too many other wiki-tasks on my plate... including David Coleman who has the problem of too grumbldy-grumble MANY sources to wade through.
Anyways, long story short, here is the RFC where I commented, Wikipedia_talk:Advocacy_ducks#rfc_041382A, on the essay talkpage, and as you can see, the essay-prose is more than a bit of a mess (and the talkpage even more messy). If you'd rather keep your username out of the vicinity of that sort of mess, please just say no thanks, and I will refrain from using you as my coot-of-DYK-stewardship example. And apparently, a coot is not just slang for a strange stubborn old person (*I* am a coot in that sense for sure :-) but it is also some kind of specific biological creature that looks like a duck but is not... the analogy strikes me as a bit strained (especially for an essay aimed at beginning-editors who have probably never heard of WP:DUCK), so if I come up with a better analogy, I will also suggest that terminology-change to the essay-editor. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
– czar– czar Oy, that page is a mess. I never knew a coot was more than a pejorative. (And I did not know I had become part of the old guard.) Feel free to use any of my edit summary text whenever you want, but I imagine it would be best for everyone to avoid direct user mentions or something like this (pictured) on an essay. And if that essay is aimed at new editors, it kind of misses the point. If WP culture, with its reverts and heavy jargon, is inaccessible, it's even more so when a so-called explainer essay uses... an awful lot of jargon ...or introduces new jargon! Also there is an obvious dissonance between calling an editing practice preferred and depicting it with pejoratives. – czar18:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
when being a stubborn old coot is a superlative, plus the unsolved mystery of why perfectly true information about CompanyX is repeatedly deleted
Yeah, I'd never heard of the waterbird either. But I think the connotations of being called a coot, or an old coot, vary with the part of the country you are from. There are some folks where I live that call themselves "stubborn old coot" as a kind of superlative, e.g. I'm never getting one of them smartphone-things, no need for one, because I'm a stubborn old coot. Being called a crazy old coot is usually considered negative, but can also be a superlative if somebody does something physically dangerous yet undeniably impressive with a piece of farm machinery whilst risking their life and limbs, for instance. :-) Anyways, I think the essay is a horrid mess now, and is furthermore about to be torn to shreds by feuding essay-talkpage folks, so it is basically a lost cause.
I'm going to suggest a new, as-wiki-jargon-free-as-possible essay that concentrates on simple explanations, of what the various underlying causes behind multiple reverts are, aka the question of motive/intent. quoth, Are you inserting Company_X into the list-of-companies article_Y, and your addition keep getting deleted/reverted? Maybe some stubborn wiki-coot wise wikipedia administrator was reverting you for a good reason, because your CompanyX is not yet a bluelink, and SOME list-articles follow bluelink-only rules. However, maybe just maybe, those *selfsame* reverts were instead performed by a nefarious employee of Company_Z, out to promote their evil Brand_Z products, and delete all competitors from the wiki-verse... Oh Nohz!! But wait: how can you figure out which kind of person, with what kind of motive, deleted your perfectly true information concerning Company_X? unquoth, and then insert calm advice about checking the edit-history, peeking at user contribs, utilizing usertalk / article-talk, asking for guidance or advice at teahouse/IRC, et cetera, etc. Such an essay could be useful, but the existing essay just needs to be blown up and started over methinks, with an all-new beginner-friendly-title and mostly-new beginner-oriented contents.
Anyways, I'll try to keep your name from getting stuck into a coot-pic caption, or for that matter, a duck-pic caption. As you suggest, I'll anonymize the example-edit-series, and remove our usernames entirely, since the edit-summaries tell the tale well enough.
* 4pm, 1st Jan 2001, edit by WikiAdmin (-555) edit-summary: per see-also rules, links were already in body text; remove peripherally related topics, if important, work them into body
* 3pm, 1st Jan 2001, edit by NewUser9 (+666) edit-summary: flesh out see-also list with the major alternative products/companies
* 2pm, 1st Jan 2001, edit by WikiAdmin (-444) edit-summary: reverted good faith edit by NewUser99, citation overkill, a single reference is fine after the period unless something needs direct citation for WP:V
* 1pm, 1st Jan 2001, edit by NewUser9 (+444) edit-summary: push sourcing inside a couple of sentences, which were based mostly on one journalist's rather flamboyant description
I also "edited-for-clarity" both of our edit-summaries, and made the datestamps and byte-counts into nice round numbers (by some conceivable definition of roundness :-) Is that safe/sanitized enough, to give you a good chance of keeping your name out of future bird-related captions, you think? Somebody with sufficient googling/edit-trawling skills could probably figure out where it came from, but I doubt anybody will go *that* far to get their picture-caption-text. And the no-coot-references-needed faux-usernames also sound better to my ears. As for the faux-username of the evil spammer using wikipedia as an advertising-vehicle for Company_Z products, methinks we can follow the sorts of funny-yet-rather-precise usernames found at WP:PPOV essay, and get by referring to them as User:Zee_Corporal_Sabotahz or the like. Lemme know if you have reservations about the above "1pm-to-4pm" edit-sequence, or just edit in place if you like. Thanks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you're planning to use it, but consider leaving off all the confusing junk in the front and just quoting the edit summaries that you find useful? Feel free to jumble up the edit summary words if you want to make it more anonymous, but I don't think it's a big deal. – czar01:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how I'm going to use them either, if at all. What I'm mainly planning on doing is suggesting a new essay called WP:WhoDeletedMeAndWhy or similar, jargon-free so it is appropriate for Brand New Editors(tm), which essay I vaguely foresee being organized into a series of three-sentence-long-thought-experiments like the one from above, "Are you inserting Company_X info...? Maybe it was WikiAdmin, because $correctMotive, but maybe it was ZeeCorporateSaboteurz with $evilMotive! Here is how you, dear reader, can figure out the mystery... $calmSaneAdvice." There are similar thought-experiments about other common beginner mistakes, with the narrow focus in WP:WhoDeletedMeAndWhy on where the beginners might misperceive the intent of the people behind their reverts. "I keep putting that Justin Bieber is the most awesome singer in THE WORLD into the lede of the Earth article and I'm always reverted by the haters, why do they hate Justin so much?!?" Incorrect identification of the intent behind the reverts. Per our discussion above, "I keep putting true stuff / the other side of the story / see also wiki-links / rough-draft prose into this article featured on the Main Page but somebody must hate me / be non-neutral / be censoring wikipedia / be a grammar nitpick, because I keep getting reverted!"
That's the part of the story where your edit-summaries might come in, on usertalk, as a specific example of a good-motive-backed DYK-and-MOS-related revert-series by WikiAdmin (fka WikiCootOfStewardship)... and although *I* knew at the time you weren't trying to Censorz The Pedia... that's only because I've heard the dark wiki-tales... of the Dreaded Torture-Manual Of Style... and the Horrid Gauntlet Of DYK... whispered in the wiki-alleys... shudder... all of which a beginner would blissfully know nothing about. Anyways, at the moment I don't think I'll need to mention the edit-sequence at all, now that you and I have brainstormed a bit. Oh, and before I forget, we have of course, the all-time classic, "I am just trying to put my facebook page into wikipedia as an external link on Internet because FACEBOOK is on the internet and I AM ON FACEBOOK so why do I keep getting perfectly true information deleted despite providing the URL of my facebook page as a completely reliable and true source to prove IT EXISTS ON THE INTERWEBZ!!!!" :-)
Who could fail at the seemingly-simple task of following the clear language of WP:V and then verifying that facebook is on the internet, unless they have some evil ulterior motive, right? Right. And *that* is the perfect segue, towards answering your question about when you became a member of the old guard: it is patently clear to those with the right kind of wiki-colored-glasses that you are part of the anti-CompanyX anti-Bieber anti-SeeAlso anti-FacebookPage cabal, and the very fact that you deny it is teh VERY proof itz troo. I'll try not to get your username-reputation stuck into a waterbird-caption, but if the worst does happen, please accept my sincere apologies in advance, and remember to always look on the bright side of life, and perhaps even be a wee bit grateful, since things could be worse: it could be raining monkeys and fish. Talk to you later, appreciate the help, thanks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the opportunity but I'm not interested in improving more Rare articles, at least for now. I'm also currently working on Alien: Isolation and I think it will keep me busy for quite a while; it's not going to be an easy task to improve it to GA status because I have to be completely aware of how everything's sourced and written. Anyway, good luck with getting all those articles to GA status :) --Niwi3 (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see two problems: Firstly, there's some major issues with that image: The sky is very blocky, and the colours rather posterized (has this had an instagram filter applied or something?). I could probably fix the former easily enough with a blur, but that leads to the second issue:
I don't know what the colours should be. I've never been there.
I could probably fix it up a little bit, but this isn't going to reach featured picture status (especially as it's under resolution). Still, it might still be worth doing, but I have to ask: Do we really have no Wikipedian photographers in Suffolk? Adam Cuerden(talk)21:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden, good points. I contacted the author who says he still has the negatives. He's going to see if he can get me a higher resolution scan, which should help. I liked the composition of this, but another picture would be okay. How would you recommend getting in touch with someone in Suffolk? And the colors have been warmed up, the previous version of the file are much blander. Appreciate your help, – czar21:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that. I suspect the colour change would need undone: It's probably much less accurate with the change. I think a higher-res scan would help, but, if there's any underlying issues, I suspect there may be questions about why it can't be retaken. Adam Cuerden(talk)21:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dustinnulf, the topic isn't covered in secondary, reliable sources. (There has to be enough non-primary source coverage to write an article about it. Here's a short version of our notability guidelines.) You can take a quick search of our vetted video game reliable sources via this custom Google search. (Note that MobyGames is user-contributed and does not have a reputation for reliability. Feel free to put your content on another more specialized wiki encyclopedia though, like breakintochat.com – czar21:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Czar, Please excuse my edit. It was wrong to not use the Sandbox, I was testing something for my computer science class. Us 60 yr olds sometimes need some help : - )≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marbleworlddesktop (talk • contribs) 21:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Czar, I apologize I thought I was in sandbox. Us 60 yr old ladies somtimes need help in our computer science classes!! MY instructor told me it was in sandbox (: ≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marbleworlddesktop (talk • contribs) 21:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did this boldly but moves like this generally warrant some discussion in advance. Grok.se is down for me to check page views, but it should be clear that the actor is the only person actually known by that name (and thus is the primary topic). ✓ – czar16:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should have received an email a couple of weeks ago regarding Taylor & Francis - could you please either fill out the linked form or let me know if you didn't get the email? We'd like to get these processed soon, and may pass on unclaimed accounts to waitlisted editors. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Czar. I still haven't heard back from everyone I contacted, but I'll give you what I've got so far. The translation is a bit patchy - sometimes very literal, sometimes more figurative. German sentence structure is a nightmare of commas and clauses adding together to form paragraph-long sentences.
So for the Aktueller Software Markt source we have this:
ASM source
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Program: Slalom, System: Nintendo, Price: about 65 Deutschmark, Manufacturer: Nintendo Co., Ltd., Japan, Distributor: Yeno, Hamburg.
Going skiing? No problem if you have a Nintendo game console with the SLALOM program inserted, especially because the game is so "damn" fast. But first let us discuss several curiosities that are not normally found on an international ski-circus slalom. For example, consider the fun things like trees that suddenly appear, snowmen, sledders that suddenly cross the slopes, and others like Sunday skiers and small jumps that can be used to perform ski tricks. These tricks are accomplished by players who use the D-Pad to control the character on the ski jump. If you hit or are unable to avoid any of the obstacles, the character's legs will suffered damage, but this is quickly forgotten and the character can soon resume plunging fearlessly down the slope. In addition to dealing with the chaotic condition of the slopes, the player must also carefully guide the character (which, incidentally, has a wonderfully sticking-out bottom - especially when the D-pad is held forward), through the ski-gates in order to avoid a loss of speed - something you should try to avoid if possible as it becomes increasingly difficult with each loss of speed (given the already extremely short time frame on the slopes especially after the qualifying round). The next round can, however, be made much easier by earning special points per performing tricks. The more points you earn, the longer you have on the track without the aforementioned obstacles. When this period is over, things get pretty hairy, and your player should dress warmly not only because of outside temperature, but because this year a lot is going on on the slopes. It must be said that the game's use of perspective and scrolling leave nothing to be desired, and the animation of characters is quite successful. At the end of the day, SLALOM is a console game that requires good reaction-time and perfect control of the D-Pad, and it would likely be helpful for some who play this game to connect an arcade joystick, because with me - after about 20 minutes the infamous "Nintendo-thumb"/arm-cramp sensations could be felt. A more logical approach would be to associate the rate of increase with a speed request (via the fire button). Apart from this, however, the game can be rather recommended for owners of the NES game console.
Oh yeah, and I almost forget the sound, yep - the good old sound - well it's nothing amazing, but it certainly can't be characterized as a negative for the game. And now we proceed to the rating scores. -jh
(The author for this is listed as "jh". No idea who that is. There is a translation of the initialisms into names on page 3 of the same source, but "jh" is conspicuously absent...
And the Power Play source:
Power Play
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Kindling alert while passing through pine trees on the slopes
Martin: "Break a leg"! Quickly, quickly now, gentlemen! The speed at which you are descending the mountain is murderous. The first few slopes are still quite normal (the easiest mountain, mind you), compared to slope 4 which is life-threatening (James Bond would go pale with envy ...). At this point I'll use nothing but a joystick (the Joypad drives me to despair). The slopes and hindrances are appealingly animated. The music sounds good and the sound effects match. At the beginning it's great fun to snake through gates and trees. In the long run it's pretty monotonous despite its technical strengths. Sadly, no new hindrances show up as the game progresses. The programmers were a bit too quick to relax on the job. A bit of variety would not have hurt.
Slalom
Graphics 7 Sound 7 Power-Rating 6
Nintendo Entertainment System
69 Mark (module) Nintendo
Fast glacier-action with trick ski jumping is announced in the 3D-Ski-Race "Slalom". But don't let the name fool you - along with slalom slopes you must also overcome steep descents with obstacles. Unfortunately it's not quite as civilized as at a World Cup ski race. Or have you ever experienced sledders and other slope-rowdies competing to make your life difficult? To make matters worse, snowmen, Christmas trees and small moguls also cause quite a stir. If you miss one of the numerous gates, the racer's speed is automatically reduced. Even worse is when the skier crashes. While he rights himself, valuable seconds tick by. When you can no longer avoid an obstacle, your only hope is the small jumps. While airborne, ski tricks can be performed to earn yourself bonus points. Unfortunately, you lose some speed during a jump. For each route there is a time limit. The faster the finish, the more your remaining time gains in the form of added bonus points (converted from your time in seconds). For this period of bonus time no Sunday skiers will disturb you at the start of the next run. In order to make the course a little less boring, there are three mountains - each with eight different routes to choose from. (mg)
(The author for this is listed as "mg" and from page 6 of the same magazine it's clear that this is Martin Gaksch)
I hope that's useful to you. I'll write again if I get back word that anything in teh translation needs significant changes. -Thibbs (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay! I saw this, then put it on hold, then forgot about it, then remembered, then forgot again. I will make a point to dig through my magazines and scan anything relevant in the next 24 hours. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your free one-year account with Newspapers.com will end on August 20 2015. Newspapers.com has offered to extend existing accounts by another year. If you wish to keep your account until August 20 2016, please add your name to the Account Renewal list here. I'll let Newspapers.com customer support know, and they will extend your subscription. If you don't want to keep your account for another year, you don't have to do anything. Your account will expire unless I hear from you that you want to keep it. All the best, HazelAB (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm preparing to make my first ever article from scratch, being Draft:Dyscourse. And it occurred to me that it being an indie game, that would probably mean free images. I have no clue how to do that. How exactly does one be able to upload a free image of an indie game properly? GamerPro6419:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! So you'll want to email the devs, let them know you're writing the WP article and would like to request some images (gameplay, GIFs, dev photos) to illustrate the article. Let them know that Wikipedia, as the free encyclopedia, requires media to be relicensed to Creative Commons (cc-by-sa) or freer. If this is something that interests them, I say to send the text from Wikipedia:Consent to that Commons address and cc me. Usually I ask for the full press kit if they're willing, and if they're hesitant (rightfully so), I show them my category of wonders. If I've qualified the article for DYK, I let them know that the article will appear on the front page soon and that accompanying images tend to bring visibility. Make sure that you understand the process before asking them to do it. Some devs need clarification on cc-by-sa, particularly that it allows commercial reproduction as long as the image is attributed. Not all devs agree or respond so you could be stuck with minimal fair use. When I get the images and everything looks kosher, I upload them to Commons, tag them as {{OP}} (ideally with the ticket number in processing) and reply to the Commons address to let them know where to find the images. Looking forward to seeing the fruits of your labor 🍊🍋🍓 – czar21:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is going to be more interesting than I expected seeing how I've only now attempted this after all these years. GamerPro6422:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I missed something. I got the permission from the developer and I sent the permission to Commons and it came back to them not validating it. Though the email mentioned that they thought I was also the copyright holder. GamerPro6422:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ticket: 2015080910011278) Hm. I think the reviewer wants the email sent directly from Schwartz's company address rather than forwarded through you. (I think it's hit or miss whether reviewers will be stringent about this.) They just want to verify that it's coming from an official outlet. – czar22:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Yea, it's definitely because the actual OTRS e-mail was sent from your e-mail and not the copyright holder's, which means that technically it could've easily been falsified. I mean, I could forward you a rant about drunken Russians "from Obama's e-mail" if I wanted to. So I usually ask copyright holders to sent their authorization e-mails directly to the permissions e-mail (with me in CC for simplicity). Another option is to have them explicitly post the proper licenses on their website or Flick or etc. if they prefer that instead of e-mailing. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉23:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So it occurred to me that I have no clue when to expect the ticket for the images to go through or get any response from the developers. I call for more representation of Featured Pictures for the project and only now do I attempt to do all this. Go figure. GamerPro6402:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that there's been no reply on the ticket. Sometimes devs need a little prodding. (Several of my contacts are still in limbo—I remind them from time to time that they said they were going to send something and they're apologetic... but can't quite get their acts together.) – czar02:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)x3 - Actually, since the original ticket was with GamerPro64's e-mail address and this new one is from the dev's, it made a new ticket (I just linked the items). The new ticket is ticket:2015081210028281, and it's fine AFAICS (but I don't respond to permissions, so some other OTRS agent will get to it eventually). I guess you can start uploading stuff with "otrs pending" tags. The e-mail says that they're publishing http://dyscourse.com/press under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts), so you can tag them as such. What I did when it happened to me is that I uploaded the image first (after checking with the studio of course), then asked them to e-mail the permission while linking to the already uploaded files. It feels more comfortable to me and images can always be deleted from Commons if the dev ends up changing their mind. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉02:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Btw it's not about being an admin, it's about having an OTRS account with the flags to view the permissions queue, which I assume Czar also does. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉02:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fine, but I'd add {{subst:OR|id=2015081210028281|reason=processing}} when batch uploading next time—makes sure no one deletes it for no ticket info – czar04:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(No option for it—just a trick I picked up. Upload a bunch through Upload Wizard and on the last page there's an "other" field where you can drop in the template and copy it to all of the uploads at once.) – czar04:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wanna talk shit about other people but it sometimes boggles my mind to realize how separated, distinct and non-mutually-cooperative the different Wikimedia communities are, even if only wrt to primarily English projects -- Meta, Enwiki, Commons, Wikidata are the biggest but anytime I venture there from Enwiki I definitely feel like a stranger in foreign lands. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉14:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, tag it with that tag above (or without the ticket number if you don't have it) to avoid a repeat in the future. (It isn't that outlandish that Commons patrollers delete items that assert external authorship without external permission, though we usually give it seven days' delay here.) Yeah, it's a needless headache. – czar15:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that even Commons had a "reasonable delay" clause (7 days or otherwise), but I guess some people are more zealous than others. :( ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉16:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like C&P but the draftspace draft had an older edit history and more precise footnotes, so the newer article should merge there. Feel free to merge in whatever details would help, but be sure to preserve attribution by putting a link to the diff or page history in your edit summary. – czar16:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know anything about this game's plot? I can't copyedit this plot section very well because the grammar is so laughably bad that I can't make heads or tails of what it's supposed to mean. Did the painter create the island in the book? Is the island imaginary, a dream world or does it actually exist? Are the Maboo humans too? People left because they forgot about it? Is the plot of this game just objectively terrible writing??? My head hurts. Only asking 'cause I can't look up any sites that might contain some info about the plot, like IGN reviews or what have you, and I'm trying to help with the cleanup tag thing. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER12:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BlusterBlaster, sometimes it's best to scrap parts that are truly incomprehensible. I added some plot from the IGN review linked in the Reception section. If you need help finding sources, try the video game reliable sourcescustom Google search. But yeah, feel free to do whatever is necessary to get the articles in readable shape—someone tagged them for cleanup for just that reason – czar14:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, that's a cool link to have, thanks. Also, thanks for the pointers when it came to that Apache PROD, I'll keep it in mind for the future. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER17:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, saw you undid my changes to Kotaku italics. For some reason, I thought I read once upon a time that websites were not to be capitalizeditalicized unless they had a physical counterpart. But now there's some inconsistency. All the other Gawker Media sites are currently not italicized. Checking other major game sites, I see they're split: IGN and GameSpot aren't; Polygon and Rock Paper Shotgun are. I'm turning in for the night, but perhaps you can dig around and see how widespread the issue is. Cheers. —Torchiesttalkedits05:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major_works: "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized" It's come up at WTVG a few times. IGN and GameSpot can be construed as network organizations similar to MSNBC, which is why they may not be italicized. I haven't pressed it because it's been hard enough just to get the italics restored to the vg reviews template once it converted over to Lua. (I think you might mean italicized instead of capitalized.) Considering the kind of coverage Gawker Media gets, I'm not surprised about the state of their WP pages. The guideline is straightforward to me that they should be italicized, but if you want to test the waters first, you could bring it to their talk pages. – czar06:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I meant. I knew it was bedtime. I think I just hadn't looked at that italics page for a long time. The part about websites was added in December 2011, and I'm sure I looked at it before then when I was doing a lot of copy editing for the GOCE back in the day. —Torchiesttalkedits12:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't personally mainspace an article unless I was sure it had significant coverage—broadly, enough in-depth reporting to say something meaningful about the subject. (There's no strict measure for this, but I prefer to hold off on mainspacing until I'm 100% certain that the sources put it in the clear. Generally this means making sure the sources aren't clumped around the same event/time, that they're not all from the same secondary source (their darling), that they aren't short blurbs but are closer to headlines or perceived as important by the publisher.) So that in-depth Vice article on itch.io—you really want three of those. Interviews are usually considered "weaker", as they have less fact-based reporting and are just a fluffier feature (generally!) though it counts for something that RPS and Gamasutra (both vetted WP:VG/RS) think itch.io is important enough to interview. I'd say its notability is borderline right now, so you want to add a few more sources that are focused on itch.io. Do a video game reliable sourcescustom Google search and add [7][8][9] and you're home free. Primary sources are fine for rounding out details in an article, but they should be used as minimally as possible (secondary sources vastly preferred), and seeing them usually sets off a red flag for page patrollers. – czar15:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please revert the moving edits done on the page? An admin moved it and reverted all the previous deleted edits, while it was supposed to be a simple move or just data merge by copy/paste. --Captain Assassin!«T ♦ C ♦ G»14:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moving admin here. I don't see the problem to be honest, the page history now shows how the article developed. I'm happy to discuss it further, but moving the entire history into draftspace doesn't seem like it would be a productive thing to do. Jenks24 (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the AfD'd version of the article from a year ago didn't impact the current article at all. I would have seen no reason to restore it. That said, when an article is recreated where there once was an AfD, there's nothing technically against restoring all previous revisions, including the speedy dels and AfD-deleted versions. I just think it's a waste of time. I've never asked, but having worked with CA for a while, I think he may be motivated by stats and that's fine by me as long as it improves the encyclopedia and doesn't become an ownership issue (which I don't believe it has). So I see much less relative good in restoring (worthless, really) AfD versions that dilute CA's motivation to make well sourced articles. As I said, there's nothing to do right now as there's technically nothing against restoring old revisions, but something I'd keep in mind for next time. Principal photo has begun, so it's fine to mainspace the draft. – czar15:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK, I think I understand now. CA (hope you don't me shortening your username) would like to be the 'creator' of the article, i.e. have the first edit in the revision history, rather than just be effectively the principle author (anyone can see by looking at the history now that he has written most of the article). Sorry for being a bit dense earlier, I was genuinely perplexed as to why you (CA) had objected to what I'd done. I only noticed the 2013 history because the edits because some of the July 2014 edits had to be histmerged (between here and here). I'm having a think about this. I wouldn't want to discourage any good faith editor, especially someone who's obviously writing good, well-sourced articles. But on the other hand I'm not sure if I necessarily love using the draft process and deletion as a way to be 'first' in the revision history – even if the edits prior to the AfD stayed deleted, there is still Darkwind's creation of the redirect which would have him 'first'. That edit is just a redirect so it wouldn't be the end of the world to delete it, but at the same deleting it when you could have more easily written over the top of it doesn't seem great. So I'm not sure – I think the way it is now more accurately shows how the page developed, not that any of the original text was reused by CA, but that it was first created in 2013 and has existed as at least a redirect since then. But of course making things seems "unfair" for CA, as he described it on my talk, is also less than ideal. I might ask someone else to comment here if that's OK. I think this is actually an interesting discussion to have and I am open to deleting the September 2013 edits. Jenks24 (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's fine. I'll add that films, specifically, are supposed to wait in draft until principal photo has begun, and that when mainspacing drafts of any kind, it's common to {{db-move}} (G6) the redirect placeholder when it has no attributable text in need of preservation. I'd only bother with a histmerge when a latent draft (possibly merged) was sitting below the redirect. – czar17:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aah hahah :), now you get that Jenks24. It's up to you both (judges) now. I just said what I had to, and you can see how much I worked on that and how much I work on drafts waiting until photography begins. That September history (before July 11, 2014) should be deleted because it was created when the adaptation was just announced and that was not the right time for an film article that's why it was after AfD ended. And the deletion at that time was a good idea because if you want to keep that edits for a development history, it would change the rules of WP:NFF. Everyone would start creating articles even when an announcement has been made for the film and that's not a good idea. Just animated films' articles can be created before the start of production, but not live-action films. So, it was deleted on purpose later and it should be kept deleted. Waiting for your result now. --Captain Assassin!«T ♦ C ♦ G»01:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Jenks24 here. There *was* a redirect at that title between September 2013 and July 2014, and I can't think of a good reason that this fact should be hidden in the history (I don't think article creation credits based on the output of a specific tool should carry that much weight here). However, the only time I was ever brought to ANI was an eerily similar situation to this one, so take my opinion as you will. Graham8705:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think removing of September editing history would effect anything but if removing that will make you unhappy Jenks24 than leave the topic. I'll be patient but I'm sure it'll goes against encouraging me. As I've worked hard on that draft and if I knew that there were deleted edits on the topic and you would revert those, I would have done that myself by copy paste the draft material into the mainspace. Okay do what you think is best, I'm not mad. Thanks for your time and sorry for wasting it. Okay. --Captain Assassin!«T ♦ C ♦ G»08:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Graham, thanks for chiming in, I appreciate it. @Captain Assassin!: perhaps as a compromise, would you be OK if I re-delete all the September 2013 edits except the last one by Darkwind creating a redirect (see here)?. So you still wouldn't be first in the article history (your first edit to it would be second), but it might be clearer that you wrote the article? At the same time it would also be clear that a redirect has existed at that title since 2013. And this has been no trouble, as I said above I actually find it an interesting conversation to have. Jenks24 (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Jenks24, now you're making it more interesting topic :). Please remove all edit history of September if you are going to do that, I'll insist on that one edit. I want notifications whenever this article is linked somewhere, and I want mine first edit. I know it'll not effect anything and by keeping that one edit of a redirect is not necessary and beneficial for the article. Than why? Now, you've brought me to the position of insisting :). So, Please don't leave a redirect, it's a request. And I think we are irritating czar by replying here again and again, all the time we reply here he would get a notification of a message . --Captain Assassin!«T ♦ C ♦ G»10:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done it. I'll be honest, I don't really like it. I think it hides the full history from non-admins and makes it needlessly confusing for anyone perusing the history. But you make a fair point about the notifications. Hopefully one day the devs will come up with a way to get them without being the article creator, but in the meantime we work with what we've got. I also can't give a guarantee that I'd always be willing to do this, I think in this case it's only barely justifiable because it's really only one redirect edit standing in the way.
@Jenks24: No one is going for the history, which was deleted long time before I created it. Don't worry for that. And really thanks for the help here, to you all, especially Czar. He had been hosting us for a while here and now he'll be thanking God for ending our discussion . --Captain Assassin!«T ♦ C ♦ G»16:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I was logged out when I made the relevant edit. My concern is that your change makes the underline permanent rather than only appearing on hover, which is stylistically discouraged. —Nizolan(talk)04:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nizolan, thanks, can you point me to where it's discouraged? (All of my links are automatically underlined—perhaps it's a MonoBook/Vector thing?) – czar04:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a user preference as to whether links are underlined by default, and by forcing an underline you're overriding the preference setting. MOS:BADEMPHASIS discourages underlining in any other instance. As you can see in the mockup of Andy Burnham's template section here, applying a permanent underline makes the template stick out like a sore thumb for people using the default styleset. —Nizolan(talk)05:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had already looked and I just double-checked—don't see it as a user pref. I understand what the issue is on your end, but picture mine as being the same, but all links have underlines and the white text has blue underlines clashing on a red background. I can elevate the issue to a stylesheet issue but I don't know if I'm missing the checkbox setting or if it's a Vector/MonoBook thing. – czar05:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strange batch of editors on those software changelog pages... like its own little niche. They swooped in to keep at AfD but have no intentions of letting the changelogs go (when that was the only conclusion of that whole ordeal). At least the Xbox One page showed a little progress in its transition into prose. Anyway, the advance notice on the talk pages should more than suffice. I'll keep an eye out but let me know if you have any other issues (in case I happen to miss them). – czar05:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Respected czar,
It recently caught my eye that the page created by me : Kalakat Illam, was deleted in Dec 2014 and saw your name in its deletion log. Hence I am writing to you. The page that was created way back in 2005 was a culmination of inquisitive questions regarding ancient Indian practices, and the answers for it derived after a lot of research.
The comments from Nick sounded very disturbing and impolite for Safiel's comment. I understand the reason for Safiel's comment, the article looked dubious in nature and it is quiet natural to suspect its content. I remember based on Wikipedia's request to add more references to this family, I had added many links in the internet that refers to Kalakat Illam. I also had added references to many books that talks about this family and some photographs that really justify the authenticity of them and their way of life.
Also as a matter of fact, if the content was really shady, any part of this page shouldn't have reflected in any other article. The page Tantri has copied many a lines from the same. I guess, that page might also be in administrator's watchlist. But I would sincerely wish Administrators who havent done proper research on the similar documents shouldn't delete it just because it looks dubious. Especially about Indian practices where certain effective way of life was put forth by ancient Rishis thousands of years ago. The details shouldn't just be deleted because it sounds disputable. I understand if the quality of language or the way it has been written is not upto the standard it is definitely worth a delete.
I also understand that the page Kalakat Illam was created in 2005 when me the person who wrote, as well as Wikipedia itself were relative young. I wasn't fully aware of the rules and regulations to be followed, nor the etiquette in the language. I sincerely apologize for such an article which degrades the standard and quality of a Wikipedia article.
I am writing this to request you, to kindly restore the page as it was before deletion and I can remodel the entire article with proper language, etiquette and valuable information. I would like to re-iterate that, this article is indeed a result of lot of research and had served many of the people with right information about the family. It is also the hardwork of many people that has gone down the drain.
Kindly let me know if you need anymore information about me, the page or anything else. Appreciate your positive response.
@Czar Thanks for getting me the document back. I will start working on this article and will make further contributions to make this genuine. Once I see substantial quality in the article I would submit for review as you suggested. Appreciate your response. Thanks once again... -Shyam myashu (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing a detailed enough edit summary for [10]. I spend some time looking for copyright violations and that edit was flagged. But when I trace it to the 'other' Gridrunner it comes up clean. Lucas559 (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can opt out of the bot notification - Czar should have had a message by know telling him Knight Lore passed. ;-) If you're watching the article talk you can tell when somebody starts a GA review. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tintor2 and Ritchie333, thank you both. The bot issue has something to do with my signature. I've left multiple messages for the bot maintainer but haven't heard back, so I appreciate the manual messages. I try to "watch" the GAN pages before they're created, so that helps, but sometimes the reviewer forgets to change the status of the GAN to "on hold" so page watchers might not know when a page is under review. In any event, thanks for checking and thanks for the reviews – czar15:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be that your signature leads to a redirect of a non-existent userpage? Might be worth experimenting around to see if the bot picks something different up. JAGUAR16:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I recently changed it to that, but I think my existing GANs are associated with the old signature (which just linked to the talk page). (It used to be that just linking to your user page would break the {{ping}} function, so I had linked directly to the talk page.) I think it might have more to do with the signature formatting, which I'm not really keen on changing, so I'll struggle through the lack of notifs for now. – czar16:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help finding additional sources on the Underlight discussion! I've spent a lot of time myself hunting around for lost reference materials and know how much work it is. Thanks again! KoiUnderlight (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again czar, this one seems like you would have some input on it. I've given about half the sources a once-over, Talk:GTANet.com#some_source-segmentation, but too many of the videogame-news-sites are unfamiliar names to me, to be able to tell if the overall topic has any hope, or needs to be merged somewhere else. If you have some time, please take a look. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Following your suggestion to repurpose it to something like Grand Theft Auto Modding Community...I think that's not a bad suggestion. I personally don't know anything about modding, but would be glad to write an article after I read more stuff about it, if I find free time of course. Now, as subject would be gta modding, would these sources be good for wp:n? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Also would coverage on specific mod count as wp:n for this subject as well? Sorry if I'm bothering you. Cha cha cha dancer (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how I'd approach it: no one is questioning that GTA has a modding scene—the question is how important it is. I'd take your best sources (use WP:VG/RS-listed sources, not master's theses) and start by writing a small section within an appropriate article (series or individual game). The idea is not to list a series of trivia or the exploits of a single team but to use sources that show the GTA modding community as important within the series/game's context. If that section grows large enough that it would be undue weight to expand it where it is, split it out (summary style). (The ambition should be to give the sources their due weight and not necessarily their own page.) I don't think anyone would question such an article if it compiles the most important aspects of the GTA fan/modding community as told by the RS. Right now, there's just too much material to wade through, and my spot check of the sources say that they're primarily about a single GTA game, and secondarily about a community. That's the place to start: build out coverage of the community within an article, just as the sources did. – czar21:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello czar! Will you please take a look at Main Manto? I need you to merge it into the Manto (film), because there is no indication of the television series later, it was announced in the early developments but later everywhere it was announced as a film, and retitled from Main Manto to just Manto. Now it is not confirmed whether there would be a series or not and if there would, what would be the title, so for now, it would be the best to merge these. There is no overlap of dates, so it should be easy, and please leave the redirect to the new title. Thanks. --Captain Assassin!«T ♦ C ♦ G»14:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you recently moved Magic: The Gathering (MicroProse). While I can see an argument for Magic: The Gathering (MicroProse video game) or even Magic: The Gathering (1997 MicroProse video game), just "1997 video game" seems to be asking for trouble when there are two video games that this would qualify for. This kind of thing has come up at RM before - lack of a subtitle isn't a great disambiguator. Would you mind me either moving it back, or possibly to one of the two options I mentioned above if you really think including "video game" is important? (I can open a formal Requested Move, but seems easier if we just agree here now.)
As for your cite requests, sadly at least some of that comes from reading old PC Gamer reviews & columns, and they don't have their review archive on their website. It'd involve digging up old magazines that may or may not even exist. I'll give it a look but no promises. http://www.civfanatics.com/sidlegacy/index2.php seems the best easily accessed Internet resource but there isn't much.
I also ask - out of curiosity, to be clear, not pique - were you looking at my contribution list recently? I saw you stopped by Magic: The Gathering video games just after I edited it to move the above article, and you also just redirected all the Suikoden character lists (which I'd prefer kept, of course, having put a lot of work in ~2007 to cleaning them up and merging them to the guidelines that existed at the time). To be clear, no need to have the debate that's been had a zillion times on which games get character list split-offs and which don't, just insert usual "wikia sucks and is full of ads and barely loads and is too fannish" complaint, I think Wikipedia choosing the direction it did to offload "serious" coverage of fictional stuff was a mistake / money-grab, but so it goes. SnowFire (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire, I was following Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games). Feel free to revert the move if you think it absolutely will not do, but then it moves to a formal discussion. I think the hatnote at the top of the page is more than sufficient to disambiguate between the other 1997 game that goes by a different name and doesn't have its own page. If an item in the article can't be cited, the info should be removed. Haven't looked at your contribs—as I said in the edit summary, I've been cleaning up Category:Video game cleanup. Feel free to merge the vital aspects of the vital Suikoden characters into the respective game articles, but I see no policy-backed reason to keep unsourced lists, especially when they fit within the scope of their respective articles. – czar03:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've read those naming conventions, but they say nothing of what happens when two separate video games contend for the same year. So it's not as cut-and-dry as you're making it. Luckily the general naming conventions are fairly clear: use some other disambiguator as well, e.g. company name. (As for not having a page, it probably SHOULD have a page being a real release by a studio with advertising & all, but getting sources is hard for a game that was panned and forgotten.) So let me be more blunt: what do you think the best title is? It's a low-traffic page, you skipped RM yourself, I'd rather just convince you. Like I said, if you really want I suppose Magic: The Gathering (1997 MicroProse video game) would be fine if wordy.
I can see you've been here since 2005, and I'm not angry at you for enforcing the changing tone of Wikipedia; my point was more that the policy is not set in stone and is a fluid thing. In 2007, some of those list articles were based off then-Good Articles. They were spin-offs of the main material and "cited to the game itself" and considered okay and a huge improvement on all the individual character articles floating about. Obviously Wikipedia is harsher about this nowadays, but I wasn't talking about what the policy is so much as what the policy should be, if that makes any sense. But carry on. SnowFire (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was cut and dried, but I think it clearly prefers "199X video game" over the publisher as a disambiguator. If you were to ask me, I'd say it's fine as is ("1997 video game" without MicroProse). How about taking it to WT:VG for discussion? If others agree to use the publisher as a disambiguator, then it might be worth codifying in the Naming conventions. – czar10:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some quick thoughts: (1) I think it'd be best to keep the article in draftspace (move to Draft:Grand Theft Auto modding) until it's ready, or it'll start collecting maintenance tags, (2) WP is extremely strict about non-free images, it prefers free use images (Creative Commons license) just about always—I can get more into this if you'd like, but the non-free images should be removed right now if they can't meet all of the non-free content criteria and I'd suggest eventually contacting modders who made their own textures (and thus own the copyright) about licensing free-use illustrations. (3) Scope of the article needs to be better defined. I'd suggest rearranging what you have into: an overview and history of how modders have interacted with GTA, an overview/history of Rockstar's relationship with modders (rather than its view), an overview of each game's modding scene including technical details (Hot Coffee should be split into the previous "Rockstar relationship" section and a section on San Andreas-era modding), and if necessary, a general Reception section to GTA mods as a whole, though it likely makes more sense to put each game's modding scene reception in each game's respective sections. I think I hinted at this elsewhere, but I think your best strategy for this article is building mod sections when relevant in the individual game articles, which can be copied and expanded summary style in this "GTA modding/community" conglomerate article. So the result should have summaries of each GTA WP article's modding scenes in their own sections (proportional to the amount of coverage) alongside a general overview of the GTA modding coverage that doesn't fit in the specific game articles. – czar10:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I again updated the page of Broforce with the non-free "Broforce logo.png" image. I already explained why once: The free-use image "Broforce logo.jpg" (on Commons), which you say that you have received by Shaz Strauss-Greenwood via email, is outdated. It was used in the old game jam game, but is no longer used in the commercial game. It can be found on the game's [broforcegame.com official website]. So I please you to:
Leave the non-free image on the Article.
-and either-
Delete the old logo.
-or-
Clearly state that it was the game jam game's logo.
@Lordtobi, did you follow the result of your deletion requests last time? WP always prefers a free use image over non-free, fair use if it's sufficient to depict the material (see the non-free use criteria). I've contacted the PR rep for getting the new logo under fair use, but it makes it much harder to explain WP's esoteric rules when the article incorrectly uses a fair use upload. Please establish consensus before moving ahead on stuff like this unilaterally, especially when you know the move is contested. – czar16:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar, I see. I was not aware of the criteria #1. Excuse me for that. But as you altered your message, you seem to have reslized that the image is kind of outdated. It might be used on thr pre-order page on freelives.net, but it is no longer the official logo. I will try to get a free use image of that logo on the way ASAP and then replace the Commons image. Lordtobi (✉) 19:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already have a contact with Free Lives and I already tried her again. It would be nice to have a newer logo, but I don't think it's significant enough to warrant the switch to a fair use image. – czar20:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how "Casting directors are looking for trained actors to work on Neighbors 2 which is now filming in Atlanta, Georgia." does not say filming had begun. Also, if a website shows real casting calls for all movies filmed in any area including X-Men, I find it pretty legit. Sources regarding Casting Calls have used on Dirty Grandpa which they weren't wrong. Callmemirela🍁{Talk}♑12:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty legit doesn't mean reliable. I see no hallmarks of editorial control: editorial or fact-checking policy, established author bylines, reputation of reliability. With a short poke around, it looks like a blog that repackages press releases for job hunters. If principal photo has begun, I would think there should be better sources. – czar15:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I received your long email during the workweek and I did (do?) not have the time to devote to reading and responding—I apologize. I don't think the sourcing is enough for an article. I think there's a point to making concessions on poor sources for historically underrepresented article areas (though "Mac shareware games" is not exactly one of the categories I'd have in mind) but I'm still not comfortable with Rescue's current depth of coverage or the single-source bar you set as sufficient ("Kotaku's mention is non-trivial and all this article really needs"). I'd be happy to take another look if Macwelt/Macworld comes back with a review or feature, and then we can consider restoring the article as a draft? There should be no rush to recreate the article, having gone through AfD twice in the past month. In fact, I was once more willing to put the requisite work into the article and referencing, but when on the receiving end of accusations and unpleasantries, I become progressively less enthusiastic. – czar15:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas, thanks for the note and for your amiable accommodations. I believe I've addressed your basic breadth concerns, but let me know if you think I've omitted something vital – czar08:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've got limited time at the moment, but I will try to close this review ASAP. Can you take a look at the lead section? The sentence, "Already an established critic by his 1960 Growing Up Absurd, Goodman argues against the necessity of schools for the socialization of youth and recommends their abolition" needs another look, particularly the "by his 1960" part, which is a bit too informal for my eye and ear. What about something like, "Already an established critic by the time of his 1960 bookGrowing Up Absurd"? Would you be willing to make that kind of change, or something similar? Viriditas (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm trying to close this out, but I'm still having trouble with a few passages. Maybe you can take a moment to smooth them out or improve them in some way.
(Friedenberg recommended reading Conant's Shaping Educational Policy alongside Compulsory Miseducation for their similar subject of the power distribution within schooling structures.)
That's a really long parenthetical note within the body. It helps the reader to place long notes in a separate notes or footnotes section. Otherwise, embed it in the body inline, without the parenthetical, which I think you can do. Viriditas (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He sees Goodman as the avant-garde to Illich and Reimer for writing about the disestablishment of schools (albeit "in less coherent form"), such that the later writers knew an obliging audience awaited.[9]
I get what you are trying to say about the avant-garde, but it falls apart when you try to describe the later writers it precedes. It's an interesting idea (and important to note as part of his legacy) but I wonder if you can clean it up a bit. Viriditas (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prescott described Goodman as not seeing "any human values" in schooling, within a context of increasing individual "powerlessness" alongside a decrease in "self-reliance".[9]
I'm not sure what this has to do with "legacy", nor really sure what it means. Try to paraphrase without quotes or move it to reception or see if you can fix it. Viriditas (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me rip you off! I should mention though, the "to do" and "announcements" links in your template now go to the same place. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dunnet_(video_game) – czar 17:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Only asking 'cause I can't look up any sites that might contain some info about the plot, like IGN reviews or what have you, and I'm trying to help with the cleanup tag thing. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 12:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 10:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a user we both interacted with at the time. I just figured you should know. The thread is User claims to share an account. Thank you. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
