User talk:Czar/2014 Sept–Dec

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.

URGENT HELP

I just created the page [1] for the nomination but I fucked up the proccess and now the page looks like crap. Please help me! URDNEXT (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@URDNEXT, all good czar ♔ 02:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! URDNEXT (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, where to we go now with the DYK nomination? And also, I just finished the first paragraph of my draft for the development section, so that should be showing up soon. URDNEXT (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned it up and listed it at WP:DYKN so now we wait. Let me know about the draft, but if it isn't finished soon, I likely won't have time until the weekend to keep going czar ♔ 17:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It's in here User:URDNEXT/sandbox in the first paragraph. URDNEXT (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wipeout development

Hi Czar. If you have the time, what do you think about the new development section of Wipeout? Writing development sections are my weakest points, and I know that you have created articles on development of games alone. I'm halfway through the GAN, so I should hopefully address all of the problems soon. Regards ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Replied at GAN czar ♔ 00:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Development of Mother 3) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Development of Mother 3, Czar!

Wikipedia editor Upjav just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I don't know why this was the oldest unreviewed article in the New Pages queue, but it looks great! Thank you for you contributions. :D

To reply, leave a comment on Upjav's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Marcus Lindblom

It isn't really an issue of reference formats when stuff that isn't "References" is under a header of the name, eh? —innotata 03:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I typically format my ref section as "Notes and references". Not sure where the "Notes and" went. Thanks for the edit czar ♔ 03:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, makes sense :) —innotata 04:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Puzzlejuice

The article Puzzlejuice you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Puzzlejuice for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

FU3 FAC

I've responded at the Flight Unlimited III nomination page. Your input is welcome. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Cuphead

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC) 12:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Mother/EarthBound

WTG on all of the editing of these articles. I've been meaning to go back to them, but fixing a lot of the problems the Mother 3 article had was such an intimidating and time-consuming practice. Development of Mother 3 is a much more effective way of covering EarthBound 64, too.

Speaking of DoM3, I was thinking about making a category for articles about the development of specific video games, but I can't think of the way to title the category in the state I am in. I think it would be really valuable to find that kind of content without having to deal with general video game development content. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 12:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm planning to keep going, if you can help me figure out what to do with the character and composer articles. I thought about the "development of specific video games" cat too and that was the best I could do with a title... so I just left them in the main category and made sure the others were sorted in the same place. czar ♔ 12:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Eh, I saw that some similar cats exist so I just went for it czar ♔ 12:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd love to help w/ the characters, but at present my ability to edit the Wiki is limited until I can work enough to get cushion money. As for the character articles, I would say Mr. Saturn just needs to be cleaned up; it's recent, and so I got most of the good sources that are out there. The Giygas article needs a lot more cleanup and a lot of trimming (trimming's always been one of my weakness!), and Lucas... I would love to see his article stay, but it feels very light, content-wise, and I don't think that there are that many sources not yet used in it. I could be wrong, of course. Ness is definitely good; not aa-is, but I've found a ton of sources that are not yet used, so Ness should probably have enough by the end of the day. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@New Age Retro Hippie, trimming is my specialty. I was particularly worried about Lucas's sourcing... how would you feel about a merge? Everything necessary about his (apparently singular now) appearance in the SSB series can fit into the Mother 3 Legacy section. I can take care of the rest, I think, though I'd be curious if you have any more sources collected on Giygas. czar ♔ 02:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that I have that many more sources on Giygas; I MIGHT have one more, but it seems like it's buried in a lot of different documents. Though I think that Giygas is, if only barely, above the threshold of notability. As for Lucas, I might have to support its merger. I was holding out hope that maybe Mother 3 would see some increased attention, or even if Lucas came back for Smash 4 it might have inspired people to give him a legitimate analysis of the character. Alas, no such luck. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It passed

The DYK nomination passed! Now, since I'm new to the proccess, what happens to the hook now? Does it go straight to the main page? URDNEXT (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep! It sits until a second reviewer puts it in the queue and then it goes to the front page. You'll get a talk page note from a bot (see my note about Cuphead above) when it goes live. czar ♔ 02:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Enter the Dominatrix

The article Enter the Dominatrix you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Enter the Dominatrix for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Red Phoenix -- Red Phoenix (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for EarthBound

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC) 12:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for EarthBound fandom

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC) 12:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Mother 3 fan translation

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC) 12:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Marcus Lindblom

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC) 12:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Crawl (video game)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The draft is complete

Czar So where are we going now with it? URDNEXT (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@URDNEXT, I'm finishing some overdue reviews right now and I was planning to look at it next czar ♔ 23:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good for me. Do you have an idea of when you're gonna be done with the reviews? Just a curiosity. Sherlock Holmes (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully not longer than a few hours czar ♔ 23:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Great! Just a reminder, if you could, please do a copy editing on the last paragraph of the development section (not design), as it's not that fluid prose-wise. Also, we need clear objectives in order to get the article to FA. I think we could even ship it tomorrow, if we do it right. Sherlock Holmes (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That may be wishful thinking, but either way, let's keep this to the article's talk page. If you ping me there, it all goes to the same place, but it's better to keep all the dialogue together czar ♔ 23:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Doing it right now. Sherlock Holmes (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Sleeping Dogs (video game)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hohokum

The article Hohokum you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hohokum for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Book:Greg Wohlwend

See Help:Books/for experts#Saving books. The pdf renderer is picky about how you format articles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussed at Book talk:Greg Wohlwend czar ♔ 14:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nidhogg (video game)

The article Nidhogg (video game) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nidhogg (video game) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tezero -- Tezero (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Sleeping Dogs goals

Hey Czar, I wrote this list of things that can be useful to the article: - Alt caption for synopsis and design pics, elaborate more about the definitive edition on marketing and release, and to mention purchasing vehicles, Shooting and Driving, action hijack in the gameplay section. Overall, I believe if we get this out of the way, we can get to FA easily coverage-wise. Is there any way you could incoporate this in the article? URDNEXT (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Czar URDNEXT (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Moved discussion to the talk page to keep everything together czar ♔ 14:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Development of Mother 3

The article Development of Mother 3 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Development of Mother 3 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines

Per your comments at the GA I'd appreciate your input on the article. David Mulich has confirmed he has another interview due soon so I may be able to expand it somewhat, but I'd like to get it into a state for FA in between working on this and trying to get the Joker to GA. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake, sure, let me know how I can be useful. I think my GAN comments (outside the GAN scope) would be a good place to start, as general concerns czar ♔ 00:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rymdkapsel

The article Rymdkapsel you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rymdkapsel for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Helen C. White

The article Helen C. White you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Helen C. White for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Project M (mod)

Hey, this is a page New Age Retro Hippie and I were working on pretty heavily a few months ago and just kind of... stopped with because we weren't sure where to go and he was largely inactive. I suggested recently that we take it to GAN because there's little to nothing reliable that isn't included, but I did have a question he couldn't answer and thought you might be able to: should Gameplay go into more detail? There could possibly be a brief summary of Melee's or Brawl's gameplay, but if so, how brief, and would it constitute OR to extend these details to Project M when they aren't covered by summaries of it? As far as I've seen, the reviews are generally just... well, how they usually are for fangames and mods: lauding how cool it is that fans do this thing without actually saying much. Tezero (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Moved to article talk page czar ♔ 00:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Come on

Czar And ride the bandwagon. The party just got started at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sleeping Dogs (video game)/archive1. URDNEXT (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Party may have started a little too early, but let's see how I can help czar ♔ 00:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Selfie Slam is incomplete

Hi. The article is incomplete to improve this section. Can you help me? Thanks. MandatoryTeaser (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Replied on article talk page and AfD nom czar ♔ 00:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

FTC/GTC reviewing

Since you made three GTCs recently, I'm wondering if you would be able to review some of the other nominations on the board. Just to help get a consensus for them made. GamerPro64 22:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Did a few and got lost when checking the scope of those boat noms. Will do more if I have time later. Let me know if you need feedback on one in particular czar ♔ 00:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sleeping Dogs

Can you take a look at the imaage I dropped in the FAC? I hope it meets the cruteria. URDNEXT (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, but you need a fair use rationale like the ones on the other filepages czar ♔ 00:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you write one? URDNEXT (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

:)

Hi can we be friends?--Supreme elite soldier (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah let's be friends!--The supreme elite commander (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Development of Deus Ex

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Mother 3

I have read your (earlier) comments on the talk page. You appear to be upset over my changes, stating that your efforts were a waste of time or you or your style are not welcome. You must know that I'm not trying to spite you or discourage you as an editor. I am only acting in favor of what I believe is best for the article. Your efforts are not wasted-- you have provided a lot of useful information. I have issues with the ways the information is presented. I don't want you to mimic my style of writing, but I do want you to accept my constructive criticism of the article, which I believe will help you grow as an editor. That said, let me present my criticism and my motives for my changes. I apologize in advance if my statements below are perceived as harsh.

I feel that the article goes into too much detail regarding certain facts, like it tries to be as comprehensive as possible. In the scope of an encyclopedic article, it isn't cohesive. My goal is to express the same ideas but keeping it concise and easy to read. I want the reader to obtain a broad yet focused understanding of the topic without overwhelming them with as many details as possible. This especially in regards to the Development section. There's already a main article for it that I know you've worked on, so there's no need to go in such tedious detail here; the reader should only get the basic understanding. There are also a lot of prose issues that I fixed as well. I also removed a lot of repeating or contradictory text.

I have brought up my grievances with the Gameplay section on the talk page beforehand. To be blunt, it is a mess. Tezero agrees in his GA assessment. I feel that it assumes that the reader has previous knowledge of EarthBound, so it does not go into any real detail about the gameplay (how battles work, how the player navigates through the game world, etc). This should never be the case in an encyclopedic article: every article should assume that the reader knows nothing about the subject beforehand. It is also keeping so close to what references say that it begins compromise the quality of the information. It does not refer to the characters by name, it gives them quoted descriptions and doesn't detail their importance to the game or the story. Coverage of the story itself is practically non-existent, which I also believe is due to few reliable sources covering the story, but whatever details are there are inexplicably dumped middle of the gameplay section. I know you want to avoid primary sources, but citing the game itself for specific gameplay and plot points is perfectly acceptable. See Chrono Trigger, a featured article, as an example.

In regards to sources, there is citation overkill. It's great to have citations for all or most information, but the article does so tediously. Some sentences have multiple citations littered throughout, and it starts to become a distraction when reading it over. I instead re-arrange sentences so that multiple statements in a row come from one source, and it is understood that a selection of sentences/paragraphs come from one or two sources. If there is still overkill, then I remove what I feel is not vital. There are also problems I have regards to interpreting sources; opinions are sometimes stated as fact. For example, it was claimed that "Mother 3 was not released on the basis it would not sell," because the source said so, even though the statement was clearly an opinion made by its writer, and is unverifiable. Without an official statement by Nintendo, the article cannot explicitly make such a claim.

I don't agree with the use of the Notes section. To me, this suggests that additional details that could not be worked into the prose and were instead "tacked on" as Notes. Some of these notes, as I have addressed in my edit summaries, are or were unnecessary. For example, "Reggie is a fan of the series" is irrelevant to the game not getting an international release.

If you also want to know why I removed the screenshot of the commercial, it is because the image does not add to the reader's understanding, unlike screenshots of the game itself. The Japanese sentence shown in the commercial could have easily been supplied in prose and would convey the exact same thing. But even so, the sentence I added, "Mother 3 was later announced in 2003 to have restarted development for the Game Boy Advance handheld console in a Japanese commercial for Mother 1+2." expresses the idea quite clearly (and more concisely), so the screenshot simply isn't needed.

This was my analysis of the article in its previous or current state, and why I made my changes as shown. I hope you understand my approach. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor notes: I think the commercial image is okay as it's free-use and helps give a visual sense of the game's life. And in keeping with your own advice, organizing statements within a paragraph by source to minimize the number of citations isn't desirable if it interrupts the flow of the text. Just my two cents; I agree about your overall points. Tezero (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Thomas. (Would have been easier to have kept this in one place, though.) "Citation overkill" is your personal preference. I only used citations to keep the article verifiable. I combined citations wherever necessary and added direct citations for direct quotes. It is disrespectful to carry out a plan to rewrite an entire section to reduce the number of footnotes (to suit a personal preference) before having a discussion about said plan on the talk page. It comes across as pushing an agenda without consensus. There are all kinds of details whitewashed from the current version: the lede's mention of the most notable parts of the topic per English sources (its protracted development and fan translation), the entire rationale for the fan translation effort, that the president of the company both acknowledged and made concessions to consumer demand about the game, critical commentary about the game's lack of a North American release, and so on. I know you're acting in what you believe is best for the article, and I assume good faith where you aren't directly writing me off in edit summaries, but it isn't up to you to make me grow as an editor. Your proposed changes should be suggested as proposals rather than a definitive and didactic rewrite, especially for you to consider it constructive criticism. Especially if you acknowledge that your replies come off as brusque, harsh, or blunt, you have an obligation through our civility guidelines to make your collaboration palatable, or otherwise risk alienating your collaborators. Things like calling the detail "tedious" when you know I have a defense of its inclusion, things like a non-apology for if I "perceive" your comments as harsh rather than the possibility of them being unduly harsh, things like removing images and verifiable information in rapid succession despite knowing my experience as an editor, as if I had nothing to say on the matter, or things like leaving a talk page message explaining that editing is a one-way street where I need to accept your unilateral suggestions. It's insulting, and it's why the guideline suggests that potential conflicts be discussed as talk page suggestions before descending into ripping edits apart and edit warring. So it leaves me somewhat incredulous when you say you're not trying to spite or discourage me, because I see much evidence of the latter, and think that you would feel the same. czar ♔ 18:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand. I realize that many of my edits or summaries are harsh, and I apologize for that. I was acting boldly in response to glaring issues in the article that I did not believe necessitated a proposal. I want to bring up some points in the original prose that incited me to do a full rewrite of the Development section:

• "While most team members stayed, some left, and new hires were added."

  This is very informal. I replaced it with "The team mostly consisted of members involved in the development of EarthBound.'" which says the same thing, but is more direct.

• "After a period of silence, Nintendo announced that the game would be a 256 megabit cartridge for the Nintendo 64 (similar to Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time) instead of a 64DD game."

  What is this "period of silence" referring to, when this was announced at the 1999 Nintendo World Space event? Why was this placed after covering the events/reports in 2000? I omitted the 'events' in 2000 as they did not say anything about the game's development other than "it might be progressing smoothly." All references to the game being called EarthBound 64 in NA were already covered in the Space World source, so the other references were not needed. It was also established earlier that it was not going to be on the 64DD.

• "They estimated the project to be about 60 percent complete at the time of cancellation—the basics were complete and only programming was left. About 30 percent of the final product was completed."

  Which is it? 60% or 30%? It's not clear here, so I went with just "30%" as the final percentage in my revision as it is considered the "final" one.

  Haven't seen the original text there in context, but I'm guessing that while they estimated 60% at the time, only 30% of what they had done by then made it into the final product. Tezero (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  The original source is a bit ambiguous as Iwata and Miyamoto disagree on the percentage. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It was 60% of the overall project, but 30% of the final game czar ♔ 20:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• "The game was ... released on April 20, 2006 in Japan for the Game Boy Advance, whereupon it became a bestseller."

  It's already been established in this paragraph that the game was being developed for the GBA, so that fact is redundant. The "bestseller" comment is irrelevant to the game's development, and is repeated later in the Release section.

There were more problems similar to above, which is why I acted boldly. I re-arranged and summarized sentences to improve the article's flow. As I said, much of the material in this section is already covered in the main article, so there's little reason to recap everything already mentioned there. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

So I agree with some of this and am confused by the rest—how these examples were chosen from the bunch, or how removing entire parts was more than personal preference (e.g., the "period of silence" was mentioned in the source, is it important to say more that they didn't? That section was not in direct chronological order but was explaining the development cycle). It's less about proposing changes on the talk page than boldly taking a knife to a section, say, about what percentage of the game was complete, and being left with half the story. (And there's nothing wrong with bold, but it's followed by revert, discuss.) Happy to discuss any of this further, but it would be best on the talk page. Also it's hard for me to correct anything you find ambiguous because the original language and structure is obliterated, part of why it didn't need to be completely rewritten czar ♔ 20:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Archive

You seriously need to archive some of these messages. This page is getting bigger than List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States. URDNEXT (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed; the bandwidth is a little excessive when I'm looking at this from my iPod. Tezero (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

My puny phone can't handle this talk page either! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes

I'm proud if you for archiving those messages! Here's a cookie. URDNEXT (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Cookie URDNEXT (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Secrets of Rætikon

The article Secrets of Rætikon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Secrets of Rætikon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lucia Black -- Lucia Black (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Re:repeat it

Hey Jimmy, thanks for the edits. Question on this:

Fez was released on April 13, 2012, and it sold 200,000 copies during its yearlong exclusivity to the Xbox Live Arcade platform.

Why was that "it" needed (bolded)? czar ♔ 06:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I've seen it argued at FAC that a subject should be restated after that sort of comma break. (As usual, this was years ago and I don't remember where it happened.) I've done it ever since without really questioning it. Perhaps the person was wrong, but I haven't seen their advice disputed until now, and the restated "it" has always read more tightly to me. I suppose you could change that instance back if you strongly disagree—I don't know what the style guides say about it, either way. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I also do it your way, JimmyBlackwing. I've always assumed it wouldn't be grammatical otherwise; there results a clause with no subject. Tezero (talk) 09:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I could see it being useful if the subject is unclear, but I think the instance in question (added blockquote above) is fine without czar ♔ 15:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

1001 Spikes

What do you think about collaborating on taking 1001 Spikes to GA? URDNEXT (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: URDNEXT has retired from editing czar ♔ 00:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Telengard

The article Telengard you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Telengard for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Indrian -- Indrian (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Mentorship

I'm down to help out with some gentle mentoring. --PresN 03:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC) (pretty sure mentoring on request is part of being an admin!)

Anyone can always drop a note at my talk page too. My free time fluctuates but if I'm around I'll gladly offer advice. PS - This is something I'm interested in doing as well. I recently picked up accountcreator rights specifically for that reason. Can I ask what level you're teaching (High school/college/grad) ? And is this your first time doing it? I may need to come back for advice when I get my act together and launch something of my own. -Thibbs (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Count me in? I'd like to help out with mentoring too? It would be a good experience. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 10:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all, will follow up individually. (It's taken a while to get through effective paraphrasing.) czar ⨹ 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@PresN, Thibbs, and Jaguar, looks like one of their drafts went live today. Feel free to leave some encouraging comments on the talk page, but I'll be making some edits and discussing next steps with them. czar ⨹ 09:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to us. I would like to leave comments on that page (like a short review) but I don't want to discourage them in anyway! If it's ok, I'll leave some comments next time it's edited? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jaguar, a full review might be overwhelming, but feel free to leave them a few comments and words of encouragement to start. I'll be seeing them in two hours and they'd appreciate the feedback czar ⨹ 18:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep added the most basic comments to help familiarise them with the VG layout. Could have added a pageful! Please let me know the outcome? I'm interested in this for some reason. I was told (in real life) recently that I should help volunteering to boost myself, so Wikipedia helps. Regards ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of TowerFall

The article TowerFall you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:TowerFall for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Monument Valley (video game)

The article Monument Valley (video game) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Monument Valley (video game) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ProtoDrake -- ProtoDrake (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Development of Mother 3

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

List of satellite television service providers in Nigeria

Greetings Czar, since you closed the debate as a merger without even waiting for my opinion, I reckon all other articles (like List of satellite television service providers in Uganda) should also be merged with the parent article.Darreg (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for that—discussion looked to be settled and didn't know we were waiting for your opinion. I recommend first starting a merge conversation at the main list article and then notifying the talk pages of the individual country lists. Would likely be smarter to do that (solicit feedback) before BOLDly redirecting a bunch and having to deal with any ramifications. czar ♔ 23:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

TFYC DYK

You haven't responded at the nomination page in a couple of days. Would you mind responding?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@The Devil's Advocate, I'm busy at the moment. Would you prefer for me to bow out so you can have another reviewer? czar ♔ 23:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it's fine. I just wanna make sure you haven't forgotten about it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not see your response there, I made an edit that I think addresses your concern.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No worries. It's on my watchlist so I'll see the replies there czar ♔ 01:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fez gameplay

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:FEZ trial gameplay HD.webm, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

On the Announcements template

Hey Czar. I'm wondering if there's any template that can be used in the announcements page for GTC additions. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Final Fantasy XIII/addition1 and Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Music of the Final Fantasy series/addition4 are up and I'm not sure how to add them. GamerPro64 15:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@GamerPro64, good question. I added a field so it'll work from now on

• {{gtcl|Final Fantasy XIII|add=1}}: Final Fantasy XIII
• {{gtcl|Music of the Final Fantasy series|add=4}}: Music of the Final Fantasy series

czar ♔ 09:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@GamerPro64, while we're on the topic, how would you feel about combining "Article reviews and reassessments" and "Peer reviews" in the template? I think it would be uncontroversial since they're so similar but wanted to run it past you czar ♔ 16:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in that. It should be moved to the right hand side to even things out though. GamerPro64 16:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Mother 3 DYK

Just letting you know that the nomination has been successful :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Muthu Alagappan

The article Muthu Alagappan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Muthu Alagappan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Book:EarthBound_series_vs_Book:Mother_series

Please participate at the above discussion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Angel of Darkness - plus

Thanks. That reference had some interesting information in there. By the way, could you take a look at Final Fantasy Type-0 to see if there's any grammar or reference mistakes. I'm feeling slightly cross-eyed from the research I've needed to do. I'm surprised I was able to find so much about its mobile incarnation. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Telengard

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Mother 3

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Hatred (video game)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Hatred (video game), Czar!

Wikipedia editor Karlhard just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for your helpful article. If you have any question, just click my talk page!

To reply, leave a comment on Karlhard's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Your GA nomination of Mother (video game)

The article Mother (video game) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mother (video game) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I Am Bread listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect I Am Bread. Since you had some involvement with the I Am Bread redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting Feedback for Art+Feminism grants

Hi Czar, we are laying plans for the 2015 Art+Feminism editathon. As part of this process we have written two linked PEG and IEG grants. We have given extensive community notice, but haven’t generated substantial feedback. As one of the Satellite Event organizers we would really like your feedback, comments and questions, and if you support the grants, your endorsement of one or both of them. Additionally, we have confirmed International Women's Day, March 8th 2015 as the date of the international editathon. We hope you will be able to participate, as an organizer, facilitator, or participant. On behalf of my co-organizers. --Theredproject (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Apple Pay

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent articles

Hi. You've stolen two article creations from me recently. First Apple Pay and now Google Inbox. Keep up the good work! :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Autoblock

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Czar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Sawyergarske". The reason given for Sawyergarske's block is: "Vandalism-only account".

• Blocking administrator: Chillum (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: Sounds reasonable to me. Chillum 20:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Chillum, hey—currently teaching a class and this was one of my students. He has desisted (you can keep him blocked), but please unblock the IP for us? Sorry for the trouble czar ♔ 20:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if you have any more trouble. Chillum 20:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Mordin Solus

So, I did get your message, concerning the GA. Ah, my apologies, got distracted by life, exams, all that. Beyond that, just wanted to say, speaking as a big Deus Ex fan, nice seeing Development of Deus Ex not only an article, but a GA.

...Can't help but wonder why a woman with a stove is watching me type this message. – Mr. Stellarum (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shemford

Hi. The above discussion has now been closed by a fellow admin as 'delete'. As coordinator of the WP:WPSCH, I vote on, but in order to remain impartial as an admin, I do not close school AfDs. There is a common misapprehension that a plethora of sources automatically confers notability on a Wikipedia article. Indeed, I admit that our Wikipedia notion of notability is not always easy for many people to grasp, and even harder to teach. Especially in the case of teaching college professors how to teach their students to edit Wikipedia. Some professors themselves are notable without being famous, while others are famous without being notable.

In spite of often having many sources, kindergartens and primary schools are very, very rarely notable for anything unless, for example, they were the centre of a very important and lasting news item, or famous for trail-blazing a revolutionary new concept in education. Just being a run-of-the-mill school directory listing however has unfortunately no value whatsoever. More useful info available at WP:WPSCH/AG, or don't hesitate to ask me directly, or even DGG, one of our most highly qualified experts on notability of educational institutions. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kudpung, thanks, I suppose, but I'm familiar with how notability works. If you take a look at the now-deleted article, I had updated it with multiple reliable sources. The chain has claims for notability—it was as if no one even looked at the quality of the sourcing. For what it's worth, with everyone referring to Shemford as a preschool, that was "Shemrock"—"Shemford" has its own sources as a group of secondary schools czar ♔ 03:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It's still as I said: basically a directory listing written like advertorial. Apparently notable for only having opened a lot of branches in a short time, but for nothing in an educational context. With words such as Their in-house marketing team led a campaign to use the character in class activities, and released their first television commercial with the character in 2013. there is no misunderstanding that this is a piece about, if not necessarily for a very commercial and aggressively marketed franchise (as are most franchises). If one of the individual establishments had a claim to notability it would be different. The fact that none of the linked sources actually works, or are only accessible to a privileged few in order to be examined for verifiabilitye also casts doubts on its notability; there appears to be no public, independent in-depth media coverage.

I wouldn't normally be bothering about any of this at all, but as, like me, you are involved in Wikipedia EPs, I feel it's best to see if we are all educating from the same text book, and if not, to see how we can consolidate our interpretations of policies and guidelines and converge our classroom methodology. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kudpung, I don't think that's fair. ProQuest and LexisNexis are the most mainstream of academic databases. Yes, behind a paywall, but only serving as a shortcut to digging up those actual secondary sources in (public) print. (They are among the few foreign, reliable sources—to discount them based on paywall access would be playing to systemic bias.) I can give a printout of any of those references. My concern is that the AfD was closed as lacking significant coverage, though the sources used in the article should refute that at the least, especially with many more available. I understand the caution against promotional press, but I found those sources with due diligence. And I've seen worse off businesses with weaker sourcing pass AfD and I didn't understand why the other AfD respondents chose not to address the list of found references. Would you say it fails to meet the GNG with its current sourcing? czar ♔ 05:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't pronounce on the GNG because I'm not privy to your sources. You are welcome to email them to me, but for probable copyright reasons, we may never be able to publish them on Wikipedia. However, if those paywall services are only shortcuts to sources otherwise available in public print, then I would generally assume there to be no problem in linking to the original sources. I otherwise have to maintain my opinion that the subject is not really notable for anything that justifies a Wikipedia article. It makes sufficient claims to notability to escape A7 and that is one of the cases AfD exists for, but AfD decides whether an article (in its current cast) fulfils all the other criteria for inclusion. Regular Wikipedia editors are reluctant to give their support to anything that their voluntary time and skills helps to promote a for-profit organsation, while sympathisers for the subject, the article creator, and often other related editors will of course try hard to get the article kept.

I don't think anyone can fault Dennis for his choice of closure. It may be interesting, if only academic, to see what would happen at DELREV, but as a courtesy and to save bureaucracy, it may be an idea to wait until DGG chimes in. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kudpung, this is a temporary link to a number of Shemford-related articles through LexisNexis (LN). There are more for Shemrock (the preschool chain) on LN, and more for both on ProQuest. (My recommendation was to rename the article Shemrock and Shemford despite copious coverage for Shemford Futuristic Schools [secondary schools] alone.) That linked PDF of sources on its own, though, should be enough for the GNG, which is why I was surprised that my citations at the AfD were completely ignored (even by several admins experienced at AfD). As for linking refs to their respective websites, you can try if you'd like, but, ostensibly, the reason why deep web databases exist at all is because most of the articles are no longer or never were online. Especially in a place like India, not all newspapers are fully digital. Having a link to the database is a courtesy, otherwise it'd just be an offline ref (and it's slightly easier to use the paywalled database than to request a copy of the original newspaper article). Let me know what you think? czar ♔ 16:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

in general

1)Lexis and Proquest and the like are not references, but places where references can be found. Depending upon the level of subscription, one can see titles, or abstracts, or full text. JSTOR and MUSE, similarly, are places to find sources. In all these cases, the sources are the actual journals in them.

2) it is not enough to show that something is mentioned in an article--sometimes the tile alone will make it clear that the article is substantially about something, but more often, one has to actually read it.

3)we have various ways of getting articles--the WMF has arrangements with an increasing number of publishers, and those who have access through those arrangements or through their own universities can provide copies to others. There are also such things as libraries and interlibrary loan, though they tend to be very cumbersome. (I at one point organized a very fast and non-cumbersome interlibrary loan service, but it was extremely expensive. Fortunately, I was at an extremely rich university. Most libraries are not like that.)

4)But we can deal with articles the same way wie deal with printed books: page numbers and quotations. The excerpts in google books are too short to show context, but we can use longer ones. It still takes judgement and good faith to make sure they are being used fairly.

5)Given enough effort, I or any good researcher with good facilities, can prove almost anything notable by the GNG. Given some ingenuity, I can also give a pretty good argument for most articles that whatever sources are proposed for the GNG are either unreliable, nonindependent, or non-substantial. I will argue by the GNG because its the custom here, but I think it basically worthless. I do here what most people do--I make my own global decision on whether we should or should not have an article, and then go above trying to demonstrate it. Some people say they don;t do that but only judge by dispassionate consideration of the GNG, but I think they are fooling themselves.

6)SCHOOLS is a compromise. To avoid endless discussion, we divide them into two parts: on high schools as notable, lower levels as worth only inclusion in a list. It's to some extent arbitrary but it gives as good results as anything more elaborate, considering the inconsistency at afd discussions. I wish we had such criteria in as many fields as possible. I wish we uniformly interpreted the special notability guidelines as the guidelines for the relevant subjects while recognizing there will always be special cases--a few primary schools, for example, are actually famous. And I would try to find such guidelines for as many topics as possible, leaving as little scope for the GNG as can be managed. But I must admit that this approach is not the consensus, nor likely to be.

more specifically, I've looked again at the article on Shemford. I think I should not have nominated it for deletion, even in its original form. A chain of primary schools is like a school district, and we should have the article, that would list the individual schools. I consider that I made an error, and I am not sure how to account for why I made it (except from the fatigue of looking at so many utterly impossible articles--it tends to carry over) I urge you to bring a Deletion Review . where I will give a proper argument. The argument will be that it should not have been judged as an individual school, but this was not discussed at the AfD, so it should be relisted. DGG ( talk ) 09:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@DGG, re: #2, I would think that anyone skeptical of or interested in seeing those sources in depth would have asked me during the AfD, no? Happy to provide them, though I'll note for what it's worth that I can't think of an AfD where my database citations/conclusions weren't just taken on good faith. I made a PDF available to Kudpung above, if you want to see some of the sources I was referencing. I think it should have been more than enough to substantiate an article, but let me know if you think deletion review is still the best route. czar ♔ 16:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The PDF articles appear to be mainly advertorial and/or press-release based, and are all extremely promotional in nature. What I see here is still an (unitentionally) promotional article about a very aggressively marketed business franchise that has remarkably little in common with a traditional school district or other education authority. And, again, a plethora of sources all reporting much the same thing do not necessarily add up to notability. DGG is equally well versed in WP:ORG and may well look more favourably on retention as a business article rather than one of educational content. I would defer to his superior knowledge on such issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the one business source I will note, the rest of the sources are reputable and on par for foreign papers. I looked into each one:

• Qatar Tribune
• Digital Learning
• Daily Kashmir Images
• Jagran City Plus
• AMEinfo (more press release-y)
• New Indian Express
• Eastern Daily Press
• Times of India

They're not all reporting the same thing—I made a point of pulling reports that didn't overlap in coverage. Also there would be no difference between a "business" article and an article about privatized education, no? czar ♔ 05:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There are various forms of privatized education, and each educational system must be considered separately. The distinction between private and public is not always sharp--for instance the US primary and secondary charter schools are privately operated, but under some degree of public supervision and with public money. In US higher education, the distinction for colleges is not really public/private, but non-profit/profit-making. is not always very sharp, nor is it always the best. I know other systems less well, but in India also, most private colleges are run for religious purposes, or as charitable trusts--and some to make a profit. I think this is likely for private primary or secondary schools in India also, but I am less familiar. It is fairly well established hat the way of handling sub-notable institutions is as part of a combination article. We do this for companies and their subsidiaries, and I think this is particularly applicable to chains of schools or chains of hospitals, where there is relatively little to say distinctive about the individual ones besides the basic statistics. There are additional problems with institutions that are primarily or entirely conducted over the internet--it is relatively difficult to distinct what is a distinct college or school in some cases.

The question is not what is necessary as a minimum to support an article, but what is useful to have as a separate article. WE can and do organize WP in whatever way makes sense, and that includes whether or not to make combination articles.

among the things that don't seem to need the GNG are governmental divisions and their major agencies. How far down the line to carry it is a question: for State governments and well as national , we normally accept the first order agencies; we usually do for major cities. For towns and counties, and their equivalents, it's a matter of judgement. If there is not much information, it may be simpler not to have separate articles on subdivisions. But we do seem to accept boards of education,at least for the US, and, once more, I see a chain like this as an exact analogy.

But the lease useful thing to do at WP is to debate on how to go about doing something .I intend to restore the article myself tomorrow, using the material provided above, and if anyone disagrees, it will be better discussed at afd than here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 07:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Amen. Sounds good—thanks czar ♔ 07:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Czar:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Czar:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – The herald 12:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Lightning FA request

I was wondering if you would give the article for Final Fantasy XIII character Lightning a source review as part of its FAC. It's got three supports and an image review. As far as I've gathered, it just needs a source review before it could theoretically be promoted to FA. If you don't feel like doing this, you don't have to. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Saints Row: Gat out of Hell

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup award

Awarded to Czar for finishing in fourth place in the 2014 WikiCup. J Milburn (talk · contribs), The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014: The results

The 2014 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions), who flew the flag of the Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles. Casliber (submissions), WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.

A full list of our prize-winners follows:

• Godot13 (submissions) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 181 featured pictures in the final round.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 65 did you knows in the final round.
• Casliber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for four featured articles in the final round.
• Czar (submissions) wins the prize for fourth place
• Sturmvogel 66 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• 12george1 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• ChrisGualtieri (submissions) wins the GA prize for 27 good articles in round 2 and the review prize for 28 good article reviews in round 1.
• Caponer (submissions) wins the FL prize for three featured lists in round 2.
• Sven Manguard (submissions) wins the FPo prize his work on featured portals.
• Figureskatingfan (submissions) wins the topic prize for a nine-article featured topic in round 3.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for 28 in the news articles in round 3.

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

RFA?

I looked closely at your contributions after your request, and I think you are well qualified for RFA and I'm more than happy to nominate you if you wish. You got a strong history of content contributions, and your help in admin areas is really appreciated. I don't see any red flags. I could get the nomination started today. Thanks Secret ^account 16:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I remember discussing a similar idea with you some months ago, but I'll reiterate: you would have my total support, Czar. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Huh. I was thinking about Czar being at RfA recently. I can get behind him handling the mop. GamerPro64 21:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate the support, all. I think I'm ready to go, but I have pre-reviews pending with @Dennis Brown and TParis as part of my due diligence/prudence. Not sure how their schedules are looking, but pending response from them, I wouldn't mind starting a draft nom. (@Stalwart111 and MelanieN, heads up—looks like this is happening.) czar ♔ 00:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! I think I was one of the first (of many) to suggest this to you. Your qualifications have only gotten stronger in the meantime. MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I started a review page, which I recommend before a draft, at User:Dennis Brown/RfA/Czar. I try to cover all the stuff people will ask. I don't have time to concentrate and fill it out properly today, plus do the other research, but I will try tomorrow. It has the basic questions at the bottom, you can work on them there, in the Final area (after a full search is done) I might have questions and such. The idea is find anything that someone will object to, and deal with it up front. Being honest about past mistakes make them easier to overlook. As far as TParis, I don't mind sitting next to him as nom/conom anytime. Same with Secret. Dennis - 2¢ 01:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I've got 6 down, you're number 7. So I should have it done by tomorrow.--v/r - TP 01:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Let me start the nomination then, I don't mind Dennis and TParis as co-nominators :) Thanks Secret ^account 01:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you explain why you enrolled a VOA in a course? here?--v/r - TP 01:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm co-teaching a WP class at a local high school—the vandal is my student. You can see the related autoblock request higher on this talk page. Lo, the reason why I had to manually add him to the course is the same reason why he is blocked. And similarly, he'll have to appeal his block to continue editing with the class. That's the gist but let me know if you want more czar ♔ 01:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I am going to need to pay more attention to RfA to remember to !vote in this. (I would also co-nom but more than 3 is seen as over the top and showboat-y by a segment of the community) --Guerillero | My Talk 01:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I wonder... I'd love to see an RfA with dozens of nominators LOL ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The record is 6 [2]. Really, two is typically plenty, 3 is acceptable, but more than that is problematic. If Czar wanted me to bow out, I would completely understand. I assume the same for the others. At this stage, my primary concern is helping him have a fair shot, whether or not my name is at the top or middle of the page. Dennis - 2¢ 02:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something about RfA culture, shouldn't it be fine as long as each co-nom has something unique to add? I would think it's more of a good thing to have been vetted so thoroughly from so many different angles and to recognize that prominently, especially with all of the work y'all are putting into it (thank you) czar ♔ 02:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

All of that seems perfectly logical, but this is RFA we are talking about. Volunteering to serve is like hanging from a tree, telling everyone that you are stuffed full of candy and toys, then handing them bats. There is simply no way to predict how anyone will perceive anything, because it changes from week to week there. Dennis - 2¢ 02:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, you're the most highly quotable person I know. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Have to say, Dennis, you know how to describe things. That does sound like RfAs in a nutshells. Guess that means mine was full of Chocolate-covered raisin. GamerPro64 03:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, I welcome all co-noms that add perspectives different from those already posted—no matter the count. And when I'm dangling from the tree, I'll supply the party hats czar ♔ 03:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. I'm as supportive now as I was a year ago. You explain things in easy-to-understand terms, especially in the context of deletion where (unfortunately) too many new editors/contributors end up. Nothing in your edit history since our discussion in 2013 suggests you've done anything that might make people disinclined to support you. I'll endeavour to be among the first yea votes. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• @Secret, Dennis Brown, and TParis, what's the next step for this? czar ♔ 13:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • You can go to RFA, start the RFA page, but not transclude it yet. just edit it there, move all your questions/answers there. It can sit there a day or a week, while you figure the rest out. Once completed, you can transclude, thus start it, at any time you choose. While others are nominating you, it your request for adminship, so you are in the driver's seat. Dennis - 2¢ 15:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Czar—yep, I meant more for the co-noms or any feedback czar ♔ 17:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Secret needs to fill out his nom, and Tparis the same. I think that bowing out is best for me. I'm involved in a contentious Arb case, mainly as observer, after being involved in an uncontentious Arb case (was very obvious in fact), and frankly, I would prefer to not be a lightning rod. While it isn't likely, it is possible, so this is in your best interest. Unquestionably, you will have my support, and frankly, with two rock solid noms and your own impressive history, you don't need me. Dennis - 2¢ 17:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Just my 2¢, but I think the "general comments" might be better positioned in a little acceptance statement, otherwise most people risk not seeing them before jumping to the question section. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thought about that, but gen comments was designed for that stuff. I wanted more to put it out for those who want it than to make a point of it. (By the way, saw your thread at WTVG, but it looks resolved) czar ♔ 02:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

When will the RFA be ready for others to give input? Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Waiting on the co-noms, unless anyone else has preliminary feedback. I sent a ping recently, but don't want to pester czar ♔ 19:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I will do the nomination today, no later than tomorrow. I got slightly discouraged by my failed arbcom bid, and was otherwise busy. Sorry for the delay. Secret ^account 18:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

RFA is ready, all 3 nominations set, all we need you to do is accept. Thanks Secret ^account 22:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• We're live: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Czar. Thanks, all czar ♔ 18:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

AfD

Hi. Thank you for helping out by closing AfDs. If you close as 'redirect' please remember to add the approprite 'R from..' template to the redirect page so that it adds information for the reader and automatically populates the corresponding category. In the case of school articles for example, this would be {{R from school}}. If you need any help, just let me know. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I usually do this tagging when I redirect a page manually, though from seeing others' redirects, I was under the impression that it is optional czar ♔ 14:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I need to start tagging my redirects too, I've created a few that are totally bare. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Herbartianism

Moved as requested. This is some kind of record: anything in the speedy-deletion queue ending in "ism" or "ology" is invariably a "joke" religion or philosophy whose author needs to be pointed to WP:NFT. This is the first exception I can remember in five years as an admin! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@JohnCD, always happy to subvert expectations czar ⨹ 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thanks for redirecting the Aceto (album) article! I will include the track listing in the artist's discography section. Have a great day! Dontreader (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Image

Hey, I've finally gotten around to uploading that picture of us; it's right there on my page. I obscured my own eyes to deter facial recognition technology, but if you want to do the same, I can upload a new version. Just thought I'd let you know. Tezero (talk) 06:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero, nice—thanks. Was good to see you czar ⨹ 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Have you ended up getting over to Chicago? Tezero (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

A few times in December for work-related stuff, though I likely won't be back for a while as projects change over. Why? Something happening there? czar ⨹ 16:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

No, just wondering. I'm here all break and I thought you said something about meeting IRL again, but hey, no worries if you can't. Tezero (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I likely won't be back this time but let me know when you're in town again? czar ⨹ 20:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

NAC

Hi,

I'm curious how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regulatory translation ended as no consensus. Aside from my nomination the only comment was from someone who effectively argued that he found a couple notable uses about "regulatory translation" (the term), but the article isn't about either of them. Though he didn't bold anything officially, he sounds to be advocating for !redirect (and that from someone with an 83.5% keep stat, not that that should necessarily have any bearing). In other words, there's no argument to keep or merge visible anywhere. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Redirection does not require an AfD closure. You or James500 can just redirect the title now if you think it's what should be done. I endorse the general closure as NC per WP:NOQUORUM after two relists, although whether or not it should've been NAC'ed is another matter. I find no fault with Czar's decision. If you still want it deleted, you can speedily renominate it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I think Sal covered it—it's a specific "no consensus" close (from too little participation to form a consensus, or no quorum). Not sure if you're calling the NAC part into question, but it's also a standard NAC close that an admin would have closed the same way. There was no suggested redirect target even after two relistings, but that's a fine discussion to continue on the article's talk page czar ♔ 12:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Late follow-up, sorry. I agree there was not a quorum and that no consensus without prejudice to speedy renomination is a reasonable close in such a case after two lists. To be clear, I'm not making any accusation of a breach in policy or saying that anything egregious happened here. My contention is within the assertion that "an admin would have closed [it] the same way", which ignores the other possibilities in such a situation e.g. soft delete or redirect -- neither of which are uncommon in a low participation AfD as far as I know. NAC is the problem because there is no one completely uncontroversial close there except when closing as a non-admin (i.e. if a non-admin opts to close such a discussion, it has to be no consensus).

Anyway, any issue that I have here is probably most accurately framed in terms of the deletion process allowing for non-admin no consensus closes to begin with than your particular application of it, and thus more a thread more appropriate for a deletion process talk page. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

While it's true that an eager no quorum NAC could theoretically supersede a perhaps more appropriate soft deletion, I haven't seen it to be an issue. NACs are supposed to be noncontroversial in nature, the housekeeping that leaves trusted admin for the harder jobs. So NACers should avoid closing discussions where soft deletion is a reasonable outcome, as they shouldn't be closing where there's room for pushback. (That's also the idea of consensus, that the close should reflect what is agreeable to the greatest amount of participants.) The AfD in question, though, was not eligible for soft deletion or even a redirect (already mentioned that there was no target). After two relistings, a no consensus with with NPASR was far and away the most fitting close, regardless of deletion rights. But, more generally, the issue of no quorum closes in lieu of soft deletions is already adequately handled by asking the closer politely to reconsider or by preemptively leaving a note to this effect on the AfD before it closes. I think that's reasonable, and that the NAC system works fine as is. czar ⨹ 22:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Mother (video game)

The DYK project (nominate) 22:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

AN/I

Hi Czar; in case you aren't aware, several people (including me) have mentioned you in passing in this thread. Feel free to contribute/ignore as you see fit. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The notification was necessary, but I think Czar's involvement in the thread should be avoided. Just my 2¢. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware, so thank you for the heads up czar ⨹ 08:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Hatred (video game)

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Your request for adminship

Hi Czar, I have closed your request for adminship as successful. Congratulations! As always, the administrators' reading list is worth a read and the new admin school is most certainly available if you feel that you might require some practice with the tools in a safe environment prior to applying them elsewhere. Good luck with your adminship! Acalamari 18:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! Well done!  Philg88 ^♦talk 18:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Congrats! --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, Czar. Now, get busy with the mop! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Congrats :) Sam Walton (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations Czar :D! Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, Czar! Use your powers wisely! --Biblioworm 18:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Historic Order of Moppers! --j⚛e decker^talk 18:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Congrats Secret ^account 18:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Congrats!--v/r - TP 18:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hooray! I knew you would pass with flying colors. You'll be a great admin. --MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Get in! :-D ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Congrats! ///EuroCarGT 22:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations :) -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 22:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations. I have often !voted in recent RFAs but I was on vacation and offline during the entire period of your RFA. Otherwise, I would have cast an !vote in support. Good luck. I am sure you will do a great job. Donner60 (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Shall I add my congrats too? The herald 07:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations . –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!!! — Cirt (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Greatly appreciate your confidence, and look forward to your continual feedback czar ⨹ 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I missed this! Congrats, and welcome to the VG admins club! --PresN 04:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I've mentioned your comment

I've mentioned your comment at Talk:Fuck:_Word_Taboo_and_Protecting_Our_First_Amendment_Liberties#Article_history_template.

Could use your input there for clarification.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned you also at Template_talk:Article_history#Today.27s_Featured_Article_discussions. Could use your input for clarification in both places. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Separately, what are your thoughts on including the WP:TFAR discussion subpage in the Article History template? Could use your thoughts here Template_talk:Article_history#Today.27s_Featured_Article_discussions. — Cirt (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

✓ czar ⨹ 17:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

AfD

"The just pointing to a policy ("per GNG") will be ignored by the closer without some explanation of the editor's background reasoning."

That's inaccurate. It might be ignored if the !vote is not based in guideline/policy, or if it was just "Keep" without any reason at all. But a !vote with a policy/guideline reason, is reason enough for it to be considered. -- GreenC 14:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Very little consideration. "Per GNG" with no other explanation is only "based in policy" in name—it carries little to no argument/reason (and accordingly functions as a vote when AfD is not a vote). That's why it's listed as an unhelpful argument, especially when there is no prior breakdown of what specific sources make a topic meet the GNG. czar ⨹ 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Google Inbox

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Michele Goins

Proposed deletion of a marginally notable female CIO might be controversial, so I removed your deletion tag. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, but I expect it to be just as uncontroversial as the other exec staff articles recently deleted czar ⨹ 04:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Herbartianism

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Videoball

Hey Czar. I was looking around featured topics and saw the topic that Videoball is part of. Seeing how the article says it'll come out in 2014 and the year is almost over, I'm wondering if there was any updates on the release date for the game. GamerPro64 22:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@GamerPro64, no secondary source update yet, but the press kit says 2015. czar ⨹ 22:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. That's good to know. Also, congrats on adminship. Even though I didn't vote it was an interesting RfA. GamerPro64 22:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

deleted page SMH Records

Hi Czar,

Congratulations on getting the mop! See, now you get bugged, aren't you lucky. Would you please restore the deleted talk page (not the article) to someplace in my userspace, (if not the talkspace of the deletion discussion per my request there)? I may find it useful should this or something similar come up again. Thanks much! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, @78.26—my understanding is that we could dig that up if and when it is needed. Otherwise, I found mixed precedent for whether talk pages can be temporarily restored, nothing in the undeletion policy, and only one example of userfying a talk page (which was later deleted). So a compromise, like that Sandstein link: I put a copy here that will expire in 24 hours. It's the same as if you saved a copy of the text before it was deleted a few hours ago. Does that work? czar ⨹ 23:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Many thanks, I've put it in my own sandbox (and you'd have to make a little effort to find it), so if anyone gets in trouble, it will be me. Again, thank you. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Jaromil article speedy deletion

Hi there. Have you considered comments? the deletion was part of an aggression.

In any case, please consider not redirecting to FreeJ, but Dynebolic.

Thanks for your attention to details jaromil (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I did—when taken as a whole, the consensus was clearly to delete. I'll add that other than the IP, the participants were AfD regulars that I would not presume to be working from bad faith or vendetta. Updated the redirect to your preference czar ⨹ 15:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD. I am inviting you to try the improved script! It makes relisting and closing debates much easier and now works in Vector. Support has been added to deal with some incompatibility it had with other gadgets (like wikEd). It also makes use of the new relist count parameter in {{Relist}} to make that process easier. Please do check out the description page and give it a try! Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nyu Media

The article Nyu Media has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The sole source is not actually about the subject, but about one thing the subject did, with no real indication of importance. Also on the WikiSpam principle: any company that pays to have an article created on Wikipedia, probably isn't actually notable...

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Czar, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. Happy editing, The Herald : here I am Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

HISTMERGE

Hello Czar! Will you please take a look and merge the history of Draft:The Jungle Book (2015 film) into The Jungle Book (2015 film)? Draft has a lot of editing history and was moved from mainspace until the beginning of production, which now has begun. Will you able to do it or should I request it at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests? --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 10:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, I took a look and I don't think you need to post it at RMT. This looks like a straightforward case of parallel histories—we won't be able to "merge" in the draft's edits without making swiss cheese of the mainspace article's edit history. There is no clean break between the editing of one page and the editing of another. I read through the linked discussions on EJ's page and it is unfortunate that the better article might be what was incubated in draftspace while the mainspace article was repeatedly recreated without knowledge of that draft. Next time I'd recommend using protecting the mainspace page with <!-- a comment in the wikitext to point to Draft:The Draft Article -->. Common practice now would be to merge the draft text into the mainspace article with an edit summary that notes the attribution (previous location of the text) and add a talk page template that confirms this. Alternatively, and I know of no precedent for this, if the draft article is going to be the main article history anyway, it's possible to swap the locations of the current draft and mainspace articles. Probably has no precedent because it's overkill. I'd just text merge the draft into mainspace and move on. I'll add that I also think we can do better than Coming Soon or Instagram to confirm that principal photography has begun. Other than the one backlit photo, it's not entirely clear that these aren't pre-production takes. czar ⨹ 15:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what an admin can do but aren't you able to do what user:Bgwhite did in merging my draft's history into Now You See Me: The Second Act? I think, it's just what I think that he merged selected edits like from September 10 to November 9, and then some more edits from later period but I'm not sure for those now. I think you can do like that, merging some selected edits, which have some clean breaks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It is possible to histmerge in a bunch of consecutive edits but it creates that swiss cheese if there isn't continuity. Histmerges are more for fixing cut-and-paste moves and not when there are parallel histories. I don't see any histmerging on Now You See Me... at least involving page deletions, but since (what remained of) the draft was written by you, it wasn't an attribution issue for you to just post the text in the main article as a single edit (you owned the attribution). And if BGW did in fact merge from the range you mentioned, that was prior to the start of the article and would have been appended to the bottom of the history, rather than interspersed in-between existing edits on the page. Suffice it to say that the Jungle Book situation is more complex and other admins have already said that a histmerg is unlikely here for the parallel histories. czar ⨹ 16:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Check THIS OUT, Favre1fan93 moved the mainspace article to draft in start and put a note about that draft, yet another editor created the article. So, the point here is that I want my editing contributions in draft to be moved in the mainspace. I don't know what Bgwhite did but he merged a lot of draft editing history. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

If it's not possible for the whole history, I would suggest to merge at-least from the start of draft till August 24. because the article was moved on August 25. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: the diff, you might want to have pursued page protection if early page recreation was an issue. Re: the draft's history, I took a look and it's mostly redirects in that early period. Besides, I can't move those edits out because then the draft itself will have attribution problems. (There is also no functional reason for such a move, as it wouldn't be helping to preserve edit history.) Merging the current draft into mainspace without histmerge is still the textbook solution here czar ⨹ 17:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Let the draft have attribution problems, it'll be deleted when you move those early edits. Actually I'm so confused here, I've been working on the article (draft) for a long time and now it's in trouble. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 18:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nyu Media

Hello! Your submission of Nyu Media at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Widefox; talk 14:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Czar, I'm sorry if you feel this is "Dilatory" [3] or "overly litigious" [4]. As I had no knowledge that the DYK would be held during AfD, or my concern could be raised there at all, this has all been correctly done in good faith (1. and 2. generated from the automated script). I probably haven't stressed enough that this is not about your good work, which is understandably deserving of DYK. There is, however, the appearance and long-term effect on WP that I'm concerned about given that timeline, having come to this article only from COI angle, similarly for DGG. You raised a concern that the timeline had an issue, does it still have it? Widefox; talk 15:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I responded on the discussion pages. The post-G11 article shared no lineage with its COI past until the request to restore its G11'd contents. A singular AfD isn't the proper venue for making a point about long-term effect and "churnalism". I am generally uninterested in this debate past where it involves my expertise in the content area, so please keep that in mind when pinging me. czar ⨹ 09:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Czar. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 22:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Czar, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Richard Hogg

Hi, just looking for information about Richard Hogg and found you'd created a page with that name as a redirect to Hohokam, an article which contains no mention of him. Any idea where I might find more? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Andreas Philopater, there's more at Hohokum (the redirect had a typo) czar ⨹ 05:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It'll be a different RIchard Hogg (the one I want is an anthropologist!) --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the anthropologist working at the World Bank likely doesn't qualify for an article, though the linguist might... ([5][6]) czar ⨹ 16:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Exact merger

Hi, I am confused on why the article on Exact (company) was proposed for deletion and then merged without any form of consensus. I just thought that it is a video games company, notable for developing a few well received games and I have seen even smaller and lesser known developers on Wikipedia that have not been merged. I don't exactly oppose it, but just don't know why it was merged. Regards ☯ Jaguar ☯ 14:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Someone else proposed it for deletion. It's less about the size of the company than the sources that actually cover the company's history. I dug through the archives to try to save it and found next to no secondary sources (actually, Sugar & Rockets had more secondary source coverage and that was already redirected to SCE). Still, I thought Exact was a worthwhile redirect so I found a source that connected it with S&R and added a blurb at its parent company and then redirected "Exact". I only went with SCE Japan based on what was in the Exact article—SCE (not Japan) might still be a better target. I don't know since I don't have sources to verify. Do you have other sources (secondary or even primary) for the history of Exact? If not, redirection still seems like the better option over the proposed deletion. As for consensus, a full discussion is usually only necessary when an action is controversial. Given how difficult it was to find the sole IGN source, I thought the redirect was uncontroversial and straightforward and so did it boldly, though you're welcome to revert and start a redirection discussion. czar ⨹ 16:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, I looked into it and found out (a while ago) that Exact is a subsidiary or SCE Japan, similar to how Psygnosis was a subsidiary of SCE Europe. Sugar and Rockets does have more sources but because I think the company only made a handful of games before its closure in 2000, then maybe it is better off as a redirect as it wouldn't have enough information on its own article, let alone the number of sources. Sigh, why does there have to be a deep black hole on the internet in everything I do here... ☯ Jaguar ☯ 20:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It's only a deep black hole when you're the first to fill it czar ⨹ 20:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)