User talk:AFigureOfBlue/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Idea

I had an idea, which would both preserve a sort of history of the D&D wikiproject and the articles therein, and promote networking between people who work on these articles: a D&D contributors page. It wouldn't be quite the same as the participants and simpathizers list (nor would it necessarily include everyone with the D&D user box), because the people who have self-identified haven't necessarily done much contributing, nor have all of the major contributors chosen to self-identify in this way. :) I was thinking of listing how long someone's been contributing to D&D articles (if we can determine that), some of the articles they've created, some of their major contributions to articles, anything they've improved to GA or better, if they've retired or gone inactive, or anything else worth noting about that editor. Anyone who wants to would be removed upon request. I'd make the list up, then post it and notify people so they can add to it or comment. What do you say? :) BOZ (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds great! Let me know if I can help. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Sure. After I make some progress, I'll share. This may be my MLK day activity. ;) BOZ (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I wrote up for you and I so far:

BOZ: Regular D&D contributor since Feb 2006; started articles on Axe of the Dwarvish Lords, The Ghost Tower of Inverness, White Plume Mountain, Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun, Isle of the Ape, Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure, and Shackled City; created the Lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters, articles Dungeons & Dragons (1974), Greyhawk (supplement), Blackmoor (supplement), Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set, Dungeons & Dragons Rules Cyclopedia, and Lorraine Williams and hundreds of articles on monsters, deities, characters, and miscellanous D&D subjects; worked to get Gary Gygax and Wizards of the Coast to Good Article status

Drilnoth: Regular D&D contributor since Oct 2008; reorganized the WikiProject page, created the public watchlist, and did much work to reorganize the WikiProject in general; created articles for Jason Bulmahn, The Complete Book of Dwarves, Martial Power, and Andy Collins (game designer); worked to get Wizards of the Coast and Dragons of Despair to Good Article status

There will be dozens of editors on this list before I'm done. :) What other sorts of things do you think are worth noting? BOZ (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good! -Drilnoth (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few more selections - I have 22 total, and I'll probably do more today, as my MLK day project. ;)

Alan De Smet: Frequent D&D contributor since June 2004; started article on Peter Adkison; major contributor to the Dungeons & Dragons article (over 100 edits) and worked to get the article to Featured Article status; major contributor to Gary Gygax (over 70 edits) and worked to get the article to Good Article status; has the most contributions to Editions of Dungeons & Dragons (over 40 edits)

Fairsing: Regular D&D contributor from Apr 2006-Sept 2007, when user went on indefinite wikibreak; started articles on Against the Cult of the Reptile God, Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, Frank Mentzer, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, Mazes and Monsters (novel), Paizo Publishing, Jim Ward (game designer), Robert J. Kuntz, Return to the Tomb of Horrors, Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes, Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk, others; major contributor to the Dungeons & Dragons article (over 90 edits);

Frecklefoot: Occasional D&D contributor since 2003?; started articles on Wizards of the Coast, Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, Deities & Demigods, Erol Otus, Jeff Dee, List of Dungeons & Dragons modules, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Mazes and Monsters, Scourge of the Slave Lords, Jim Roslof, and David S. LaForce; major contributor to the Dungeons & Dragons article (over 100 edits);

J Milburn: Occasional D&D contributor since Nov 2006; Wikipedia admin since Apr 2007; wrote the Dungeons & Dragons (album) article and worked to get the article to Featured Article status; worked to get Libris Mortis to Good Article status

RJHall: Frequent D&D contributor since Sept 2004; major contributor to the Dungeons & Dragons article (over 150 edits) and worked to get the article to Featured Article status; started article on Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting

Serpent's Choice: Frequent D&D contributor form Oct 2006-Jan 2007, inactive on Wikipedia since Sept 2008; has the most contributions to List of Forgotten Realms deities (over 30 edits); worked to get Book of Vile Darkness to Good Article status

Waza: Regular D&D contributor from Aug 2005-Apr 2007, occasional since then; started articles on Dungeons & Dragons controversies, David Cook (game designer), Dragons of Despair, others; major contributor to the Dungeons & Dragons article (over 300 edits); worked to get Ravenloft (D&D module) to Good Article status

Undoubtedly, you've seen most if not all of those names before, so this is a good way to see who's done what and perhaps where their interests lie. BOZ (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice! -Drilnoth (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been working on this a lot behind the scenes - got some useful info that I'll share with you soon enough. :) BOZ (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I kinda figured that's why you've been relatively quiet lately; take your time. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I also shift my focus from time to time anyway, to avoid burnout. :) BOZ (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Still workin. :) Here are a few more notables:

DoomsDay349: Regular Dragonlance contributor from May 2006-Aug 2007; Wikipedia admin; major contributor to Dragons of Autumn Twilight (over 60 edits) and worked to get the article to Good Article status

Fastzander: Regular D&D contributor from Aug 2006-Nov 2007; created dozens of articles for monsters and other subjects

Gordon Ecker: Frequent contributor since Oct 2007; has the most contributions to Character class (Dungeons & Dragons) (over 30 edits)

HooperBandP: Occasional D&D contributor since Jan 2008; created lists of D&D supplemental material

Iquander (aka Erik Mona): Regular D&D contributor from July 2006-Feb 2008, inactive since Aug 2008; created several Greyhawk articles

Jéské Couriano: Frequent D&D contributor since Aug 2006; Wikipedia admin; major contributor to the Dungeons & Dragons article (over 80 edits);

Peregrine Fisher: Frequent D&D contributor since June 2006; major contributor to Drizzt Do'Urden (over 60 edits); has the most contributions to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) (over 20 edits); worked to get Drizzt Do'Urden to Good Article status

ReyBrujo: Occasional D&D contributor (mostly Dragonlance) since Sept 2005; has the most contributions to Dragonlance (over 30 edits) and Raistlin Majere (over 20 edits)

Robbstrd: Regular D&D contributor from Nov 2005-Nov 2007, infrequent since then; created numerous articles, particularly on Greyhawk topics; major contributor to Greyhawk (over 70 edits) and Drow (Dungeons & Dragons) (over 60 edits)

Whoo! :) BOZ (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Great! -Drilnoth (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Titles missing The article

Many D&D articles on products are missing the article The. I believe it is part of the title and should be fixed. Can you explain procedure. As I understand it now I have to move a page with the move page and then try to follow the what links here and fix links. Is this correct. any suggestions?--LexCorp (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Cookies

Thanks! *crunch* Eleanor Cramphorn (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome! If you're interested in editing more D&D articles, you can check out the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

D&D In-universe redir

Fancy explaining this one? I'm not sure how a talk page banner is going to add things to this, for instance. Or am I missing some voodoo which would make this work? Regardless, the redirect will have dumped several hundred articles from that category into the generic in-universe cleanup cat, which probably isn't right. I think this needs to be undone. What was the rationale? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The {{D&D}} banner now has an option to flag articles using the |fiction=yes parameter, and I thought that if the banner was redirected then all of the D&D cleanup cats would work the same way. Additionally, the project-specific banner can't be collapsed with {{articleissues}}. As I said, I did it boldly, so if you think it should be reverted, feel free to do so. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I want to get into the banner voodoo, but I certainly can't see any means by which this is currently being populated. If articles start disappearing from it, I'll revert the template changes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 Done by reverting the edit. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

World of Eberron

By the way, excellent job on that one. :) BOZ (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not done yet, though! -Drilnoth (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Good start, then. :) BOZ (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

AFD

Don't know if you know anything about any of the articles bundled in this AFD, but letting you know in case you can help out. I know nothing, I swear! ;) BOZ (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I haven't played the games, but I've heard about Kobolds enough and the article looks good to me. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgotten Realms

I am reviewing your article, Forgotten Realms, for GA and have left some comments at Talk:Forgotten Realms/GA1. Please feel free to contact me with comments or questions. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm working on it right now. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey there - I did a bit of work on the article last night, and I'll try to do some more today when I'm not so busy. :) BOZ (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Great! Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Might be awhile still, though. ;) I like this reviewer - they're really digging in and doing some of the cleanup work! BOZ (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Anything you want me to ask or mention here? BOZ (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't really think of anything, but thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Tag on Dungeons & Dragons

Just so you know, I wasn't directing that edit summary at anyone in particular (to be honest, I was too lazy to see who added the tag in the first place, but I'm now guessing it was you) and I probably came across as a bit of a dick. Sorry, that was not my intent.  :) Anyways, cheers! Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken. :) I'd been slacking a little bit on finishing the reformatting, so it's good that you reminded me of it! Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

{{notability}} work

Awesome work on getting this pushed through. Thanks for doing the heavy lifting! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That template was starting to look pretty ugly. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Imitation = Sincerest form of flattery?

Hey. :) I pointed Emperor towards the table you came up with for D&D references, resulting in the beginning of some good work. BOZ (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh! Cool. Adding an "owned by" list is a good idea; we should probably do that with WP:DND/R. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, for any of us that actually own useful sources. ;) BOZ (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I've got a few; I'll look into adding information later. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, regarding the Article Hits page, do you know if there is a bot up and running yet? End of the month is coming up. :) BOZ (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know; I didn't see anything in Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs) contribs right after the request, but I'm not sure if he sets that up on-wiki or off-wiki. Asking him probably wouldn't hurt.
On a related note, I don't think that the stats have been updated since January 21. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
When I have a moment to myself, I'll try to ask him about that bot. He may have made changes that don't reflect in his contribs list? If the tool hasn't updated since Jan 21, then there's no rush I guess. ;) BOZ (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it seems that it just updated yesterday. :) -Drilnoth (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Announcements

I saw your creation of the Vital Articles WikiProject on the village pump, and also the query about project-related announcements. Yes, there is a page, WP:ANN, but in short, it's rarely used. This lead me on to asking you for your comments and advice regarding a bot I'm designing. In essence, the idea is to reinvigorate the Wikipedia Announcements page by letting a bot do all the hard work. All the respective WikiProjects will have to do is to let me know:

  • that they want milestones their project has reached to appear on the page
  • what indicator the bot should used for "counting" the number of articles
  • what those milestones should be

Although it's only at early stage, it would be great to be able to get a few projects onside (or not) for now, and get their details so dry-runs can be carried out. So, what about it? (I will be watching this page, but still best to ping my user to let me know you've replied.)

Thanks! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 12:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. As to the bot, I think that it would be great! Maybe having milestones for every decent number of GAs or FAs attained (10, 25, 50, 100, and so on in some logical way) would work, as would a total article count (which probably won't rise as quickly as for most projects, since only WP:VA/E will continue to be expanded over time). Using the categories in Category:WikiProject Vital Articles articles could probably help with that. Hope all goes well with the bot! -Drilnoth (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome. In my view there is too much unfocussed attention to trivial articles on Wikipedia. Getting the core, or vital articles to high quality will be the best thing for the project in my view.
Thank you very much for starting this important initiative, I have been thinking (but not willing to do the effort) about a similar initiative for a while. But as I did not I would like to present you the brilliant idea barnstar for startin this (long overdue) project
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
for starting WP Vital articles Arnoutf (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! My first barnstar! -Drilnoth (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
That's actually surprising. :) You've earned it! BOZ (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:) -Drilnoth (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The Real-world perspective Barnstar
To Drilnoth, for being a catalyst and working on improving D&D articles with this extra perspective to push themover the GA line... Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


Here, one good tern deserves another. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! I plan to keep it up! -Drilnoth (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Debate on A-Class

Hi Drilnoth! Thanks for raising the A-Class issue today! I groaned when I first saw it, because this is an old chestnut that never seems to go away, but I think there are a lot of good insights and experience described there - and really, this is the next big thing we should try to deal with in the assessment scheme. (The C-Class debate last summer basically wiped out most of my free time last summer, so I'm usually scared to open up these debates! However, I think - looking at it now - it was worth it to resolve the issue). Some (including myself) have argued for eliminating GA from the scheme (it wasn't in the original scheme, because it predates the GA system, and WP:Chem anachronistially still doesn't have it!) But many really like having GA there, and I think that if we could resolve this issue in a creative way then the GA thing would be moot. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; interesting about Chem! -Drilnoth (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello again - I just proposed an IRC discussion to brainstorm. Do you do IRC? Also, I wondered if you and I could brainstorm some ideas over the phone some time next week. Would that be a good idea? (I know some people value their anonymity, and I respect that if that's an issue.) Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Excellent idea! I haven't used IRC before, but it shouldn't be too hard to create an account and figure it out (or am I reading IRC completely wrong? :) ). I'd rather not discuss via phone at this point in time, though the chat should be able to do most anything that could be verbally discussed, right? -Drilnoth (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that kind of IRC. I'm technically-challenged myself, but even I managed to get it to work without a problem. I use Mozilla Firefox on a PC, so it made sense to download Chatzilla and instal that. All I did then was to click on the #wikipedia-1.0 channel link and everything runs nicely. You type some words across the bottom, and enter them and they appear in the discussion. One thing - sometimes you get 2 or 3 threads going at once, and so it's best if you say who you're replying to. Would Sunday suit you, at perhaps 1900h UTC? Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'm completely booked for Sunday. Maybe Saturday, at some point, if I can get the IRC working? Also, is there any real point in having live chat if it's only going to be the two of us? -Drilnoth (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, let's try for Saturday then, could it be the same time? I was planning on posting the time and date once I knew you could make it (I didn't see the point of picking a time when you weren't available). If I announce it, I'm sure others will join us, including quite possibly some who haven't posted comments. I'd expect 10-12 people to show up, but you never know with IRC! Let me know if 1900h UTC on Saturday will work for you, and I'll check with my wife. Walkerma (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
1900h will probably work. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed, that's Valentine's Day, so I think I'd rather make the meeting Sat 21st or Sun 22nd - which is better for you? Walkerma (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Dwellers of the Forbidden City

I've tried to coax Pak21 into coming back to work on D&D articles especially since we started working on Dwellers... I got the feeling that Pak went from being highly active to being only semi-active after the AFD on DotFC, and quite probably left because of his role in the AFD, and a lot of other things that were going on at the time... and I left some not-exactly kind words on the user's talk page after the AFD. I don't think he has really been back to work on D&D stuff since then, but if you want to ask a question on the user's talk page that might be a good idea. BOZ (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Already done. :) -Drilnoth (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I don't recommend asking Matisse to review any more GAs for us anytime soon - not because she's not a good reviewer or for any personal reason, but just because she got 4 of ours in a row, and I don't want it to seem like some kind of conspiracy or anything. ;) BOZ (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ravenloft (module)

I was wondering when someone was going to finally move Ravenloft (D&D module) to Ravenloft (module); I didn't have it in me. ;) BOZ (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh. :) I thought I'd do it before the next FAC. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Which you just started - bold man! :) Hope we can do a better job this time. BOZ (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that the article's really been improved, especially after the PR, so I thought it would be worth a shot. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I took the suggestion given in the PR to re-invite everyone who reviewed the last time. :) BOZ (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Great; thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Note that the current item #18 is a review from RPGnet; we might want to include some info from that in the reception section? BOZ (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, RPGnet isn't a reliable reference; I've removed the cite. I hadn't seen it there earlier. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Can we still use it for the review itself? BOZ (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really sure... To the best of my knowledge, RPGNet reviews can be put up by anyone, just like Amazon.com reviews, so unless the author is a "name" game designer or reviewer, it would probably be considered self-published and wouldn't pass during an FAC. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments re Theodore Lukens

Thank you for taking the time to read and comment. I'm not a writer nor ever professed to be one, but I believe in the value of Wikipedia, so I'll keep trying to improve. Again, thank you for your time, I appreciate it. Sincerely, Marcia Wright (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome; I hope all goes well for you on the article! -Drilnoth (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Editing user page

Hi Drilnoth, I corrected the syntax for User:Erwin/CatCount on your user page. I hope you don't mind my editing it. --Erwin(85) 20:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! Seems I had some spelling errors there. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox D&D creature

Hi, I reversed your edit to how this template treats alignment, because most importantly it breaks when you add references and it also doesn't make sense this way when the alignment isn't one of the nine, like "Any" or "Evil". Svick (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay; thanks for letting me know. I'll see if I can fix it somehow so that it won't break when that happens. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

vital article collaborations

How are Category:Current WikiProject Vital articles collaborations distinguished from Category:Current vital article collaborations? I'm thinking maybe we could get rid of one of these categories. -- Stepheng3 (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops! My bad there; thanks for pointing it out. I'd created one, then decided I'd change the name and created the other without deleting the first. I've requested deletion of the obsolete one. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Million Dollar Homepage

Hi. Thanks for conducting the GAR for The Million Dollar Homepage. I have updated the image to how it is today, and added a fair use rationale. As for the deadlink, the deadlink checker says that [1] is dead, but when I click on it I have no problem seeing it. Before I take this to WP:FAC, do you have any other suggestions for the page? Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Great! I'll respond at the GAR page. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Utf8 at Check Wikipedia

Hi Drilnoth, the thing with UTF8 is easy. I use the texteditor Notepad++. Create a new page in this editor and set in the menu Format the characterset at "ANSI". Then copy the text in this new page and change the characterset in UTF-8. Now you can copy this in Wikipedia. - Maybe I can change this in the future in my script, but at the moment I don't know how. -- sk (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay; I don't have notepad ++, just notepad, wordpad, and Word 2008. Do any of those work? I just couldn't find anything. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Notepade ++ is free. You can download this. -- sk (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I figured out how to convert to UTF8 encoding just using my browser, without copying the text to do so, but thanks for letting me know! -Drilnoth (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh

Heh. BOZ (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. :) -Drilnoth (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Me neither, so I figure it's best to say nothing. ;) BOZ (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC on N

Wow, sir, you have some guts. :) I'll have to give that some thought before responding. My personal opinion is that there should be some kind of objective standard for article inclusion, but it really shouldn't be much more than V + NOR or something like that. If you, a guy down your street, someone you haven't talked to in 10 years, and a guy in China all heard about something independently from one another, then you should also be able to write an article on it collaberatively if it passes those two policies. :) (And, for that matter, I'd strike "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." from WP:V.) BOZ (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not sure yet on my position, either. I think that something needs to be changed, but I'm not sure what. I'm just hoping that this can try and get people to really think about it so that a consensus for or against notability can finally be created, something which has been sorely lacking for too long. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Dude, you are notably advocate's secret weapon. I don't know when a good time to do this RfC is, but right now is not a good time. Ikip (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Why wasn't it a good time? -Drilnoth (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, I don't know if there is ever a good time, but when a liberal like Kendrick7, votes #2 to keep notability, you know notability will pass with flying colors. Even your friend BOZ isn't quite sure how to answer. I think your next step should be proposing to make notability a policy. Ikip (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think that who comments is really just based on when people see it... is Kendrick7 someone you'd normally expect to be opposed to N? -Drilnoth (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Ikip (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Do you think that it was a problem with the presentation of the RFC? -Drilnoth (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
You didn't bother to cast a support or oppose. Please do. Sorry if I discouraged you, please continue to contribute to the RfC. I tend to be a glass half empty type of guy. Sorry about that. Ikip (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I haven't supported or opposed yet because I'm not honestly sure where I really stand on some of the questions; once I have finalized by own opinion I'll certainly mention more. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
As I wrote above: "I think your next step should be proposing to make notability a policy"... "Wikipedia_talk:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation#Should_WP:N_be_made_Policy.3F" I hate it when I am right. Ikip (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ravenloft (module) copyedit

Hey, I saw your notice over at the Guild, and I have begun a copyedit of Ravenloft (module). I have done only a very small portion so far, but will probably do a little more tonight, and will finish the bulk of it tomorrow. Just wanted to let you know that it has been started though. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I've been putting a lot of work into the article, but just can't really give it a good copy edit after having read it so much. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! It's good to have someone go through and help it make more sense to non-gamers. :) BOZ (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I really have very little foreknowledge of D&D rules and conventions, and I think this helps the copyediting, as I can write the article in a way that makes sense to those unfamiliar with the subject. As such, under the original edition, I have found a term I am unfamiliar with. This may be an incredibly obvious and stupid question, but what exactly does a "real or simulated turn of the cards" mean in the context of D&D? Scapler (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe (I'm not positive, though) that Ravenloft had cards used as a random element so that the adventure would be different each time it was played. However, without additional information about it in the article, it might make sense to remove that bit from now... I'm not sure if there are any good, reliable sources that really explain it. And thanks for all your help! -Drilnoth (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Another question: under the "Expedition to Castle Ravenloft" heading, could you clarify what an "encounter layout" is? Thanks and cheers! Scapler (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added a bit of clarification. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have finished my initial copyedit, and will look over it again tomorrow, as well as use the current FA debate to pinpoint specific things to work on. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

advice (use at your discretion)

The previous RFC on notability was watchlisted, and had pretty wide participation. There are a lot of areas of consensus, IMO. One of the key problems, though, was that interpreting the RFC itself went back to the usual faces. So it was impossible to even get an agreement on what the RFC meant. I've been trying to get someone independent to put together a formal analysis. They've been busy. Maybe they've dropped off the face of the planet, in which case we'll never be able to get people to so much as agree on what people actually said. That might present an inherent problem with an RFC on such a contentious issue: nobody can even agree how to read an RFC.

But if you take a close look with an open mind, there are agreements in principle. My impression is that extreme inclusionists and deletionists are playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, because they really don't like the middle ground. But B.1 and B.4 show us that people think SNGs are there to relax our inclusion criteria, and they're not useless or "cheating" the general guideline. B.5 That pisses off deletionists, but there's no other way to read the RFC. B.5 shows us that SNGs can't just create wholesale exceptions and override the GNG. That pisses off inclusionists, but there's no other way to read the RFC.

You said that you weren't really sure what kinds of changes WP:N needs, let alone what people would support. But I guarantee you, the idea that would have the most widespread support will have something to do with SNGs. An agreement, in principle, that SNGs are there to relax the GNG for specific subject areas, without eliminating it completely.

Anyway, there are extremes on both sides who don't want to see any kind of compromise, and will find all kinds of twisty WP:GAMEy reasons to insist that their position is one true path for Wikipedia. But if you were wondering where a compromise might come from, I think it would have a lot to do with clarifying what SNGs can and can't do. Randomran (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; that's a very well thought out description of the situation. My personal opinion is that SNGs aren't needed if, and only if, the GNG is changed to be a direct interpretation of WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:OR, rather than acting as its own policy (and it is acting like a policy, even though it isn't), in a similar way to how WP:SNOW is just an interpretation of WP:IAR. If the GNG isn't changed at all, the various SNGs need to be strengthened so that they are always used to replace the GNG in regards to articles to which they apply. (although if something passes the GNG, it will naturally pass the SNGs). -Drilnoth (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
It's been my experience that both sides have become quite expert at hyperbole. "If you relax the notability guidelines, people will make millions of articles about their neighbors and pets!" and "If you tighten the notability guidelines, every single article about fiction will be deleted!" - how silly. :) Whatever happened to not speculating? Wikipedia's not a crystal ball, and neither are its editors. I think we all like to take small pieces of anecdotal evidence and extrapolate their significance into other situations. That's why an RFC will always fail, and we just need to go and do the right thing. The truth is, that the notability guideline is irrelevant at AFD, other than something to point to for backing up an opinion. Things lacking reliable sources are routinely Kept or meet No Consensus. Sure, a lot do get deleted, but from what I've observed it's 50% or fewer of AFDs on fictional elements - the rest are kept, or redirected. The notability guideline is essentially extraneous, except as a means to attempt to enforce some standards, and/or as a threat, but in the end it plays little or no role in AFD, and it's common sense that makes the decision one way or another. I think a well-done SNG could help make some things clearer, but I don't believe the WP:BATTLEGROUND of WP:FICT will ever accomplish this. You've got too many people thinking like this, and a vocal minority on the other side wanting everything kept, to really ever achieve any consensus, but I still applaud the people in the middle (like Randomran and Masem) who try to hold back the storm. :) BOZ (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep; too many strong opinions on both sides. It's tough for the people in the middle to be having trouble from both this and this. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll tell you that I don't make too many loyal friends here. It would be much easier to just pick a side and start propping each other up with barnstars. I think everything you both said has been pretty accurate though, especially the part that WP:N is enforced selectively -- I might even agree that it's around half for fictional articles. You'd think that selective enforcement would send a reality-check to both extremes: "okay, we'll never get our way 100%, so let's try to talk about the half where WP:N does apply, and the half where it doesn't." But instead you get the usual extremism. "The 50% where the articles are kept are wrong." "No, the 50% where the articles are deleted are wrong." I'm almost tempted to take it to arbitration. I know they don't set policy, but it would be useful if they could even say "okay, we can see that the extremes are preventing a compromise, so why don't you just let them both cancel each other out next time you put together a proposal". But that's very wishful thinking on my part. Randomran (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking of repeating/clarifying that SNGs are the solution to the GNG, and wanted to incorporate that into the RFC. Wanted to get your thoughts on that, though. It's the kind of question that is probably best put together collaboratively, rather than just adding it unilaterally. Randomran (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • It would probably be a good idea to mention something about that in the RFC; feel free to add a section. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm already worried about scope creep at the RFC. Masem just added a lengthy proposal. At a certain point, people just stop reading, and stop caring. But I was thinking of a question along the lines of "Keep notability, but agree that we need to use SNGs to relax (not eliminate) our inclusion standards for specific subject areas?" I wish there were a shorter way to say it. But I'm having trouble doing that, without losing some clarity. Randomran (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree that the scope is creeping, but don't really know what to do about it. I also can't really think of a better way to explain the SNG issue. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Thanks for your help. Scope creep was a problem in the other RFC too, and you'll see that people overwhelmingly responded to the stuff at the top of the page, and activity dropped off drastically at the bottom. I'll get back to you if I have anything else. I'd like your input before I add anything. Randomran (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Good idea on collapsing that first part - there was so much snow, you were getting buried under an avalanche. ;) Maybe something more productive will happen if people don't feel that they have to justify WP:N's very existence? BOZ (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've always felt that compromise will be impossible unless we can take the extremes off the negotiation table. The other extreme would probably be applying the GNG strictly to every article. Still too many people swearing by that one, when obviously the practice is more selective than applying WP:N equally to every article. Randomran (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, please consider unclosing it as at least two editors have added comments since closed anyway, which means there is still a desire to participate. We might as well let editors who want to be heard be heard. And if we have a similarly lop-sided proposal to promote open (3-1 against), then in the interest of fairness, we might as well have both open or both closed. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's do away with FA

The other option would be to actually do away with the entire FA review system and say that, once any article has passed both GA and A-Class reviews, it becomes Featured. This would probably lead to an increase in total FAs, but it would also take some of the strain off of that part of the review system so that more effort could go into GA and A-Class reviews. This latter would be my personal preference, although I understand that it would be a rather drastic change. If there is any support for this type of idea, I can write up an official proposal.

Coming from a different line (I think), I am drawing up a proposal to hand most of the main page article system ("TFA") to the WikiProjects. So yes, there is support for these types of ideas. I have been asked to have my proposal ready for this weekend, so I shall try to do that. I would be very interested to see either a separate proposal from yourself or comments on mine. I'll keep you informed! Physchim62 (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay; thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The proposal is taking shape at User:Physchim62/Sandbox. Physchim62 (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Interesting... I hadn't really thought about that kind of system. I'll give you a buzz once my idea is "finished." -Drilnoth (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Should WP:N be made Policy?

Since you have made your support for WP:N known by making for made good faith amendments to the guideline[2], I hope you will lend your support to my proposal to promote WP:N to policy. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I've responded on the RFC talk page. -Drilnoth (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I like your contribution.[3] the problem Drilnoth is that WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE are ignored.
The number one reason that articles are deleted are for "notability", this sentence will not change this fact. The vast majority of deletions, the first edit the nominator makes to the article is to put the article up for deletion (I would say in 98% of all cases). Then editors are forced to find sources that the deletion nominator never bothered looking for. Ask any editor from the WP:Article Rescue Squadron. If these articles are not picked up by editors who want to save the article, the article is deleted.
The vast majority of articles up for deletion were created by new users. According to reseachers,the number of editors who have edited wikipedia has dropped since October 2007, the Economist blames deletionists. Being an editor who works to save articles from deletion, I don't doubt this a bit, many new editors first welcome to wikipedia is in the form of impersonal warnings that their contributions will be deleted.
Also keep in mind Galvin's RfC, which was created because he put up dozens of articles a day for AfD, typically ignoring WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, and the contriubtion that you added to WP:N. Ikip (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Not to keep intruding, because I'm having a conversation with Drilnoth upthread. But Gavin's RFC was for edit warring over tags. I don't think he's done very many AFDs at all. Just as a point of information. Not sure why he's so important though. Randomran (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that the first RFC on Gavin was his mass AFDing of articles (many, many articles a day). The second was related to tags and possible incivility. Ikip was referring to the former. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
My mistake. Still, the second RFC was where the community had a consensus that he was doing something wrong. Randomran (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
That is correct. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Ikip (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Cats on Commons files?

I've expanded the response at WP:HD#Cats on Commons files?. Just FYI. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I've responded there. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Drilnoth/Sandbox

User:Drilnoth/Sandbox seems fairly comprehensive except for two projects I think have active A-Class reviews. USRD and FILM both seem to be active. You might want to add those to your report.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah; thanks! I guess I missed them. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I can't figure out how to apply for a WP:USC A-Class.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Huh.... maybe they just have single-member assessments? -Drilnoth (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Washington Park Subdivision

I have responded to your GAC comments.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll take a look shortly. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Metroid

Thanks for the review, and for the copyedit. I always plan on taking my GANs to FAC, so I appreciate any help I can get. I've always got GANs up, and appreciate thorough reviews :) Gary King (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! I must say I was impressed with the article's quality. Good work! -Drilnoth (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for Brain Age 2! Gary King (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you walk me through this? :)

Per GA reviewer comments for Spidey... I don't understand what to do in this situation, but it reminds me a lot of the work you did on Dungeons & Dragons, so I immediately thought of you. BOZ (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, although you might not like it :). I think the problem is that books are referenced using shortened footnotes (e.g. "Daniels, p. 97"), whereas online references are fully described in the footnotes themselves. These should be standardized so that online references are listed with the books, and using shortened refs for the footnotes, or all of the books should be made into standard footnote references with {{rp}} used to designate page number. Additionally, the 1a, 1b, and 1c notes should probably be folded into the rest so that they aren't separated. Some of the external references need a publisher and accessdate, and the ISBN link is broken on at least one ref. I can probably fix them up tomorrow, if you'd like. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure. If there's anything simple I can do now to speed it up, I'd like to get to that. BOZ (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Adding in the accessdates and publishers were they're still needed would be great. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
PF had a good idea for a citation template, so I'll at least do the grunt work of filling that in for the comics issues; for the rest, I may need some help. :) BOZ (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I got that part done, but I'm about to be gone for the rest of the day, being V-Day and all. :) By the way, did you notice how 300 was the Today's Featured Article yesterday? :) (I nominated that one for the front page, woohoo!) BOZ (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't look at the main page much, but I saw your nomination. Great work! -Drilnoth (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I think I've gotten the references reformatted... just let me know if there's still any problems with that. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Nope, looks like you gave it the final push! :) Thanks again for your timely help. BOZ (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Welcome! Let me know if you want that kind of help with any other articles. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
OK; if you want to have a hack at Fantastic Four, that one has a lot fewer references to look at. :) BOZ (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure; I'll work on those later today. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. :) BOZ (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I've finished that one. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Danke! :) BOZ (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Shadow the Hedgehog

Hi, I'm Tezkag72 (nominated Shadow the Hedgehog (video game) at WP:GAN.) You said the article was being reviewed, but I see no link to any such review from the article's talk page, or in your contributions. Clarify this, I guess? Tezkag72私にどなる私のはかい 18:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry; I haven't gotten to read through the whole article yet. I like to read the article and fix any minor errors before creating the subpage and doing a full review. I'll probably finish going through the whole thing later today, and I'll create the review page then. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, it's okay. Just tell me any complaints you have about the article, and I'll go and fix it. It's one of my first GA's, so I'm a bit nervous. Tezkag72私にどなる私のはかい 19:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Don't be worried... I've read the lead and skimmed the rest of it, and I think it'll pass. It might need a little work, but I'll be sure to let you know what that is. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing it quickly; most other people would have probably just left it there. Tezkag72私にどなる私のはかい 21:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
There is quite a backlog on the nomination page, but right now we're trying to really get through it by reviewing most all of the articles. If you'd be interested in reviewing any yourself, feel free to start anywhere or join the elimination drive. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ravenloft

Hi there. I apologize—the weekend has really gotten away from me but I will revisit the Ravenloft FAC page as soon as possible. Thanks for being patient. --Laser brain (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay; sounds good. Thanks for letting me know. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
We'll get it later. :) Let's focus some more on GA's; if we get 5 more done, we'll have 10% of our articles at GA. ;) BOZ (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Heh; I hadn't thought of that. I'll still be working on Ravenloft when I have the time, but I've put in a request at WP:GOCE so we'll see how that goes. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I was going to have a look at some of our numbers to see how justified the "OMFG merge paranoia" really is, but I've been lazy about getting to it. :) BOZ (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative to notability

Hello! I am working on an objective alternate to notability in my userspace. Please read User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines and offer any suggestions on its talk page, which I will consider for revision purposes. If you do not do so, no worries, but if you wish to help, it is appreciated. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I like it so far! -Drilnoth (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Fold the GNG into WP:V

Despite getting our favorite usual suspect jumping for joy, I do think this idea has some merit. If done correctly and carefully (and this will require much thought and planning), you can both strengthen the idea that a subject must prove its notability before getting its own article, and strengthen the idea of WP:PRESERVE-ing information in the form of allowing any verifiable subject appear in parent articles and lists. To me, that If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it statement has always seemed a little out of place in WP:V, but if we're going to have it there, we might as well expound upon it. I think you need to do as some suggested, and clarify this idea and how it will work you can put that to the test. Before you actually do anything though, you should mention something on the WP:V talk page as well. BOZ (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Good points. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd say something along the lines of giving that its own section after the sources section, or as part of that section, and altering that line to something like Every Wikipedia article should rely on significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. However, if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have a stand-alone article on that topic. If an article fails to cite sufficient sources blah blah blah, look for sources, failing that, merge, redirect, or delete as last option, pointing at WP:PRESERVE. This section would then incorporate maybe a third to half of what the NP:N guideline currently says (each part to be included as determined by RFC?) and if that passes it should be a done deal. The section title shouldn't even bring up the word Notability, Importance, or whatnot, and should be something neutral like "Articles lacking reliable sources" or something. Again, be very very careful: we don't want to give the deletionists a tool which they may be chomping at the bit to use as an excuse to delete thousands of articles, nor do we want to give them a reason to complain that there will be thousands of articles that they can't do anything about (and merging, though we may not love it, is something we will have to embrace as a compromise). Most likely, this attempt will end in failure because of the ardent defenders of both point of view, but nothing is lost (except goodwill) by trying. :) BOZ (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed completely. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawing FACs

Hi Drilnoth. I'm sorry you felt the need to withdraw your FAC nomination. In the future (though hopefully this won't happen), if you want to withdraw a nomination just leave a note on the nomination itself. Sandy authorized a few of us to withdraw nominations; we've been trained on the process and can take care of it for you. The bot will run in a few days - until then, please don't remove the FAC tag from the article talk page. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

PS, I took care of the rest of the closing for this nom, so no worries. Karanacs (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I knew about the talk page tag, but didn't know if I or someone else was supposed to archive it in the case of a withdraw. Thanks, and I'll keep that in mind in the future. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Userbox for GA reviews

The userbox {{User Good Articles reviewed}} has been updated so that it can now link to a page in your user subspace where you keep track of all your GA reviews, if you have such a page. This can be done by adding a | and then the name of your user subpage (or subsection of your regular user page) wherever you have the template called. For example, on my user page I am using

{{User Good Articles reviewed|6|User:Rjanag/GA reviews}}

which displays as

This user has reviewed 6 Good Article nominations on Wikipedia.

There is more information on how to do this at Template:User Good Articles reviewed.

Note: If you are not interested in doing this, you don't have to do anything; the template will still work for you exactly as it does now.

Best, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. I've been using a subpage to transclude the number or reviewed articles right now, so this should make it easier to access the page. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Article Rescue Squadron

I notice that you are part of Category:Inclusionist_Wikipedians. I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia.

Ikip (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think that that really suits me. I completely support the effort, but would rather focus my efforts on Dungeons & Dragons-related stuff and WikiSyntax cleanup at this time. That said, I'll be keeping the project in mind and may join at a later date. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 01:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Elite Force

Thanks for the review! It's not often you come across a reviewer whose willing to copyedit the whole thing themselves to sort out any issues! -- Sabre (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've seen a few. I think that it only makes sense... why put a review on hold for minor problems instead of just fixing them yourself? -Drilnoth (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Category(ies) for D&D creators?

Hey, I've been pondering this for awhile. I think it would make sense to have one or more categories for D&D creators. Maybe just a general "Dungeons & Dragons creators" and/or break it down to "Dungeons & Dragons designers" and "Dungeons & Dragons artists". We might want a "Dungeons & Dragons novelists" and "Dungeons & Dragons video game designers" or something, for people who worked on those but little or nothing for the actual RPG. Thoughts? BOZ (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

YES! I've thought of that once or twice before, but never really took the time to consider the options beyond a single cat. I'd say that the designers/artists/novelists/video game designers breakdown would be good. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, so basically just like that? Do we need any other categories beyond those four do you think? Should "designers" be the parent of the other three, and have the "RPG designers" category as its parent? I was just going to go down the watchlist and add the cats one at a time to any real people on the list. BOZ (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Sir, yes, sir - I'll get right on it. ;) I'll add a few to each cat, and then we can add the rest later as we go. BOZ (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll help whenever I can. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Got 'em started. :) I had some other stuff I wanted to accomplish today, but this will get things rolling. Later today I may come back and look for more real people on the watchlist to add. BOZ (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh boy, it only took 500 hours to finish, but I went through the watchlist and populated the categories. Plus, I went through a few other lists and found some additional novelists and video game designers. I plan to mine a few categories for other artists and novelists, but that's a project for another day... zzz...  ;) Let's see, that's 149 people who have worked on D&D in some way, from a little to a lot, and this isn't even counting all the "non-notables" who don't have their own articles. :) BOZ (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Nice work, especially with the artists! That should make finding the right people quite a bit easier. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes; unfortunately that also makes them targets for notability tags and/or deletion (ala Dan Willis style, IYKWIMAITYD), but what else are we to do? :) BOZ (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
*sigh* You have a point. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The categories are the main method by which that happened in the first place; work through one cat then move on to the next. Making it easy for readers to find makes it easy for everyone to find. But, not categorizing things just to avoid scrutiny is also doing a disservice, so we do what we must. *shrug* BOZ (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
That's what I thought happened. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoo, DONE! A whole lot of work for a little reward... I dug out maybe 10 more people among the artist and novelist categories, but I looked at hundreds of articles. Now I need a nap badly. :) BOZ (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, great work, regardless! Certainly, please do go take a nap. :) -Drilnoth (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Heh, no need, but I am tired. I did spend a few hours over the last couple of days going through, oh, pretty much every single article in Category:Fantasy writers, Category:Fantasy artists, and Category:Game artists. :P Chances are pretty good that if you worked on D&D stuff and have a WP article, you are now added to the D&D WikiProject. ;) BOZ (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Awesome! -Drilnoth (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Should we keep Frank Klepacki though? He was the composer on several early 90s D&D computer games, but this is a FA and that seems to be a very minor aspect of his life. Most of the others I picked out, I think would be worthy to keep in our project. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Ooooh... that's a tricky one. My initial feeling was that he might have too minor a relation to D&D to be part of the project, although his article should be categorized into a D&D cat. Now, that may sound strange from the person who tagged Eyestalk as being a part of the project, but let me explain my reasoning. Essentially, 1/7th of Eyestalk is about D&D. 2 sentences of Frank Klepacki concerns the topic, in a fairly long article. However, by contrast, Wil Wheaton is part of the project but has only 1 sentence related to D&D. Wheaton, however, is more widely known (to my knowledge) for his D&D contributions than Klepacki is, so I believe that it is certainly valid to keep Wheaton's article in the project BUT Klepacki isn't as widely known for D&D contributions.
This really boils down, in my opinion, to the article's being Featured. If the article, with such a minor relation to D&D, were included in the project, it would increase our # of FAs. Now, we also removed the Dice and Shared universe GAs from our project because they weren't really related to D&D, more to RPGs in general. Additionally, I think that they were removed, in part, because they were GAs, and it felt kind of "wrong" to have them counting towards the D&D GAs. If they had been Stub-, Start-, or C-Class, they probably would have been kept.
So, does that mean that higher-quality articles are less likely to be a part of the project? I don't think it should. Therefore, since Dice, Shared universe, and Frank Klepacki would all be included in the project if they were of lower quality, they should be included as higher-quality articles, too. That being said, I think that Dice might warrant Mid-importance and Shared universe Low-importance. Klepacki's article should probably be Low-importance, too... it doesn't feel right to assess a BLP as Bottom-importance, and that should be reserved for in-universe topics and things like... um... Eyestalk.
Does that seem pretty fair to you? It would increase our number of GAs and FAs, but it would still seem valid by assessing the articles as being of lower importance than articles like Planescape or Erik Mona. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that pretty well echoes what I was feeling. I certainly wouldn't put Klepacki at any higher than Low-importance for our project, and I wouldn't have added him (and the others) if I didn't feel there was a good reason to include them. I'm vaccilating (sp?) in my head between "Keep it, it's a valid topic" and "But an article of that high quality and a tangential relation really isn't "ours" to keep" :) BOZ (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay; so it's a plan. -Drilnoth (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A-Class coordination

Ping. :-) Kirill [pf] 21:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! That looks like a great start. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Eyestalk

LOL! BOZ (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh... not sure if it really should be a part of the project, but since it specifically mentions beholders and we have this nifty "Bottom-importance" cat, I thought I'd just stick it in there. :) -Drilnoth (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not hurting anything, let's say that. :) BOZ (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks for invite

Response: Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#WikiProject_Coordinators.27_working_group Ikip (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I've responded there. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Braid GA thanks

Thanks for both the copyedit and the passage to GA for Braid. One comment on the GA review, even if I combine the two images to one, that would still, from a non-free content standpoint, still be considered as two images; the only thing that would help would be placement and using the standard image placement tools instead of the slightly tricky {{imageframe}} template. The use of before/after images seems to be fine as long as there's discussion of the process in between (see Grim Fandango for example). When/if I take this to FA, there will be validation or not for this. --MASEM (t) 23:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay; I just thought I'd mention it. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of backlog

I am confused by your recent actions. I normally remove this template from the more inclusive parent categories and only leave it place on the subcategories that are specifically backlogged. I am not sure why it would be more useful to do it the way you have. Can you please explain? --BirgitteSB 06:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

My view is that some of the cats were pretty redundant... e.g., Category:Merge by month and Category:All articles to be merged, so I combined them together by having Category:Articles to be merged as the only one with {{backlog}}. Some of the cats (like the convert to SVG cats) only had a few files in them, so I just moved the backlog template to the general Category:Images that should be in SVG format, but most of the changes were just because it seems kind of silly to have both the by-month and all-in-one-list versions of virtually the same list in the backlog, since they're just different ways of sorting the backlogged articles. That also had the effect of making it look like there were a lot more backlogged articles than there actually are, which could discourage some users from trying to work through it.
As another example, the entire purpose of Category:User-created public domain images is so that they can be copied to Commons (at least, that's what I understand), so why not make it a subcat of the backlogged Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons? Category:All orphaned articles and the by-month categories listing the same thing are redundant to have on the list, so why not just use Category:Orphaned articles? In all cases, I was just compiling virtually identical problems together so that navigation would be easier and more standardized.
If you'd like some additional explanation, or have further questions/concerns, feel free to ask! -Drilnoth (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The merge categories are sort of messed up with onflicting template right now, so I will ignore that right now Although I don't have an issue with generally placing the tag on the parent category alone when ALL subcategories are backlogged. But I think SVG image subcategories should have backlog simply removed from the cat that only had a few images (Someone took care of a previously existing backlog!} I personally went through those a month or so ago and I am certain there was a backlog there. If the backlog is on the parent category for SVG images and some subcategories have only a few images, how will a person coming there from the backlog category know what is actually backloged. I am not sure about the purpose of the user created public images. But I don't have an issue with the orphan one so long as no one comes along and removes the listing because the link to cats that do not have the backlog tag on them again [4] [5]--BirgitteSB 18:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough with the SVG and other things like that where some subcats are backlogged and some aren't... I'll properly tag them again later today, if you'd like. Anyway, most of the changes I made were similar to what I did with the orphan page, so it shouldn't really be a problem. I plan to update the list later today to fix cat names and counts, although nothing should really be removed. -Drilnoth (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the only with more more than ~50 articles was Category:Convert to SVG and copy to Wikimedia Commons, so I've tagged that with {{backlog}} but left the others untagged as they don't contain enough items to really be a "backlog." I guess the graphics lab has been doing some good work! -Drilnoth (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes it looks like they have! Thank you for reexamining this.--BirgitteSB 04:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Welcome! Right now I'm working on Template:Backlog progress as a better way to track remaining backlogs than the current list. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The biggest problem with using that sort of graph is that all except two of large number categories are continually growing. I suspect over half of the dated categories are growing but I haven't paid as close attention to all of those. Compare to approximately a year ago I am trying to remember to take monthly snapshots of the list since the new automatic feature make historical views uninformative. There will not be any progress to show and you will run out of screen space.--BirgitteSB 22:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Ugg... good point. I'll userfy the template (in case I ever do want to use it) and request as speedy on the redirect. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A-Class discussion

Drilnoth - this is the message I'm leaving on talk pages of people who signed up: Hi, we're starting the discussion on A-Class here today, thanks for signing up! I hope you can present your views. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

GA review of Braid (video game)

Hi there. Please be a little more thorough in your GA reviews. Sentences such as "Blow also specifically avoided using a first- or third-person view for the game like these other title had done as, despite the fact that the time effects are better experienced from those perspectives, some of the puzzles in Braid would have been impossible or more difficult in any other perspective." are not indicative of Good Article quality (there are myriad problematic sentences in this article). Thanks, BuddingJournalist 17:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! Thanks. I'll be sure to keep an eye on prose in the future... sometimes your brain just reads things the way you think they should, not the way that they're actually written. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive

Hey Drilnoth. I've done 40 articles for the backlog drive, and I was hoping to check in with you, since I know you will be reviewing everything for the awards at the end of March. I was just hoping that you could check and see if everything is in order for me. I have three pending, but I expect they will be finished well before the end of this month. But if there is some sort of problem with one of my GANs or something, I'd hate to find out only 39 counted and then I was ineligible for the big Barnstar. I figure since there is still a little bit of time before it's over, you can let me know if there are any problems and I can try to address them or (if need be) review a few more articles. Please let me know. Thanks! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure! I'm not going to give all of the articles a detailed read or anything, but I'll be sure to let you know if there seems to be any problem with them. I'll let you know in a few days. Great work! -Drilnoth (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Did you get a chance to check it out? I certainly don't mean to rush you or anything, but since there's less than a week left in the drive, I'd just like to make sure I have the opportunity to do another quick emergency GAN review or two if there is a problem with any of my current ones. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm working on it here, although if you somehow fall one short because of a GAR or obvious problem (I don't think that's going to happen, though), I'll still give you the Superior award because you really, really tried. I'll try and go through the rest of yours today. –Drilnoth (T • C) 12:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds fine. Thanks, and I hope I've not been a nuisance! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Not at all; I'm sorry I didn't get to it sooner. –Drilnoth (T • C) 15:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fighters D&D 4.0.....

Are there any ranged feats that fighters do not have access to in 4.0? I looked really quickly (so may have missed something) and didn't see any feats that fighters would be precluded from taking that would inherently make them any worse ranged combatants than any other (including epic feats). What precludes a fighter who specializes in ranged combat from doing that as well as another class in 4.0? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.33.121 (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Because fighter powers aren't geared towards ranged combat... the vast majority of them are melee. You could take all ranged feats there are for a fighter, but he still wouldn't be a very good ranged warrior because of how few ranged attack powers he would have access to, whereas a ranger could take ranged attack powers to further improve his ability. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, AFigureOfBlue. You have new messages at Antikewl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hmm

I don't see any particular reason to get involved in this, but it may be interesting to watch all the same. BOZ (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh... good eye. -–Drilnoth (T • C) 00:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Contested rationales

My problem with those rationales was explicitly stated and nothing was done to make that statement no longer true. Your problem with my objection doesn't lie with my explanation but with your understanding of WP:NFCC. A generic explanation of why an image could be used in an article is not acceptable under any circumstances. The rationale must explain why this image is in this article, and mentioning the image and article by name is no where near enough. Since you removed the templates without modifying the rationales, even though you may have modified the summaries, I would have no problem considering you a vandal. You really should let the seven days run. Non-free content should always be treated with extreme prejudice and deleted for the slightest conflict with policy. Jay32183 (talk) 12:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoah there... WP:AGF. The only reason that I questioned you about it was because you didn't add any amount of additonal explanation when you added the templates a third time without additional clarification; your statement here helps me understand your reasons immensely. With that in mind, I'll go try to cleanup the rationales... it shouldn't be too hard, which is part of the reason why I questioned the speedy. -–Drilnoth (T • C) 13:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
How do they look now? -–Drilnoth (T • C) 14:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
They're good enough that they can no longer be considered for speedy deletion. The rationales are acceptable; the actual use may still be an issue needing review, and that I would take to FFD if necessary. Jay32183 (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay; thanks for taking the time to re-review them. –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Template categories

Following a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Cleanup #More info? user Chris Cunningham has suggested that you are already looking at this problem. To summarise: In order to make it easier for editors to find articles that they may be able to help with cleanup, I suggested putting a category in the cleanup tag, thus making it possible to automatically create lists of articles requiring cleanup by category. Any thoughts?--FimusTauri (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that discussion... I'll add something shortly. -–Drilnoth (T • C) 13:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

You wrote on my talk page that I requested a move asking me to make sure I did all of 3 things, but I did do all of them. Can you disprove me?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry; it is just a standard template message. The reason that the move was put into the "incomplete or controversial moves" section was because it wasn't an uncontroverisal move, not because the nomination was incomplete. You did everything right; it's just that more discussion (at Talk:Sesame#Requested move) is needed before the move is made. –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be marking "Opposition on talk page" on the WP:RM page. This is not necessary. The closing admin, or whoever closes, will always read the talk page to see whether there is opposition or support. The purpose of the page is simply to notify the proposal, not to discuss it. Normally any comments placed on the WP:RM page are moved to the talk page so that they are all in one location, for each proposed move. When it talks about noting opposition, it is only referring to the "incomplete" section, which is the only section it is appropriate to add brief notes in opposition. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think I can see what you were doing - moving items under discussion from "other" to "incomplete and contested" and marking them contested. Actually, items get moved to that section from the "uncontested" section if they are "contested" and only moved from the "other" section to there if they are "incomplete", never if they are contested. They are always assumed to be contested if they are in the "other" section, that is why they were put there. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I understand the purpose of the page, but the "Incomplete and contested proposals" section says that "With the exception of a brief description of the problem or objection to the move proposal, please do not discuss move proposals here. " I believed that that meant that, if there is any opposition to the proposal or if the proposal is incomplete, the WP:RM notification should be moved to that section so that it isn't mixed in with the other requests, although all further discussion should be on the article talk page. For example, with Mother's Day vs. Mothers Day, there is talk page opposition to the move so it shouldn't be moved at this time... all of the proposals in the main "Other proposals" section should have consensus or be uncontroversial. At least, that's my reading of it. Maybe a rewording is needed. –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah... thanks for the clarification. Then I guess that there are a number of requests in the "Other" section which should be in the "Uncontroversial" section, right? –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Occasionally. I look them over for formating and move them to either uncontroversial or incomplete as needed. There are one or two in "other" right now that are not at all controversial, but since a couple of editors have already indicated support for the move I have left them there, and they will be moved in due course. If there is no discussion, but they are just spelling errors, like capitalization, I just move them from other to "uncontroversial". There has been some discussion about renaming the sections to reduce the confusion, but the suggestion was withdrawn when it was not leading anywhere. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
With Mother's day, I actually wrote to the proponent that they might want to just withdraw the request, because it had no chance of success, considering that the spelling is clearly covered in the article itself. It isn't causing any harm, though, and is a very minor distraction, that will go away soon enough. The ones like that that I speedy close are the ones where at least ten or so editors feel compelled to waste talk page space opposing the move... 199.125.109.102 (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
By the way, there are, as it says, only a few regulars who hang out at WP:RM, so if you wish to make it a specialty, you are more than welcome. The most important aspect, of course, is to thoroughly familiarize yourself with naming conventions. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks; I'll take a look into them. –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
As with anything on Wikipedia, you can't really get it wrong ever - if you do someone will (eventually) correct the error. It is somewhat amusing that someone (probably me) tried to move ice skate to ice skates, and it failed because there was an objection to skates being plural, then on the basis of that someone else tried to move inline skates and roller skates to inline skate and roller skate, and those also failed... Such is the dyslectic nature of Wikipedia - it is harder to make a change than it is to keep something as is - in all three cases there was no consensus, so each stayed as they were, although there was somewhat stronger opposition in the latter cases, so ice skate may come up again. The newly minted admin, JPG-GR, who does a lot of the WP:RM stuff said that anytime there is no consensus it is just a matter of time before it comes up again. I think that by far the most hotly contested issue has been the renaming of Kiev to Kyiv, which comes up so many times that I just wish they would move it just so that it would stop being brought up again. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but then you'd have people requesting that it be moved back... :) –Drilnoth (T • C) 23:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well what I really meant is reach a consensus on moving it. I know that there will always be those who wish to move it, unless and until the Ukranian government changes its official English spelling of Kyiv. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

WYRX requested move to WMDM-FM

How is this "disputed", I am wondering. This page shows the call sign was changed today. There is nothing to dispute. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 6, 2009 @ 02:35

A dispute was brought up in the discussion at WP:RM about which name should be used, so it isn't uncontroversial. That said, I think that, given a few more days of discussion, the move should be doable; I just moved it because it was, at least slightly, disputed while in the "Uncontroversial moves" section. –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
A few days? Come on, we are talking about a simple move that should have been done 45 minutes ago. I have given you FCC documentation stating the fact that the call sign was changed today to WMDM-FM. So, I am curious as to the "dispute" in question. This is a non-issue and should be moved, ASAP. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 6, 2009 @ 02:45
Fair enough; my bad. I'll move the section back. –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I greatly appreciated that :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 6, 2009 @ 02:53
Welcome! –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

However, according to the link above, the change is to WMDM, not WMDM-FM and the change is on 3/4/09, not 3/5/09. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* Well then I just don't know what to do... an admin's already moved it, so it can be relisted if still disputed. –Drilnoth (T • C) 03:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Already done. I fixed up the article, but it is very unusual for us to make a change like that before the station itself changes their own website. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. I leave and comeback and the page has been moved. Let me lay down a little standard operating procedure for the anon user who thinks he knows it all. Pages are moved when the information comes in to the Federal Communications Commission, the official governing body of the radio and television stations in the United States of America....not the station's own website. I have been doing this on Wikipedia for 3 years (taught well too) and studied the FCC procedures for many more years than that. So, please don't say it is "very unusual for us to make a change like that before the station itself changes their own website" because it isn't....and there is no us. Each day there are changes made to the station's Wikipedia page LOOONG before the station's website makes the changes. If you want to play editor/admin, get a username and learn the rules. Until then please, leave it to us, the ones that know what they are doing. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 6, 2009 @ 06:03
...oh and Drilnoth, my apologizes for making your talk page the subject of my above fury. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 6, 2009 @ 06:05
I don't mind its location, but I would like to gently ask that you not say things like "Let me lay down a little standard operating procedure for the anon user who thinks he knows it all." and "If you want to play editor/admin, get a username and learn the rules. Until then please, leave it to us, the ones that know what they are doing.", since it seems a little WP:BITEy to treat anons who are making constructive contributions differently from any other registered user. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that was a little "bite-y" wasn't it? That is a perfect example of why you shouldn't edit when you are angry and have a migraine. Sorry. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 6, 2009 @ 21:15

What I was referring to is the policy of using common names, so for example if someone changes the name of a something, but everyone still calls it by the old name, then WP tends to keep using that more common name. I have no problem with keeping call signs up to date, and commend user Neutralhomer for your diligence. In this case, though, it appears that the change was to WMDM, not to WMDM-FM. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Final Fantasy (video game) GAN review

Hi, Final Fantasy (video game) is currently one of the longest-held articles for review, being on hold for a week, just FYI. Gary King (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yah, sorry about that. I read through the first half of it, and plan to finish today or tomorrow. Sorry about keeping you waiting! –Drilnoth (T • C) 18:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to act on your concerns about the plot section, but I guess I'm just not a good enough writer to figure out what needs to be done. Would you like to collaborate on fixing it? I can answer pretty much every question you might have about the plot of the game, if you can fix the writing. Anomie⚔ 02:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure; I can do that. It might be a few days until I get a chance, but I'll let you know (and as long as the article is still being improved, I'm not going to fail the GAN). Thanks for your interest! –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Nifty, thanks! Drop me a note on my talk page if you have any questions about the game; if you want, I can even put together a quick outline of the plot of the whole game, and I can get any literal dialog from the game that you might need. Anomie⚔ 03:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Excellent; thanks for being ready to help out. –Drilnoth (T • C) 03:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Congrats

Cookies!
Great work on getting Planescape: Torment to GA! — Levi van Tine (t – c) 10:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Now, on to FA! –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Drilnoth !

thanks for welcoming me and, of course, for moving my article. i am glad, i made my way to the english wikipedia... if any questions arise, i will contact you, sure. thanks again Dr. mullah (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. Just let me know about any questions you have and I'll do my best to answer. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the prompt rename of Laura Davis (disambiguation); I wasn't expecting it to be that quick!—Konsole4.2 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Just so you know, any autoconfirmed user can move pages using the tab at the top of the page, so you should also be able to move pages pretty soon. –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that link Drilnoth. I read it will remove the annoying CAPTCHAs and that's a good thing — I know I'm not a bot/script but a real person :) —Konsole4.2 (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's probably the best part about autoconfirmation (other than the ability to edit semi-protected pages); since I've been autoconfirmed I haven't had any CAPTCHAs to go through. –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm

You removed a todo template I'd added yesterday, with "m (Remove unused to-do list)".

There's nothing inherently wrong in removing them of course; nor am I overly bothered about it. The template page even says as much, that unused ones "may be removed by any editor without warning". In this case though, I'd only added it < 21hrs ago; editors mightn't have had a chance to use it or since been onsite?

It was one I'd added, while clearing up, having seen talkpage contributors added new sections for todo items within the last 2 weeks. (There was arguably a need for someone from the ga-project area to do little mess cleanup there—following well-intentioned participants having caused some of it.) I held off at the time from adding starter items, so editors actively editing the article could do so.

Anyhow, as I say not overly bothered; I haven't reversed it or anything; it just seemed a bit fast to me. :-/
No need to reply. I'll see it here if you do tho – please don't worry about placing a {{talkback}}. Take care, –Whitehorse1 18:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC).

Oops! My bad. Feel free to re-add it... I'm just trying to go through and remove all of the unused to-do templates, since they clutter up the talk page if they don't have content. I'll keep more of an eye on when it was last added. –Drilnoth (T • C) 23:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Your goal makes good sense yeah. Thanks for re-adding btw. Whitehorse1 19:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. As I said, my bad. I'll keep an eye out for that in the future. –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, AFigureOfBlue. You have new messages at Andriyko's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

{{Trackback:Andriyko}}

Thanks!

Wow, my first barnstar! Thanks, Drilnoth! — Levi van Tine (t – c) 05:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome... it was well-earned. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

FurMe

Thanks for the tip, I'll give it a try! – ukexpat (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Dashes

Sorry about that edit on Dungeons & Dragons; Formatter doesn't currently follow the MOS in that regard... I'll need to put in a request. –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that might have been Advisor, not Formatter. I'll hold off on making those edits for now, though, regardless. –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
No worries, mate. I just like to make sure those FA'd articles stay "up to snuff" by doing the occasional cleanup pass. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Check it out

Brand new. Wikipedia:Articles for merge BOZ (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for pointing that out. –Drilnoth (T • C) 22:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Forgotten Realms characters

Hi,

I have been wondering for a while when I'd met the "style police" (no offence intended).

In relation to that article I look up WP:MOSHEAD as you pointed it out but didn't find an explicit prohibition to use H1.

Furthermore for this article (or rather list) the benefit of the change was quite obvious in term of readability. As guidelines are merely advisory, I assumed making an exception would be good in this case.

Anyway I'm done reading now. I'd love to see it improved though.

Ghaag (talk) 03:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't worry too much about some aspects of the MOS (endash v. emdash, anyone?) except where it really matters... and I really keep an eye on section headings, having fixed hundreds via WP:CHECKWIKI. I understand your point on readability, but don't think that this is a good situation to make such an exception. However, I do have a different proposal which could solve the problem: The list is getting pretty long as-is, and it might be time to split it into 2 separate pages (per WP:NCLL) and, once they are split, the letter headers could just be removed altogether... instead of having an "A" and then "Abillaster Bonaduce" (I think that's how its spelled), we just go straight to the characters. I'll put this on my to-do list and hopefully fix it by the weekend. (The main reason for the single-letter headings was to collapse the TOC, anyway, and a split will make the TOC a lot shorter).
(also, just as an aside, I was referring to the portion of WP:MOSHEAD which says "primary headings are then ==H2==,") –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I am quite curious to see how your plan is gonna pan out. It sounded good but went way over my head.
Cheers,
Ghaag (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Heh... okay. Sometimes I have trouble articulating myself in talk page conversation. :) Anyway, I'll split the article probably within the next three days and I'll let you know when I'm done so that you can take a look. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Drizzt Do'Urden's swords

Speaking of Drizzt's swords... ;) Since that AFD was a merge, should we not have something about them in the article? BOZ (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there already? If not, a few sentences (not much though!) would probably be good. –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Nah, I think we had trimmed that out at some point as part of cutting the in-universe stuff. BOZ (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay then; I'll add something soon (as in, one of these next few days). –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Greetings . . Tim Kask bio

Howdy. I've been asked to put Tim's bio up here by Tim Kask. I see the info message and your edit, so I thought to ask if there is something wrong with the entry so far. I've read the bio/info links and they seem generic, so I can't tell if I'm missing something on the Kask entry.

Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Rhuvein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhuvein (talk • contribs) 21:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I see. I think that the article has a few problems right now: first, the lack of reliable sources to be used as references... Wikipedia's content should be verifiable, so sources are essential, especially for a biography of a living person. Regardless of whether or not the person that the article is about approves of the content or affirms that it is true, sources are needed so that the general public can see where the article's information is coming from.
Secondly, the article doesn't read very smoothly... having things like "Married wife, Cheryl, in 1970, still married." could be phrased better in any article, but especially if the sentence is also its own paragraph. You might want to have a look at Wikipedia's Manual of Style (pretty lengthy; just look at the parts about prose) and Wikipedia's guidelines on copyediting.
Finally, I'd also like to mention that if you are Tim Kask or have a close relationship or friendship with him, you may have a conflict of interest when editing the article. If you know Kask, please look at Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest and be sure that you understand them.
Anyway, thanks for your help! I hope that you continue to contribute to Wikipedia for a long time to come. –Drilnoth (T • C) 22:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


Thanks. I hope to continue to learn more and contribute. I'm not Tim Kask but a casual friend who has met and gamed with him at CONs. Yes, his bio was a more like a list of stuff and I was able to convert some of it to a more "wiki" like presentation. I'm a moderator on the Dragonsfoot.com forum where I originally "met" Tim Kask and the fellows mentioned below.

I don't believe there is any conflict of interest, only a mutual desire for truth and accuracy. The original entry had a major error which I removed.

Incidentally, I've looked at the bios of Frank Mentzer, Jim Ward, Gary Gygax and Mike Carr among other ex TSR folks and I don't see much more in the way of sources and citations to support the wiki entry, but I'll look again and see how I can improve Kask's entry.

Regards,

Rhuvein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhuvein (talk • contribs) 17:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay; I just wanted to make sure about the conflict of interest, since you said he'd asked you to work on it. The Frank Mentzer, Jim Ward (game designer), and Mike Carr (game designer) entries have similar problems to the current one for Tim Kask, in that they need more references, expansion, and some rewriting... there just aren't cleanup banners on them yet. I'm not quite sure how you see Gary Gygax as having similar problems... I think that it is very well referenced and written, but I agree that the others need improvement, too. –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Yep, those bios all need work as well, especially because of those designers' importance to the game's development. In time, I'm sure they'll all be looking pretty good. BOZ (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully, but Arneson comes first. :) –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies.

Re: Gary's entry. Sorry I should qualify my statement there. He has many "citations" etc. but I noted some were simple references to Gamespy articles, which to me seem the least substantiated type of accurate reference. But that's just my opinion, I'll certainly defer to you guys with much more experience.

One thing I've also noted, is that - there do not seem to be any good sources to support the ex TSR people's entries? No books, magazine articles or other references are available, to my knowledge or I would gladly use them.

Again, thanks.

I will continue to pursue some other avenues of accurate information on this.

Is there a deadline for the Tim Kask wiki entry with regard to adding more citations and sources before removal? The blurbs seem very threatening and over the top for Tim's entry IMO.

Best regards,

Rhu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhuvein (talk • contribs) 02:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry... it generally takes a few years before there would be much of any chance of deletion because of the banners at the top of the page... generally, they don't make it any more likely that the page will be deleted, except for {{notability}} (which is not currently on the article). Rather, they're there to just alert readers and other Wikipedians to the issue so that readers know that the article has problems and so that Wikipedians can easily find and fix them. If content is simply removed because of poor sourcing, without the entire article being deleted, it can still be accessed in the page's "history" so that it can be restored if a good reference is found. –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Forgotten Realms characters

Oy! I get what you're trying to do, but the page looks pretty funky now... The lines cut through the TOC, which is probably the worst part. Do you know if there's a way to cut that out? BOZ (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

They do? That's interesting. I can't see it on my computer. They go right up to the TOC and stop. I've got an idea... just give me a sec. –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
How's that? –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that works; it's less intrusive, and more useful than the one that was there before you started tinkering with it. :) BOZ (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay; it's still not best, but you can't currently limit the collapsed TOC to level 2 headings. :( –Drilnoth (T • C) 22:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

AssessorTags

Thanks for creating the script this will be quite the help. I've tried several times to add it to my monobook, but can't get it to work. I tried a couple of times with different pieces and purged my cache each time. I must be missing some piece somewhere, so I was wondering if you could add it for me. In addition, I was wondering for the Film banner if it is possible to add parameters such as "|needs-image=yes" or "|needs-infobox=yes". We're planning on starting a tag & assess drive at some point and this would be very helpful if we could add those parameters. Let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting... a couple of things that you can try:
1. Make sure that you have the right text: importScript('User:Drilnoth/assessortags.js');, including the semicolon at the end.
2. After purging your cache, be sure to look at a talk page (any namespace). I coded the "wikiprojects" tab to only appear on talk pages, so if you don't check one you won't see any difference.
Also, I apologize for the small number of currently supported WikiProjects... I plan to add more quite quickly, and plan to focus on the major projects first.
Regarding the "cleanup" parameters, they can certainly be added. The only problem I could see is that, at this time, I am unable to program the script to allow for more than two task forces simultaneously, and the cleanup params would use the same mechanism as the task force additions. That said, I can add them in but you just couldn't also add a task force in the same edit. I'm sure that it is possible to code for this; I'm just still fairly new to JavaScript so don't quite know how to do it. –Drilnoth (T • C) 02:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't see that it was supposed to appear on the talk page, I thought it was on the main article page. I gave it a try and it works. This is kind of like the script that User:Outriggr came up with a year or so back before he had it deleted due to his opposition of article assessment. I'm glad that a new script has arrived since it makes my job so much easier. Whenever you figure out how to add the parameters, let me know. I understand the need to focus on other projects first, so take your time. I'd like to guide other editors to use the script when we start our drive. Thanks again! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Great! I'll try to clarify that in the script's documentation. –Drilnoth (T • C) 11:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I did just implement functionality for "cleanup" parameters today. I haven't gotten to add the code for them into the script itself, but I know that it is possible and I hope to add them later today (working on that also made the script better in other ways... you can now choose any number of task forces!) –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Bluck

Boston (talk) has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Pieces of fried chicken promote WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of fried chicken by adding {{subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Boston (talk) 08:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I can only assume that this is for the user script? –Drilnoth (T • C) 11:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

AssessorTags not working

Thanks! I am, however, having trouble making it work. Does the script work in IE6? I can't check other browsers at the moment, but the new tab does not show up at all in IE6.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:22, March 19, 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to guess that it doesn't work in IE6; I haven't tried it in any version of Internet Explorer, but the script is based off of the same library as WP:FRIENDLY and WP:TWINKLE which also have some number of problems with IE, if they work at all. I'd recommend a different browser whenever you can get one (I'm using Firefox 3). Otherwise, you could try going to Special:Preferences, over to the "Gadgets" tab, and selecting the very last option, "The JavaScript Standard Library...". I haven't personally tried this out (no reason to), but theoretically it might be able to make IE compatible with the script.
Also, just to confirm, you are looking at talk pages, right? The tab only appears at the top of talk pages, not mainspace pages and the like. –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, rats! Damn IE6. Unfortunately, this antique is what I am stuck with at work, but I'll try other browsers when I get back home. I tried checking "the JavaScript Standard Library" option, but it did not affect IE6 in any way—still no tab (and yes, I am looking at talk pages). At any rate, thanks for your prompt response!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:43, March 19, 2009 (UTC)
Just to make sure: Did you purge your cache after checking the the box in Preferences? That might make a difference. –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Yup, did that too. Obviously not my day today :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:55, March 19, 2009 (UTC)
Ah, well. Maybe some other time. –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, today Wikipedia has been slow, and sometimes it doesn't purge the cache when you tell it to. I've had to purge the cache, then wait a while, and then purge it again, to see the changes in my monobook.js. Could be related. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting... maybe something to do with the new Abuse Filter's being activated? –Drilnoth (T • C) 00:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AFigureOfBlue/Archive_2&oldid=1093512589"