User talk:Czar/2016 Jan–Apr

This page is a selective, manual archive of my talk page. I saved non-notifications that someone may want to access in the future. To find something I haven't archived, try an external search.

FLYING TIGERS: SHADOWS OVER CHINA

Would you consider creating an article on historical game FLYING TIGERS: SHADOWS OVER CHINA? Game on Steam now, just search "FLYING". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.144.210.50 (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2016‎ (UTC)

The game doesn't have enough coverage for its own article. Check back when it has four reviews from these vetted publishers. czar 18:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, will return on this topic once there are an appropriate number of sources. Thank you. LarDeSon

Is this ready to be mainspaced?

Hi, could you please take a look at my "draft" for SimplePlanes? It's located at User:Anarchyte/simpleplanes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchyte (talk • contribs) 11:25, 3 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Hey @Anarchyte, nice work, but I don't think it's ready yet. While it's good that all claims are sourced, it should have more review coverage. (I'd shoot for a three as an absolute minimum.) The lack of coverage for this year-old game would indicate that it's not particularly notable... Also is there really no better source to replace that Steam ref? The article might be best off repurposed into one about the dev (Jundroo), wherein all of their games can be discussed (each with their one review apiece). And I'd recommend tagging the article with {{AFC submission}} and sending it through that AFC peer review process when the time comes. czar 16:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response czar. So if I add another review (I found one I might be able to use) and if I add another reference for the steam greenlight, it'd be fine? I didn't want it to go through AFC because that can take months and I'd rather get 1 person who knows a lot about WP:VG to take a look. Anarchyte 00:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, would this be usable? [1] It mentions the popularity on Steam. Anarchyte 01:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Anarchyte, you'll want to use sources with a reputation for accuracy (reliable sources). WPVG keeps a list of generally good sources at WP:VG/RS and you can use the custom Google search to search them all at once. So Android Police and One Angry Gamer/Blog Job would not be reliable for statements of fact. GameZebo, 148apps, and Hardcore Gamer reviews are all right together, but they're smaller sites and, overall, a weaker case for a dedicated article. (The case would be stronger if the article was for the developer with a section on each game because then the sources for the other games would us more cause for an article that covers them all.) Perhaps try the dev's website as a primary source for basic statements like the Greenlight stuff. By the way, AfC doesn't take that long. Most submissions I've watched recently were addressed in hours or, at most, a few days. czar 03:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I added a primary source from the Jundroo blog for the greenlight thing and I added 2 more reviews (not counting the Hardcore Gamer one you supplied), one of which being written in Dutch. I think it covers the notability guidelines now and at the worst would require a refimprove tag. I could possibly make an article for SimpleRockets but it seems too difficult to find sources for SimplePhysics. As for the company (Jundroo LLC) all the results when I google "Jundroo" come up are for SimplePlanes and SimpleRockets. Anarchyte 08:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The idea is that the Jundroo article would be justified by the coverage of its games (Rockets, Physics, Planes) that might not stand as articles on their own. czar 08:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets

Hello Czar! Happy new year! Please histmerge Draft:Valerian (film) into Valérian and the City of a Thousand Planets — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too! This was a messy histmerge—it's generally not worth touching a split history like this one, but none of the page's previous edits appeared to be used in the new version so it was clean enough in the end after some fancy footwork. Happy editing, czar 02:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for helping again. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you help me with this move?

The page "ESports" exists but I need to move "Esports" there in order to use {{lowercase title}} to make it say "eSports". This request comes as the result of this discussion, which was closed with the result being "rename page". Anarchyte 11:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ all good czar 03:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Giubbotto non ortodosso

Can you please block the user indefinitely, because same editing as abusing multiple IPs from Italy, including Special:Contributions/82.51.122.43 and Special:Contributions/82.53.179.230 which has been previously blocked. 123.136.106.179 (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi @123.136.106.179 (do you receive ping notifications?) Those IP addresses have been inactive for over a day and are unlikely to be used again based on their contributions, so a block wouldn't be very effective. I would recommend opening a sockpuppet investigation if you believe you have evidence that an editor is abusing multiple accounts. czar 00:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

MOTHER 3

Now I don't really want to be rude but I feel like you have a little bit too tight grip on MOTHER 3, it feels like you are not really improving on bad edits and are just reverting it. I feel like you are really discouraging people to improve on the article.--Mpo9 (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mpo9, if there's an edit that you think needs discussion, the standard practice is to bring it to discussion on the article's talk page. I don't think anything out of the ordinary is happening on Mother 3—the article is quite complete as written. czar 19:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Page Curation

As one of the major proponents of getting the new New Page Patrol system developed and rolled out, I still have Oliver's talk page on my wl. I do not believe he is still the community/WMF go-between for this project, but he may have retained some of his enthusiasm for it. That said, your comment here is identical to part of a paper I have proposed to deliver at Wikimania this year. I'm still waiting to see if the proposal has been accepted. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung, nice. Is the proposal or the pitch online somewhere? czar 10:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

No. They are not published until they are accepted. Then an abstract is published. If it's not accepted, or if I don't get help to go to Italy, I'll drop it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung, all right, but please do drop a line if you do end up posting it, as I'd be interested czar 17:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Building Up School Zone

Hello, I am under the impression that the Draft:School Zone Interactive article is currently in the melting point as it is. My research tells me more about the "School Zone" organisation than the actual software division. I believe it might convenient to merge and what I have written with a new article on "School Zone Publishing Company" itself. Writing an article about a company is very new to me, so if you can contribute or find other suited wikipedians for the article, it would be of great help. In the mean time I will dig up as much information about the Software division as I can. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Deltasim (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Deltasim, WT:VG can help with digging up video game-specific sources, but otherwise you're likely best off with databases such as HighBeam that index old newspapers and magazines. WP:TWL has more info on editors with access to different databases, but anyone with access to a university library will have online access too. This doesn't mean that there will be enough stuff to write an article about the company, but you can try. In any event, it's better to keep the article in draftspace until it has enough sources to be ready for primetime. czar 17:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I have worked on the article for over a month. There is plenty of information and references around the internet, especially at http://connection.ebscohost.com/tag/SCHOOL%2BZone%2BPublishing%2BCo. The main problem is compiling the information together in a manner that establishes the importance and notability of the company. So far I've got points of the company's history and tables of their products with awards. Much more work will need to be done. If there are particular topics I should put in, I'm welcome to any suggestions you can give. Deltasim (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The Snowman (2017 film)

Hello czar! Will you please move or merge Draft:The Snowman (film) → The Snowman (2017 film) ? — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 14:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

✓ done czar 16:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Reply

From User talk:Okeyes (WMF)#Page curation: Kaldari's your best bet, I think. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

ZMR page redirected back to En Masse Entertainment page

Hi Czar. I'm not sure this is the right place to ask this, but I noticed that the page I created for the ZMR online game had been removed and now redirects back to the En Masse Entertainment page. I was not informed of this directly and given no time to rectify any issues before it happened, so I'm unsure what the problem was so I can try to rectify it, nor whether if I do try to create a better version of the page if it will simply get deleted automatically again. I assume it was removed because of length and relevance. I had done this page in a hurry and had planned to return to it and improve it, but now with it gone with no comment or warning, I'm unsure of the best way to move forward. Thanks for any help or direction you can provide. Baraqorn (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Baraqorn, not deleted, but redirected. I restored it to Draft:ZMR if you want to work on it there. Remember that dedicated articles require significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Otherwise they're best covered in their parent article (in this case, En Masse Entertainment). I noticed that you've added references from unreliable blogs in the past, so I would encourage you to look through the vetted list of sources at WP:VG/RS and try the accompanying video game reliable sources custom Google search. And do you have any affiliation with En Masse? If so, our policy is to disclose the potential conflict of interest on the related talk pages. czar 08:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help. I will work on improving the draft. I am affiliated with En Masse, so will make sure to tag the talk page with that information. Is there a template for doing that? Baraqorn (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Baraqorn, usually editors leave a talk page message detailing the nature of their conflict of interest (COI) connection as well as their familiarity with the WP:COI guidelines. And it's good to add {{Connected contributor}} atop the talk page too. czar 05:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Aardwolf MUD

Hello, Czar. Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:A-Class indie game articles

Should this category be deleted? You created it in 2014 but the project doesn't use A-class anymore. CSD doesn't apply to project categories so I thought it'd be quicker to just ask you to delete it rather than CFDing it. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@The1337gamer, indeed. Done. czar 15:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Berenstain Bears (Atari 2600 game)

I am wondering why Draft:Berenstain Bears (Atari 2600 game) was moved to draft-class. The entry was fairly detailed for a new article (better than most stub-class entries, for sure) and included references in every section. This is a very rare and valuable game - as well as one with historical import. Please advise. Darb02 (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Darb02, it's in the edit summary—there aren't enough sources and it would need more in order to pass an AfC (new article) review. Dedicated articles require significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) A place to start would be a video game reliable sources custom Google search and then any print magazine coverage. MobyGames usually lists a few leads for print reviews, but even that came up dry. In any event, it's best to merge and expand from a parent topic rather than leaving the page to linger with a single secondary source (though AtariAge may not be reliable itself). czar 16:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Czar The references have been significantly improved and expanded. There are now seven different references, all from published books or magazine articles, and no debatable online or wiki sources. I would like for you to take a second look. This is clearly well-sourced start-class article and it will continue to be expanded and further researched. Thank you for reviewing. Darb02 (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Darb02, I'd like to take a look, if you're able to share even temporary access to the sources. Article is still very much stub-class though, and it's unclear what kind of coverage the game has in those sources. (It could be a five-page spread or, more likely, a brief mention.) czar 02:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Since you participated in the Sedna discussion

Minor planet 90377 Sedna > Sedna (minor planet) discussion taking place at Talk:90377_Sedna#Odd_name. Please join in if it catches your fancy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Ultima Online: Time of Legends

I would like to know why you moved the Ultima Online: Time of Legends article to a draft page and deleted the original article. You say it has no sources, but a source was added. The information contained in the article is similar to all the Ultima Online expansion articles (for example Ultima Online: Mondain's Legacy). - JC the Builder (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

User_talk:JC_the_Builder#Ultima_Online:_Time_of_Legends czar 21:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Uniana sources in Korean

Hi CZAR, Have you tried Google search for Uniana's name in Korean? I even found reliable images unexpectedly. Just copy paste 유니아나 not just Google but other useful search engines, too. Parrothead1983 (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Parrothead1983, did you find anything in specific, like articles about the company itself? czar 18:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps these look like plenty. One of them dates back to last June.

http://m.saramin.co.kr/job-search/company-info?com_idx=14076&cn=job-search&cns=view

http://www.etnews.com/20150622000093?m=1

Parrothead1983 (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with these sources—do they have a reputation for editorial quality? The first appears to be some sort of listing and the translation isn't very helpful on the second, but in both cases it is hard for me to discern what kind of editorial standards they have in place. (I did a quick search for their outlets on kowp and didn't find anything helpful.) czar 16:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Citations

This is going back a few months, but I noticed you removed two sources I added to NHL 95 stating "unclear citations". Just wanted to know what the problem was so that I can avoid this in the future.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

(diff) @Martin IIIa, the "unclear" citations were the ones with the {{citation needed}} tags. Some of the GamePro material could be restored if it can be reconstructed with supporting text (e.g., it's not useful to know how one small feature works if we don't have an idea of how the general gameplay or series works). I'd avoid the video game trivia stuff like the score bug. Otherwise, I was just going for general cleanup, so feel free to restore the stuff you can cite (I know you're pretty good at that) czar 04:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! I'll leave restoring the gameplay info to someone else, as I haven't actually played NHL 95; even if I were to get all the right sources it would be hard to write about the gameplay without knowing the context for it all. But this is good stuff for me to keep in mind.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Ask a question

In the article Monument Valley (video game) i have a small question that i want to ask you,thanks. Are there more information about the "sacred geometry" which seems important to the game?thanks again.--Suebear Gaua (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Monument Valley (video game) § Sacred geometry

Edit-a-thon in Madison

inline

inline

Hey Czar—I saw that you were listed as a Wikipedian in Madison. You are invited to the upcoming edit-a-thon:

ART+FEMINISM EDIT-A-THON

• Saturday, March 5th, 9:30 a.m. – noon
• Madison Public Library (Madison, Wisconsin)
• Bring a laptop! There will be snacks and daycare

RSVP on the event page if you plan to attend or have any suggestions. And if you want to be automatically contacted for future Madison-area events, be sure to add your name to the invite list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I see that you have created a resource page at User:Czar/♀. I have another source of names for you: The story of Wisconsin women by Kohler, Ruth Miriam De Young .1948 Wisconsin Centennial Committee on Wisconsin Women. The Madison public library has three copies of it (one on their shelves) at 977.5 K82. Here is a linkCat link. If that link does not work, then just search for Ruth Kohler from the LinkCat home page. I am planning on attending on the fifth. Nyth63 00:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nyth83, nice find! I'll take a look. I just requested a copy and there should be others around at MPL too. Looking forward to meeting you! czar 00:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is another good list: The First 150. I see that you have a Ruth Kohler on your list. I assume that you are referring to Ruth Miriam DeYoung Kohler. I have already started a page for here at User:Nyth83/Ruth DeYoung Kohler. I plan on fleshing that out and publishing it during the editathon. I have also started a page for User:Nyth83/Julilly Waller Kohler that I would like to finish. I have previously published bios for Marie Christine Kohler, Marie Kohler and Julilly House Kohler. I have my own resource page at Talk:Kohler family of Wisconsin with at least nine women connected to the Kohler family that I believe are notable enough to deserve wikipedia bios. I am looking forward to meeting you also. Nyth63 00:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Mrschimpf/Userboxes

Errr, I don't know who added a delete tag to this but I assure you it wasn't me who did so. Please restore my template and let me know who did. Nate • (chatter) 03:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, just noticed it was the talkpage, which is fine. Nate • (chatter) 03:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

She Has a Name (film)

Will you please move Draft:She Has a Name (film) → She Has a Name (film) ? — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ done czar 04:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Fifty Shades Darker (film)

Hello czar! I need you to move or HISTMERGE of Draft:Fifty Shades Darker (film) → Fifty Shades Darker (film) — And please keep the draft's content/data, which is better than article's. Production hasn't begun yet but it's confirmed by several sources for February 9 start. Filming start date is just a week ahead, so everyone will attempt to create article, and I think it's better to move the draft now. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 15:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 19:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Please stop making histmerges between two pages that have parallel histories. When you do this it makes the histories a nonsensical mess. Either delete fully and move over the top or text-merge. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jenks24, this article did not have parallel histories. CA's draft predated the article created in mainspace so it was a clean disjoint—the only edit that had to be deleted was the redirect. Parallel histories implies that two different versions of the article were developed in parallel (such that a merge would mean that multiple consecutive diffs would make no sense)—I do not histmerge in those cases. czar 04:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is not correct. They did have parallel histories because the edits by Josephlalrinhlua786 to the page in mainspace were made before further edits by Captain Assassin! to the draft. The effect of merging these two completely distinct pages that have never had the same timeline means that you make diffs that never happened, e.g. in this case implying that Josephlalrinhlua786 completely rewrote a 10k article down to 6k – this is obviously not what happened. Histmerging is about fixing pages that were cut-and-paste moved and have the same origin, not pages about the same topic that were developed completely separately. One timeline or the other needs to be picked but not both. Please have a read over Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves#A troublesome case and Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves#Parallel versions. Some particularly relevant parts are If the two pages have separate origins and simultaneous separate parallel histories [...] they should not be history-merged, as that would shuffle the parallel editing histories together in one list and make a mess. and If someone then page-history merges pages A and B using the method described above, the result will sequence the versions of A and B strictly by time, with the result that various versions of A will be interleaved between versions in the page history of page B (and/or vice-versa). Inspecting this merged history without means of distinguishing between the two overlapping progressions (since nothing in this history indicates which version belongs to which sequence) invites severe confusion. An example of this is here (sorry, I had to go looking for one because I've fixed Fifty Shades Darker (film)) – that diff never happened and it is a misrepresentation of the history to make it appear that it did. I'm sorry to be a pain about this, but fiddling with pages histories is one the of the most damaging things an admin can do if done incorrectly. Jenks24 (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with the guideline so there's no need to be condescending about it. The section immediately preceding "Parallel histories" (the one that is the subject of the shortcut) defines the situation as when a histmerge would make swiss cheese of the revisions (like the WikiProject Emo examples where five different pages would be merged in). The section explicitly says to only merge when the pages are disjoint (i.e., not overlapping), which is fine when the histories are discontinuous. I don't know what you mean by "that diff never happened" but the Fifty Shades histmerge happened exactly as I described above: the draft had edits from 2015-02 to 2016-01, and the new article sitting at the target had edits from 2016-02, and the only overlap in their histories—which is to say the only edit preventing the clean disjoint—was the redirect edit sitting at the target. I'll call these the Captain Assassin (CA) draft and the Joseph edits for clarity. When I deleted that sole redirect edit, the two histories had a clean disjoint. This would let editors draw from both texts in future revisions (I know you don't like this—I'll return to that). Then you deleted the Joseph edits because CA continued what was once the draft now that the two were merged. Ostensibly this is because you don't like having two diffs in the article that do not appear continuous with the rest, which is not to say that they were parallel histories, but it's as if someone started a new version of the article atop where the old one stood, which happens all the time. The part that you missed by deleting the new (Joseph) content from the article is that CA's post-histmerge expansion uses the text from the Joseph edits you deleted, so it actually creates an attribution problem (compare on "no solid plans to make a sequel"). One way of handling this, ostensibly, would be to move the Joseph edits to another page and selectively merging from that (marking attribution, etc.) but that bring me to my main point: Are you implying that CA's draft should have been moved over the article that assumed that the draft didn't exist? Let's say CA didn't catch the new article as fast and it developed a bit, would you say that it's best to selectively merge in from what was once the draft so as to keep the history "continuous"? The histmerge I performed is what I consider the equivalent of a rewrite, and I see it all the time through normal editing—a new editor completely wipes out a page and dumps a new draft as if the previous history does not exist. I think we might agree that the previous history can be useful in these cases, but it isn't necessarily relevant (especially if the dumped draft does not use any elements from its predecessor). Either way, such a dump works the same way as the texts merged at a disjoint—it has a single edit that jumps to a new version of the article, but it isn't a "parallel history" because it does not make swiss cheese of the edit history (and to be precise, I mean merged edits that successively jump between different states of the article instead of serving as a clean disjoint, which I am contending is perfectly fine, normal, and preferable to segregating the alternative page history somewhere else, especially when that history is then re-used in the combined article). czar 12:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for the tone in my previous comment here. It was rude and just made it harder for us to come to any sort of agreement. Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to make a full response to the actual meat of the issue, but I thought it was important I apologise for coming off as condescending as soon as possible. I will hopefully be able to make make a detailed response in the next day. Jenks24 (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Not sure if u remember but there was quite a while ago a discussuion on the talk page to Meridian 59 if a current open source group (called "The Open Meridian Project") should be mentioned in the article. I also requested some comments on the portals page which I am not able to find right now and I think to remember that you were one of the people who commented back then. As far I remember it was said, that as long as this group is not mentioned by a reliable source it should not be mentioned in the article of the game. Now there is one article on MMORPG.com which is mentioning this group (as far I know the only article which mentions them by name) [2]. I know that according to this list Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources MMORPG.com is currently considered as an unrealiable source and if I look at this disussion [3] I doubt that this will change for now. But I still would like to ask you for your opinion on this. Kind regards Seader (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Seader, I don't recall having discussed this before, but what you described sounds right—we only mention such tangential side projects when they are covered in some depth by a reliable, secondary source, which would affirm the concept's importance by virtue of its existence. In this case, MMORPG.com would not count as a reliable source and I didn't see anything by the name of OMP in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. czar 01:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok thx for the quick answer. Kind regards Seader (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Ghost in the Shell (2017 film)

Hello czar! Thanks for previous help, and please do me another favor. Please move or HISTMERGE Draft:Ghost in the Shell (2017 film) → Ghost in the Shell (2017 film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 04:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Publisher field for citeweb

Hey there! Why do you consider the publisher field for citewebs "redundant"? Was there some sort of consensus that it wasn't needed for thoroughness? I'm asking because if I can justify leaving it out in the future, I'll be more than happy. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

They've never been needed—I used to defend both fields for thoroughness, but the publishers change over time so it's sometimes not right or just downright unimportant when each publication has its own wikilink. The links should make the affiliated publisher, if important, sufficiently clear. Not sure if there has been a formal consensus somewhere—it's just a perennial suggestion at vg FACs, but the only obligation is that articles be consistent. czar 00:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah

I meant to comment previously, but I've been very busy with off-wiki work recently and it keeps going by the wayside. I really liked your thoughtful answers to the interview questions. In particular I was intrigued by your answer to Question #11 where you said "I'd love to work on an off-site reference supplement to the project where we could compile primary sources for stuff like obscure reviews and release dates—things outside Wikipedia's scope but still worthwhile for the medium's historic preservation." This is a very cool idea and if you ever get involved in something like this, please give me a ping. I'd be interested in the exact same thing. -Thibbs (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge Rinoa

Could you do the honors? You seem more familiar with what might be valuable to merge, I just want to do a GA nomination :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Since the character list is featured, it might be best from someone in WPSE to do the merge, though I can help with the summarizing, of course. I opened a thread at Talk:Characters_of_Final_Fantasy_VIII#Proposed_merge_with_Rinoa_Heartilly czar 20:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Pro gaming template

Can I get the Template:Pro gaming achievements undefeated, I was unaware that it was up,for AFD. I'll try to integrate it into some other articles so it isn't unused lie it was.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Prisencolin, here's what I recommend: I reopened the deletion request since it just closed—you should give your input for why it shouldn't be deleted. Apart from the template's underuse, there's also the argument that a regular wikitable performs the same function. Anyway, TfD is the place to work it out. czar 21:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

I have no idea what happened there, but it was definitely an accident. — Earwig ^talk 01:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Brianna Hildebrand

Hello czar! How about moving Draft:Brianna Hildebrand to the mainspace as filming releases on Feb 12 (this weekend)? Actress has gotten so much coverage on the internet in the past few months, so it would be no harm to move it now. Thoughts? --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 18:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, the coverage still looks weak to me but I don't know the source reliability well enough to find additional refs. Most of what I could find pertains more to Deadpool than to the actress in specific. I can move the article into mainspace but it is liable for an AfD challenge. Alternatively you can let it go through AfC review (it's already submitted) and see what one of the reviewers say. czar 02:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Moving a draft to the mainspace

Hey czar! Just wanted to see if you could move a draft for me in a few days. The draft, Draft:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 needs to move to the mainspace at Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 on February 11 (we have sources confirming this is the start of filming per WP:NFF). Just wanted to get ahead of the game and see if you would be able to do this whenever you are editing on February 11, instead of using the db-move template and waiting for an admin to get to it. Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93, of course—just give me a ping and I'll take a look. NFF asks that the source confirm that principal photo has indeed started, so you'll need a source/tweet/etc. to confirm on the 11th. This said, I don't have any question that the article isn't ready for mainspace, so I'm fine with moving it whenever the drafters are ready. czar 02:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Really appreciate it. I'll comment here again on the 10th as a friendly reminder. Just FWIW, the source for shooting staring on the 11th is straight from James Gunn's Facebook comments, and I'm hopeful that we'll get one again from him or someone for sure confirming. But myself and the drafters are ready to go come the 11th, with us working on making any changes throughout the day on whatever is released. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: Just wanted to remind you about this move. Just got confirmation (again from Gunn) here (about 2:20 into the video) that filming is starting early morning 2/11. So I guess if you feel it is okay, maybe do the move today? Or if not, just early Thursday if you can. Again, many thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ done czar 20:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

RE: Lego Racers

Hey Czar, I noticed that you placed a "citation needed" tag next to the PC release date in the Lego Racers (video game) article. I'm just wondering a few things:

• Are you asking that only the PC release date is cited, or all of the release dates?
• Other good articles based on video games do not have their release dates cited, such as the The Last of Us and Q*bert. I seem to recall having a discussion with someone at WP:VG who told me that citing release dates was not completely necessary, although that was a while ago. Are they necessary?

Thanks, BlookerG ^talk 10:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @BlookerG, all of the release dates need a citation, though usually just one tag is enough to indicate that (without making a mess). Yes, all release dates are easily challenged and require a source (this goes for film and other media as well), though the ref need not be in the infobox itself. Like the lede paragraph, if the release date is covered in the Development section's prose, the lede/infobox doesn't need to repeat the ref. (See how the dates are sourced in The_Last_of_Us#Development, Q*bert#Ports.) That said, Lego Racers doesn't source its release dates even once, hence the citation needed tag. czar 14:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Fifty Shades Freed (film)

Hello! Please move Draft:Fifty Shades Freed (film) → Fifty Shades Freed (film) as production also begins on this film along with Fifty Shades Darker (film). They are filming back to back, actually. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 17:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Permanent death

Hi, the move entry at Talk:Permanent death has easily found a consensus. Could you please close the discussion and move it? I'd do it myself but I don't think a person whom voted/started it is allowed to close it. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Anarchyte, yes, it's generally better to let someone else do the closure if you could be accused of impropriety. I'd give this a few more days though (so it runs at least the full week). Ping me then and I'd be happy to close it. czar 14:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Star Wars Episode VIII

Hello czar! I need you to move or merge Draft:Star Wars: Episode VIII → Star Wars Episode VIII — I think it'll be better if you move Star Wars Episode VIII to Star Wars Episode 8 to make a way for the draft move and then redirect it back to original article. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 18:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ah, it looks like someone beat me to it. I probably wouldn't have histmerged, but I only saw it at a glance then. czar 20:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Peter Molydeux

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: Draftspace

Hi Czar. I'm fine with moving almost all Dance Dance Revolution SuperNova content to a draftspace, but I would strongly implore that a stub article should be kept. Does this sound like a good proposition? Cheers, --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@True Tech Talk Time, yep, though in that case, I think it'd be best to gut the unsourced stuff from the current article. If someone finds references and wants to restore from the history, that'd be fine. Do you want to do the honors or should I? czar 21:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Czar!

Thanks for your assessment of my article. I mostly fix minor style details in Wikipedia so I'm not very knowledgeable on how to create aceptable new articles. I've got more references on Trajtemberg, for example a Rolling Stone article specifically on him would suffice? Thanks. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@ExperiencedArticleFixer, that sounds excellent. I highly recommend the Articles for Creation process—their reviewers will help walk you through the article creation steps, which is better than ending up in a deletion discussion. czar 22:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi again, Czar! I added a couple more references by mainstream secondary sources, namely Rolling Stone magazine and IMDb, do you think it's enough? Thanks! --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Better, but needs a bit more. (IMDb is not a reliable source and is not used for biographic information.) czar 00:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Sega Digital Studio

How are you going to revert the page to an article in bigger need of sources? The List of Sega audio studios article needs to be deleted, in my opinion. It's outdated, badly formatted, and not sourced. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Dissident93, have a better target in mind? They both are unsourced, but standard practice is to redirect to its parent. Ostensibly you could redirect both to the list's parent. czar 23:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete both articles, as something like this is better suited for Sega Retro anyway. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Baby Driver (film)

Hello czar! Please move Draft:Baby Driver (film) → Baby Driver (film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 03:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of Sonic Belligeranza page

Hi there Czar, this is to inform you I've just deleted your Proposed Deletion tag. During last week in fact, I've edited the text, adding reliable references from different sources and external links. I think the page has improved a lot and hope this last edit renders the page closer to Wikipedia standard according to you. Whatever problem, please reply to this topic. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djscaphandre (talk • contribs) 21:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Djscaphandre, thanks for that work. We only dedicate articles to topics that have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) The Flipkart citation is not really a book but a compilation of Wikipedia articles. And the Apocalypso Disco review doesn't mention the label... is it about the label or the author? The author is the founder of the label, so that source would not have sufficient critical distance to be used as more than a self-published source about oneself. And the other links appear to be mere passing mentions. This topic would need more coverage to keep the article (otherwise we would have a topic but with no substantive sources to say anything about it!) Do you have any other sources, perhaps with mainstream or academic journal coverage? Also, since this is your first article, do you have any affiliation with the subject? If so we ask editors to disclose on the article's talk page, per the conflict of interest guidelines. czar 09:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Get Out (film)

Hello! Please move Draft:Get Out (film) → Get Out (film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 19:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 19:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Amazon Lumberyard

I saw you deleted Amazon Lumberyard for copyright violation. Looking at a cached version I saved, I see that much of it certainly was a close paraphrasing of the FAQ page. However, there were quite a few references that my cached version didn't pick up that I think would be useful. Would it be possible for you to let me know what they were so I could create a non-copyvio version of the article? Thanks. clpo13_(talk) 23:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Clpo13, here are the relevant ones:

• "Amazon Releases Its Own Game Engine For Free". Kotaku. February 9, 2016. Retrieved February 11, 2016.
• "Amazon launches free 'triple-A' Lumberyard engine". PC Gamer. February 9, 2016. Retrieved February 11, 2016.
• "Amazon and Crytek Agree to Licensing Deal Worth $50-$70 Million - Report". GameSpot. April 6, 2015. Retrieved February 11, 2016.
• "Amazon rolls out Lumberyard, an entirely free game development engine". Polygon. February 9, 2016. Retrieved February 11, 2016.
• "Amazon launches new, free, high-quality game engine: Lumberyard". Gamasutra. February 9, 2016. Retrieved February 11, 2016.

(I removed the primary and unreliable sources.) czar 23:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. clpo13_(talk) 23:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible DYK

Hi Czar,

Besides my deletion endeavours I recently came across Aurion: Legacy of the Kori-Odan (which I managed to change it how it was before). It's an action role-playing video game, developed by a Cameroonian studio, supposedly the first from Central Africa. It takes inspiration from African culture; the trailers was dubbed in local dialect, while the fictional cultures are based upon those found in Africa. Now, I'm not familiar with DYK (and reading WP:DYK gave me headache), but as WP:VG is trying more to focus on the cultural perception of video games, I think this would be a good DYK to mention on the main page. What do you think? Shall I try to get up there? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I've yet to incorporate a very interesting piece by Polygon, "A Game that Speaks of Africa". soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks familiar... @Soetermans, I think that's great. My thoughts on DYK are that it's worth it as long as you can justify the nomination process. I used to do this more with indie games and found that their devs appreciated the exposure too (and were perhaps more willing to relicense visual assets as cc-by-sa when the images had a chance to show on the front page of Wikipedia). Do you want me to contact the dev for images? The issue with this nomination is that it isn't new enough for the DYK criteria (though I don't know if it has changed since the last time I checked). This was the article's state in October 2015, so since the expansion wasn't 1500 characters from scratch, the article would need to expand 5x from this October state, which isn't happening. Your best bet is to finish the last few steps to get it to GA, which will make it eligible. The DYK process itself makes the article marginally within policy (checks for citations, removes unreliable sources, general cleanup) and requires that you find a super strong (sourced: 3b) fact. If you were to ask WTVG to help look out for your nom, I'm sure several editors would help it along. Like most things on WP, the DYK process is a little esoteric but gets easier with a few runs. (I'm not sure that WPVG is itself more focused on the cultural perception of video games, but the games media sure is and as a tertiary source, we're reflective of that.) czar 14:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I missed the AfD, glad it's still around. Thanks for the kind words. Well, I guess getting it to DYK isn't going to work. GA might be a good idea though. And for future reference, are only allowed to contact developers? Because that would be pretty exciting to do myself. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Soetermans, go for it! Everyone is an ambassador to open knowledge czar 16:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I've just emailed the developer, asking for some free-licensed images. Those on design would be very helpful. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I got a reply with a link to the presskit. I've added three images to the article, now it looks like this. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Soetermans, nice! Be sure to get their consent registered through email/OTRS. czar 14:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Baywatch (film)

Hello czar! Please move Draft:Baywatch (film) to Baywatch (film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 18:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 21:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

G. Kogelen Govindasamy

Hi Czar,
I'm terribly sorry for troubling you, but I noticed that you've recently deleted several AfD entries from February 15, and you're an admin no less. I was hoping, could you perhaps review the article G. Kogelen Govindasamy (nominated on 22nd Feb) as well ? Normally, I understand that the process usually takes a week or a maximum 10 days, but I was hoping that a consensus for the AfD could be reached much sooner, if possible, within the next few hours ? I hope you could help us resolve the matter. Regards, Aero777 (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Aero777, AfDs run for at minimum a week and perhaps longer if there is no consensus. When you say "us", do you have an affiliation with the subject? If so, you should disclose on the article's talk page, per the conflict of interest guidelines. If the subject indeed wants their page deleted, that is sometimes taken into account, but they should email Wikipedia to register their opinion/rationale. czar 03:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Czar, thanks for responding. Indeed, I do have an affiliation with the subject, and he urgently requests to have the above article deleted as it is creating much misunderstanding and affecting his credibility. I am aware that it may take a week under standard policy, but is there a way to speed up the process, perhaps under Speedy deletion ? Thanks for your kind cooperation. Aero777 (talk) 04:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I left a note at User_talk:Jonathan_A_Jones#G._Kogelen_Govindasamy czar 04:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Collateral Beauty

Hello czar! Please move Draft:Collateral Beauty → Collateral Beauty — I have not added the filming citation so you could move it easily. I will add the source and infobox as soon as you move it. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 17:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 00:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Zotero

Hello.

I've received a newsletter about Zotero that I thought you'd like to read as well. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2016-February/084840.html --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333, thanks! (I actually helped organize this.) czar 00:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Just jumping into this thread to avoid bulking up your talk page and to thank you for the helpful Zotero-related link at WT:VG, but also I wanted to draw your attention to something that took me a while to figure out... Pings like this (and like this illustration) don't work. For the ping to work properly you have to sign with the four tildes at exactly the same time as the ping template executes. The specifics of how a ping work aren't really easy to learn on Wikipedia until you make a mistake and for a long time I thought people were simply ignoring me when I would ping and get no response. Someone finally told me that signing afterward or pinging afterward won't work and since then it's worked every time. If you want to add a ping to a comment you have to replace your old sig with the 4 tildes again. Anyway maybe you already knew that and this was just an oversight... If so then sorry for the long and needless explanations. :) -Thibbs (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Thibbs, thanks for looking out. I actually knew about the four tildes (and did that—perhaps it didn't show in the diff), but the part I never remember is something about a newline character... or something like that czar 15:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

It's weird, though, because I didn't get the ping... I wonder if you ping and re-sign within the same minute that you originally wrote the note then perhaps it also fails? That's probably why it didn't show any change in the last ping I wrote anyway. Weird. -Thibbs (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: Fantasy War Tactics moved to draftsapce

Hi, I just read your notice on the Fantasy War Tactics being moved to draftspace, but I could not find any thing on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fantasy_War_Tactics. Could you help me on this?

ps. I will get the citations right with the content and put them through AfC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juno.nxn (talk • contribs) 08:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Juno.nxn, the article was moved out of draftspace by another user. I removed the unsourced information, which needs references (ideally from vetted video game sources). Was the game only reviewed by those two sources? czar 14:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Czar, I summarized two more reviews from different game sites but I guess those sites are not credible sources for game reviews and I guess that's why they were removed? I'm just wondering where can I find the removed contents of the original page (the contents that did not have proper references), because I can't find it on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fantasy_War_Tactics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juno.nxn (talk • contribs) 03:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Juno.nxn, check out the "History" tab atop the page: old version. I removed NerdStash as an unreliable source. You can find a list of vetted sources at WP:VG/RS. czar 04:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Czar, Hi, thanks for the information, I will have a look. I have one last question. For the images like game logo and screenshots of the game that will be posted on the Wikipedia page through Wikicommons, I'm not sure which license I need to choose from the category when I'm posting them on Wikicommons. I've looked at other game Wikipedia pages and the images on the page all have a summary called "non-free media information and use rationale for "game title," but I cannot do the same for the images I want to upload. Could you guide me if possible :(? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juno.nxn (talk • contribs) 05:27, 2 March 2016‎ (UTC)

@Juno.nxn, sure—just upload to the English Wikipedia site instead of Commons (the latter is used by all Wikipedias and does not host non-free content). You can follow the prompts at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard to upload cover art and a screenshot. czar 13:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Czar, Thank you very much for your help, I appreciate it !

Indie Game Reviewer deletion

Strongly disagree that this site does not have notability. Though references can be updated, deletion is eliminating an important part of the independent game development ecosystem, and this entry is highly cited by many other wikipedia entries.

Additionally: "It is rare that news sites will write about news sites, so difficult to find notability in that way, however there are many legitimate companies that reference the site in question and moreover as I pointed out above - the entry itself is used by dozens of other wikipedia pages as a legitimate reference for their own award and accolades and otherwise. So how then, does this exclude the site itself from being relevant? If you could kindly reconsider this important page, to the ecosystem, I will make attempts to find more recent and active links that are not from the site itself. Some quick examples from a current google search:

• Lyteshot: http://www.lyteshot.com/lyteshot-at-indiecade-video-demo-for-indie-game-reviewer/
• Jennifer Hanley, professional playwright: http://jenniferhaley.com/post/71321780496/indie-game-reviewer-the-nether
• Dorkshelf: http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/dork-shelf/the-whalecast/e/the-whalecast-episode-35-keram-malickisanchez-and-virtual-reality-40929335
• Femhype: http://femhype.com/2016/02/26/blanket-fort-chats-game-making-with-tanya-kan-part-i/
• Tracy Fullerton - Game Designer/Professor USC - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracy_Fullerton ( one of many wiki examples)
• From the GDC China website - top entry "IGF Success stories" - http://www.gdcchina.com/events/igf_voices.html
• Mail & Guardian - http://mg.co.za/article/2011-09-30-desktop-trap-is-a-cracker

Again, I reassert - that Indie Game Reviewer is widespread, and though they do not cover AAA titles but rather a far more diverse and underground sector of the games market, an integral and naturally integrated part of the ecosystem." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gematria (talk • contribs) 09:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Gematria, the discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indie Game Reviewer—was there a reason why you didn't participate there? The outcome of the discussion was that there were not enough reliable sources to cover the topic in depth. At a glance, none of the above links would help that—they are either patently unreliable sources (blogs without reputations for fact-checking or editorial quality) or passing mentions of the topic. As for the entry being used by dozens of other pages—the page is not linked from any other WP page. There are two ideas here: (1) whether the topic is notable enough for its own WP page (the general notability guideline), and (2) whether the site is reliable as a source to be used on other WP pages (a matter of reliable sources, commonly discussed at the video game reliable sources page). My only participation in this deletion discussion was in closing the discussion when there was consensus to delete. I'll say, based on experience, that the above sources won't be enough to overturn the deletion (if brought to the community) and that we already use many established websites that cover indie games. czar 14:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Online Soccer Manager

Hi there,

You left a Message on me talk page about the article Online Soccer Manager which is now a draft, whats the real issue of the page?,, i can expand it with more sources if needs.

Regards, BerendWorst (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@BerendWorst, it needs to have sources to verify its content (verifiability is a core tenet of Wikipedia). I'd recommend adding footnotes and using vetted video game reliable sources. If the game has not been the subject of several independent reviews from reliable sources (?), I'd recommend merging the content to a parent article or deleting the page. czar 14:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

New cites in The Mud Connector

I've added three new book citations with substantive discussion of the nature of The Mud Connector to its article (ignoring all of the passing mentions that just refer the reader to the site as an authoritative source, or the authoritative source). Please review in case this alters your opinion regarding its AfD. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Power Rangers (film)

Hello czar! I forgot to ask you for this moving request, yesterday. Please move or histmerge Draft:Power Rangers (film) → Power Rangers (film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done on good faith, but I think you can do better with the sourcing czar 03:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you please help me extracting a fact from the Power Rangers for DYK? Actually I couldn't find one. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 12:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, your best bet will be something about how the original characters/Rangers are set to reappear/cameo in the new film (couldn't check because the Collider link is down). Also, sometimes it's worth skipping DYK-eligible nominations when the article consists mostly of routine facts—I know I have. czar 14:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah sure, I was thinking about skipping it too. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 14:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Credibility Issues with Madeline 1st and 2nd Grade Math

Hello, I have noticed that you added the unreliable sources tag to the above article and I have a question about it. I have expanded and researched the subject of the article and I honestly believe I have exhausted all the information that I could use for a source on the page. Since this is 17-year-old children's edugame being discussed in the article, the quality of the sources are not going to be the best when compared to articles on more recent games. Which sources in particular are you identifying as unreliable?

I have included websites, like Games4Girls and www.superkids.com, as they are some of the only places I could find reviews for the games. I thought www.prnewswire.com was appropriate for its use in the article as I am using it to cite press releases. I can understand www.closinglogos.com as unreliable (it was also the only website that I could find that discussed the closure of Creative Wonders) and would be willing to delete it if that is the only concern.

I apologize for any inconvenience, but I just wanted to try and make the article the best it could be (I have recently put it up for GAN) and since I am still new to Wikipedia, I want to avoid any future mistakes. I am also surprised that the article got tagged after it was reassessed and promoted to a B-class article so I just wanted to hear more about why you tagged the page. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Aoba47, I recommend starting with the video game reliable sources custom Google search for game sources, but suffice it to say that there are not many major (at least remaining) reviews on this subject. We have to work backwards from the sources—it's not that we write an article and try to find sources later but that if there are not enough sources, we should find something else to do with the content. Typically, when dealing with tie-in games, it's best to build out a series article (e.g., Madeleine video games). I remember looking through your sources earlier today, but if I can recollect, the sites you mentioned did not have any hallmarks of reliable sources. The newspaper stuff could be okay and even the press release stuff can be used as a self-published source, but without coverage from multiple, reliable, independent sources, there likely isn't enough for a full article. czar 03:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. I completely understand and it would probably be more beneficial to build out a series article under Madeleine video games. I randomly stumbled across this article while looking through video game stubs and thought I might as well try to expand it and make it work. I did not create the page so I did not as you said "we write an article and try to find sources later" as I did try to go into this article with the best intentions to expand it. If you feel it necessary, then I would recommend nominating the article for deletion (I could also be the one to nominate it for deletion if you would prefer). I have also deleted the GAN from the talk page, which should remove it from the nomination there. I do admit that I am disappointed since I tried my best, but thank you for your help! I hope I did not come across as rude. Aoba47 (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

My primary question is: What should be done with the page now? I still personally find the resources appropriate given the subject of the page, but it seems like it is leaning more toward deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Aoba47, the page wouldn't need to be deleted, as the reliable stuff can be merged to a Madeleine video games article when someone is willing. It shouldn't take too much to make that series article into a GAN, if you're interested! I can help wherever possible, or you might find collaborators by asking at WT:VG. czar 17:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and your suggestions. And the merge/series article sounds like the best possible option. Unfortunately, I will be too busy with school to do any heavy-lifting with the article, but I am glad that I left some raw material up for anyone else willing to create a series article. Thank you for your time and have a great day! Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The Lego Batman Movie

Hello czar! Please move Draft:The Lego Batman Movie → The Lego Batman Movie — It's an animated film so no need to confirm the production start. Its release date is just a year away so it might be in production at studio. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, is there evidence that it's out of pre-production (per WP:NFF)? I can still move the page, but no guarantees on what would happen next if it doesn't meet NFF czar 17:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I can't find any source confirming that, but see, are there any sources confirming that in these films: Cars 3, My Little Pony, and Coco. And these films are even scheduled to release later than this film, same year. So it ought to be in the mainspace, I think. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 17:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!,

In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced.
— WP:NFF

Mainspaced per your request, but I would think that all previous examples have NFF problems if they don't confirm that the film has exited pre-production (if the problem is with NFF, I suggest a discussion on its talk page) czar 17:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah sure. But wait for a bit, if someone make an issue of it, I'll start discussion about it. Thanks for now. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 18:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Eric Sexton

Eric Sexton has written to Wikimedia inquiring about the fact that there is no longer an article about him. I see that you converted the article to the redirect. Was there a deletion discussion? Would you explain the circumstances that led to the removal of the article?

I plan to point Eric to this discussion so that he understands what happened, and can further discuss with you if necessary. I don’t intend to be further involved as there are several hundred open requests at OTRS to handle.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick, I redirected the article because there was not enough reliable coverage on the subject with which to write a full article. (Put formally, the topic lacked significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources.) (?) Sexton's page redirects to the Diablo series, his most notable work. Thanks for your help at OTRS. czar 18:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Czar Having been in the industry for 20 years, I would think that several of the projects I worked on would be considered notable. All 3 Diablo games, Borderlands 2, and other Gearbox titles. I dont know how Wikipedia works on the back end but this is the easiest link I can give to my past works. http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,11646/ I am currently working for Crate Entertainment and we just launched Grim Dawn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grim_Dawn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.35.96.202 (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Those projects are all notable (they have their own pages), but Sexton (you?), as a topic, doesn't have enough independent coverage in sources to warrant its own page. Anything said about Sexton in reliable sources can be said in the context of one of the game articles you mentioned. We do not consider MobyGames to be a reliable source. czar 20:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Maze Runner: The Death Cure

Hello czar! Please move Draft:Maze Runner: The Death Cure → Maze Runner: The Death Cure — It will begin filming on March 14, but moving now will prevent other from creating the article and making it difficult to move the draft. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done (and no worries on the Lego Batman stuff) czar 16:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Fast 8

Hello czar! My friend here 4TheWynne, did a copy-past creation of the article. Would please be a help and move or HISTMERGE Draft:Fast 8 → Fast 8? So all the editing history can be shown in the mainspace article. — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 04:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Trainspotting 2

Hello again, please move Draft:Trainspotting 2 → Trainspotting 2 — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 06:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: Characters of Drakengard

I've taken your advice about the article. It's basically non-existent now. All the relevant information in them has been incorporated into the other Drakengard articles. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake, looks good—nice work! czar 20:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thrill Jockey

Hi! I'm sort of confused. Because I thought that you use that when a label refers to them only by that name, such as Dead Oceans or Secretly Canadian. Those are not truncated from a longer name, but Thrill Jockey is. So how does that apply? All other Wiki label pages that I have seen follow that logic. For example, Paper Garden is called Paper Garden Records, not just Paper Garden. Just interested in learning. Thanks! MetropolisHearts (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @MetropolisHearts, Wikipedia:Article titles follow how the reliable sources refer to the subject. For instance, while its official name might be "Thrill Jockey Records", sources more often refer to it as "Thrill Jockey" (not needing the "Records" to distinguish it from other Thrill Jockeys). The article titles page has more on the naming process. I can't confirm how sources refer to Paper Garden as it has no reliable, secondary sources. I had no significant hits in my music sources search. Would you have any? Otherwise it might be a candidate for deletion. czar 22:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. That makes more sense and clears up a lot of confusion. I'm not sure if I can find any reliable, secondary sources for that label as it is a smaller independent label. I just found that online as I was trying to see how individual Wiki label page titles are titled. This article (http://www.brooklynvegan.com/whats-going-fri-1/) seems to call it buy the full name. However, another article (http://www.brooklynvegan.com/alcoholic-faith/) by them seems to call it by its shorter name in its title but refers to its full name in the prose. It does have a following from what I found online but looks pretty small. I would say nominate it for deletion because it does not seem very notable. MetropolisHearts (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Why Him?

Hello, please move Draft:Why Him? → Why Him? — It needs a little upgrade which I will do later. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 03:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Rust

I'm sorry if this is harsh, but this edit has got to be one of the least helpful assessments I've ever seen. Don't get me wrong, your feedback is very welcome, but I just have no idea what to make of it as it is. Could you expound on the following two points, please?

• needs each paragraph sourced

Why? And to what purpose? Citations are generally understood to refer to everything questionable to have appeared since the last citation. So, for example, if you look at the opening two paragraphs, you will see that everything in them is supported by citation number 1.

• and lede of more representative length

What do you mean by 'representative length'? Are you suggesting the lede needs to be longer or shorter? By how much?

You can reply here, on my talk page or at the article page, I'll check all three. Thanks in advance! MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants, yeah, I think you could have phrased that much more to your advantage. I see two paragraphs in the Gameplay section without citations. The lede needs to summarize the article—it should include the basics of gameplay, more of the details of dev (why Facepunch chose the project, the history of the team). It will likely need to be longer for that reason. There is also plenty more Reception in a simple video game reliable sources custom Google search. That should be better paraphrased as well in order to be closer to B status. czar 03:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for expounding. For the record, what I meant by "I'm sorry if this is harsh but..." was more along the lines of "this looks like an extremely pointy edit, but I want to assume good faith." Your input is, of course, appreciated. I just wanted some actual input. Thanks again! MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Right, and if you actually felt that way, I don't see how it is more effective to not keep it to yourself. Fulfilling a run-of-the-mill reassessment request is not even close to "disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point". czar 16:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page driveby) @MjolnirPants: please note that the only thing that is required to address a "reassessment=y" tag is to pick an assessment. The responder doesn't need to supply comments at all. Often people (by which I mean me, since I answer the majority of the requests) do a mini-PR to be helpful, but it's not required, and if you don't like what you get feel free to open an actual PR. --PresN 02:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

"removed redirects"

In case you find it useful, I have a little CSS that identifies redirects in navboxes (and a few other places):

.navbox .mw-redirect, .vertical-navbox .mw-redirect { font-style: italic; color: red; }

Another user beside me has found it useful. --Izno (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Senlie Team

Hey Czar, long time. Please email me Senile Team article. I will recreate it when I have more references. I'll put it in my sandbox and present it to you before restoring it.--Cube b3 (talk) 05:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Cube b3, instead of copy/pasting it to your sandbox, I moved the edit history to User:Cube b3/Senile Team. Please get the consensus of the previous AfD participants before moving it. czar 06:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll make an effort towards that. For the time being what if I redirect Senile Team to Rush Rush Rally Racing?--Cube b3 (talk) 06:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ done czar 06:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Double standards

How you doing man? Have you heard of Classic Game Room. We have worked on retro articles, so I assume you enjoy CGR. It is one of the finest YouTube shows for retro gamers. But, I noticed that the article is largely composed of primary references from YouTube, and Amazon links to his DVD's. Not saying the article is unreliable or not notable. I think it is a fine article.

My Goat Store article had a lot more secondary references from approved list of websites than CGR. From a historical notability point of view Goat Store is the pioneer of independently released commercial Dreamcast games. Service Games (Sega history book) spoke off the independent Dreamcast scene acknowledging Goat Store, Water Melon and Redspotgames. These companies are historically notable. Yet, GSP was deleted. WM redirects to Pier Solar even though they have released so many games. Lastly, RSG which is like one of my best articles with over 20 references is still nominated for deletion.

I don't think things are about notability. I think it is about popularity. CGR is on Wikipedia cause he has like a 100,000 subscribers. It doesn't matter if the references are video clips of him from YouTube cause he is famous where as indie publishing labels or developers that strive to release games on independent consoles are not notable.

I share and discuss this with you, cause we have worked together in the past and I will be trying one last time to give dev teams I support a presence on Wikipedia.--Cube b3 (talk) 04:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Cube b3, it would help for you to link directly to the pages you mention so I can see their history/discussion, etc. I'm not sure what Goat Store is. Notability on Wikipedia is determined by a depth of secondary, reliable sources. CGR is a little messy right now and the only source that appears to be worthwhile towards explaining its wider significance is the Destructoid interview. It might be a candidate for something. (I actually think the article should be about Mark Bussler, with CGR as a section...) Your other articles are not helped by the refbomb of primary sources (Twitter, dev pages, etc.) You would likely be best off maintaining a list that contains one sentence on each game, with each sentence sourced to the one video games reliable source that has covered the content. As of now, it would probably be best covered within an article about Dreamcast games. This all said, Wikipedia is not the place to grind an axe about what deserves more coverage. Your time would be better served to bring this "scene" to some of the aforementioned games journalism sites, and once they cover the articles, we would have credence for doing so ourselves. We are a tertiary source—we do not cover things editors like but things that editors have seen covered in vetted, reliable, secondary sources. Notability is determined by how much something is covered by newspapers and website of record, not by a channel's subscriber or follower count. czar 13:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

If I get websites to cover it such as Dreamcast-Scene where I am a contributor. I get slapped with a conflict of interest. Look at RedSpotGames, I worked extremely hard to write a non bias article. I have documented all noteworthy activity with reliable references. I have even documented all their screw ups. It's not like I wrote a one sided article or an advertisement.

If you can look into it, please look at Goat Store and RedSpotGames. Goat Store is especially notable for the aforementioned reasons. Without Goat Store the American indie scene for retro consoles would be almost non existent.

As for the CGR article, I thought it was accurate. I watch him every now and then so they did document the notable milestones. I would have liked more explanation. Like why did he leave YouTube and then what brought him back. The article just says he left and then he came back. Also CGR is a company, they have other shows with people other than Marc. Offcourse Marc is the most famous just like AVGN is the most famous character from Cinemassacre.Cube b3 (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Cube b3, I didn't say Dreamcast-Scene—I said the already-vetted video game reliable sources. Here's what I can do: (1) WP is not the place to synthesize a history of RSG from primary sources—I suggest moving that stuff to a personal archive or a wiki with a different scope. (2) I compiled a bunch of those vetted reliable sources at Dreamcast homebrew where we can build a single article. No primary sources are necessary here. The point is to recap, as a tertiary source, what the reliable, secondary sources say about the Dreamcast homebrew community/scene. There is plenty of coverage, but all of it is quite shallow on the whole (tends to be a sentence or two about an announcement). The goal here would be a narrative of how the community has formed and changed in the Community section (which can also mention the major dev/publishers by name) and then to have a list of prominent games (only the ones covered in reliable, secondary sources) in the Games section. (3) Re: CGR and on the whole, remember that WP's goal is to present the sources, not to find the truth. I suggested the change to the CGR article not based on intuition and influence but on the sources: there is more coverage of Bussler than of CGR itself, though I wouldn't say that either has an abundance. czar 01:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we are getting somewhere now. (1) Please have a look at the RSG article. I have destroyed my entire spring break trying to improve that article. I have proceeded to comment out a lot of the stuff that only had primary sources. None of the DCS articles are written by employees of RSG so we can't consider them primary. (2) Goat Store is a notable company. First and foremost it is one of the finest retro stores based in US. I would say they are more notable than Game Over Videogames but it would appear their page has been deleted... wow. Nonetheless, there is another company inside GOAT Store called Goat Store Publishing. Goat Store also sponsors Midwest Gaming Classic. Remember Sega helped create E3. At this years MGC GSP is confirmed to have a booth and I am certain SLaVE will be released on the show like the Sega Saturn was released on E3. They will also be announcing two games there. Note that it is not the developer or the game that has a booth. It is always the publisher which makes the publishers notable. I also used GOAT Store page to drop a line, with a reference for their upcoming games. It is exponentially less time consuming to do that and redirect the upcoming game to GOAT Store instead of creating a page for it. Also the worst part is the admin that deleted GOAT Store ignored my post on his talk page.

(3) Homebrew is not indie. 90% of homebrew does not get any coverage, not even on DCS. When the site relaunched on wordpress 5 years ago. We removed all homebrew content. It was extremely difficult to find accurate stuff on and there are thousands of apps, games, tools. We do have archives on it but someone would probably write a book on it rather than bring it back on the website. DCS since 2010 has only focused on talking about notable games. Homebrew are garage projects released as freeware and anyone who knows programming has released something for Dreamcast. Also these tools have hundreds of authors cause it's opensource or whatever so attribution is excruciatingly difficult. Indie on the other hand are proper companies with listed members. Also their activity is designed to be commercial. They mail out press releases and their projects usually push the boundary of the scene. Every game that Senile Team has worked on has been the first for Dreamcast. They are just small LLC's like Bleem. Whereas homebrew is like just someone doing something, sharing it on a message board and it snow balls. Homebrew is notable to an esoteric community where as indie projects are main stream. Another hurdle is we have lost all Dreamcast homebrew history. We could dig up magazine articles between 1999 - 2002 which will be excrutiating but beyond that all information is offline. The most reliable website DC Evolution has been offline for many years. DC Emu Uk exists and it is reliable but it is a website harder to navigate than Eidolons Inn. An easier idea would be Indie Dreamcast Developments, the article could start from early projects such as the port of Quake. Then Bleemcast and all the other emulators that crowded the scene and finally the creation of KallistiOS which lead to Goat Store... We have List of commercially released independently developed Dreamcast games to use as a model. Nonetheless, this would would be a tremendous undertaking. There is so much history and finding it all would be really stressful, especially since websites keep going offline. Even from the list of approved websites, these links die. I had to go through web archive to find the Kotaku reference for Alice Dreams Tournament.--Cube b3 (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Homebrew are garage projects released as freeware ... Homebrew is notable to an esoteric community ...

I'm afraid this is the main point and that perhaps I have not been clear. There is a fundamental incompatibility between folk/subcultural projects and Wikipedia because there is an incompatibility between folk subcultures and reliable coverage. I collect a lot of these categories: demoscene, breakcore/gabber/early electronic music, BBS door games, early MUDs, etc. Some editors expect these fields to have as much coverage for each artist/entity as in other fields, but it doesn't work that way. The truth is that something is a subculture or folk because of its lack of mainstream coverage. So, yes, everything you named (dead links, jury-rigged volunteer work) is a detriment to the preservation of Dreamcast homebrew, but that is more a concern of historians and journalists than of Wikipedians, as encyclopedias (tertiary sources) are only concerned with what secondary sources have already deemed important. (Hence why I said earlier that if your concern is preservation of the scene, your issue is more with writing blog articles and books, not encyclopedia articles. You can't write an encyclopedia article without having already done the history.) I consider RSG's notability borderline with its current sourcing—while it obviously has many mentions in the reliable sources cited, many don't say more than a single sentence or two about the game or company. All in all, there is no article to write without entirely relying on primary source synthesis. It is not on Wikipedia to preserve things that secondary sources have not considered worthwhile (hence their insufficient coverage), but on preservationists to create worthwhile secondary sources on the subject so that there can be a Wikipedia article later. It is backwards to use Wikipedia as a preservative medium because Wikipedia is not designed to host articles that lack the secondary sourcing required to write a full treatment of the subject. What you're describing is a project for a separate wiki (not Wikipedia), just as demoscene, BBS door, and other folk groups have done to preserve their own apocryphal histories. czar 03:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Anon Kanon

They are not Video game characters, the List of Vocaloid products page is being retired at the end of the month and Vocaloid (software), Vocaloid 2, Vocaloid 3 and Vocaloid 4 will take over the handling of information. The article complies with Music software guidiance and/or Speech synthesis guidiance, not Video Gaming one as each "Vocaloid" is independently handling by various companies. In regards to the sources, while they do not comply with video game ones (which as I said they wouldn't not being video game related), those said sources all come from legit reliable sources, either Anon Kanon's twitter account, homepage or Yamaha's own Vocaloid website.

The Voclaoid products list has also been under threat of deletion, it has taken me a while to sort it to get rid of it. The current system we've had to put up as a make-shift handling while things get into a position to get rid of it is not good either. Its got a lot of redundant information on it and isn't significant enough as a page to handle things. As time goes by, the voclaoid franchise is growing. I've been working on the aim of removing it since 2014, I was held up by the release of Vocaloid 4 most of last year. Which meant I had to put my time onto the vocaloid wikia, rather then addressing the situation on wikipedia. Now I'm finally doing things up as things have become lesser. A lot of the issues related to Vocaloid is that the information for it is all over the place, so anyone doing the editing is up against a wall as first it has to be found. I have to keep this encyclopedic for wikipedia as well so what is good enough on the wikia may not be good enough here.

Please understand the difficultly at hand, and please be aware of all of this. I'm not happy with the fact you have displayed ignorance on the subject matter you have put up for deletion.. Aside from the fact the references need fixing since I cannot write them in wikipedia's preferred format, which I would love help with, please be aware that the Vocaloid pages are currently under re-organisation. If you wish to put stuff up for deletion, I suggest you check what reasons you are aiming to get rid of it on. However, I know that a lot of people do not actually know what Vocaloid is, even when they are "fans" of it... So I am understanding when mistakes like this are made over it. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Angel Emfrbl, I didn't say they were. The article was categorized as a "video games" article for the Vocaloid's use in some game, so I just noted that there is no mention of that in any source. Your work on making a page for each Vocaloid is indeed better suited for Wikia. Wikipedia only hosts pages on subjects about which we can write a full article based on reliable, secondary sources. If your only sources are primary to the subject (its company's website), then there isn't enough to write a full article and you should look at merging or deleting the page. When we say "reliable" source, we mean "reliable for statements of fact". A primary source can only be as reliable as one can talk about itself. We also rely on established, trusted sources to tell us whether something is important enough to need its own page of coverage. (If something only has primary source coverage, it doesn't need its own page.) It's not productive to think of Vocaloid products as "under threat of deletion"—whoever created the recent batch of articles in the last week would do well to merge them somewhere to save us the burden of a deletion discussion on each one. Let me know how I can help. czar 13:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Vocaloid is also not a video game. And yes, I can write full articles on most of the vocaloids. The articles were due for creation, not for me but by others that never did the job. I am not thinking of them as "vcaloids under threat". The sources are not just priimtive to the companys website and in cases like LaLaVoice this was fine.

To be honest... Judging by your response, you can't help at all, but rather hinder things greatly. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 06:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

(Again, I didn't say it was.) You need more than primary sources to show that quality outlets find the individual products important (that is, a parent company cannot make its product important just by writing about it by itself). Unless you have reliable, secondary sources to write the articles of which you speak, you'd be better off making those articles in another wiki. If you don't have secondary sources (and few of the recent Vocaloid articles do), they will end up deleted and waste a lot of time in discussion. WP:42 and the general notability guideline are important to keep in mind here... czar 07:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, I told the guys elsewhere before I start I would stop editing wikipedias Vocaloid pages if something came up, since I had issues in the past back in 2004 with the One Piece pages. And that was over things like naming scheme of the 4Kids dub being "preferred" over all things. In the end all the arguments on One Piece related pages were subject to just ended up being political nonsense that was going on at the time related to pages anime/manga related. I am not so committed to this that I will defend things alone if nobody else will help me for this reason and not so committed to wikipedia that I am going to lay down all the works to defend things.

Not all the pages are equal to each other, as the Vocaloids ar eboth software and characters independantly being governed by each company. Macne Nana for example, was in 3 other software before she transferred to Vocaloid. However, my main reason for leaving it be is also that in the past, I found that when a page was deleted and went to vote, if people did not like the series, game, book, whatever it was, then they will deliberately gang up to see it gone. This is why I do not wish to defend things on wikipedia I make, even when they are to standard. ITs not you, or this issue, its past experience. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay—your call. If you have reliable, secondary sources, I can try to help. If not, there's a lot of cleanup to do. czar 07:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Rhythm Tengoku

Hi Czar,

Through {{Nintendo franchises}} I stumbled upon Rhythm Tengoku. Not realising it is the article on a game and not the franchise, I moved it to Rhythm Heaven (series), but I'm not able to undo my move. Could you maybe help out? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Soetermans, ✓ all is restored czar 15:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

XCubelabs page deletion

Hi Czar,

It has come to our notice that the page XCubelabs page- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XCubeLabs has been deleted by you. We were aware that the page was up for review and thereafter made significant changes in toning down its promotional nature as per suggestions by you and other members. We would like to adhere to the wikipedia guidelines and present our page as an informative source on the company. [x]cubeLABS is a 8 year old company and we have worked with several big brands and built some remarkable digital products and solutions. The page will help millions of netizens who rely on wikipedia for information know about us and our work. We therefore request you to review the existing page and help us in creating a page complying with the Wikipedia guidelines. What do you suggest? Please let us know.

Thanks Nklivester (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Nklivester, the deleted page (XCubeLabs) links to its deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XCubeLabs), which has a clear consensus for deleting the article based on our policy (simplified version). Promotional tone is an issue, but the primary issue is quality of sources. The editors wrote that they do not see the requisite coverage in their searches. If you think you have a case, I'd take it up with the individuals who were convinced that the sourcing was insufficient. My only part in the discussion was enacting what was the consensus. czar 15:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Czar,

Thanks for your reply and feedback. If requisite coverage or quality of sources is an issue then we can surely update it with links like these:

Video 1 - Here CNBC TV18 a popular business channel in India covered our company and interviewed our CEO.

Video 2 - Our CEO Mr. Bharat Lingam is participating in a panel discussion in Nasscom Product Conclave. Nasscom is a prestigious industry body in India.

Web reference 1 - We won the prestigious Core77 Design award. This page on their website provides project details etc.

Web reference 2 - Here App index, a reputed app development marketplace, lists us as a top Android app developer.

You can also visit our website www.xcubelabs.com to know about the work we have done and our client lists. It would be great if you can please take this issue with other individuals involved in the review process and review your decision.

Thanks Nklivester (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Kingsman: The Golden Circle

Hello czar! Please merge Draft:Kingsman: The Secret Service 2 → Draft:Kingsman: The Golden Circle — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 10:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 15:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Patriots' Day (film)

Hello again! Please move Draft:Patriots' Day (film) → Patriots' Day (film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 16:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: Company page 'Incedo' nominated for speedy deletion

Please let us know what are the primary reasons for the deletion of the company page I created because we replaced the link because of which the page was supposedly deleted. We'll be obliged if you'll guide us to create a new page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lean Hippo (talk • contribs) 08:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lean Hippo, there was a discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incedo) and its consensus was to delete the article based on a lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) czar 13:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion Request - Curses 'N Chaos

Undelete the most recent mainspace version of Curses 'N Chaos. You CSDed a not-CSD candidate. You've salted a page that had not previously been AFDed. - hahnchen 14:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I had been planning on (properly) creating this title with a wikified and properly referenced article, it's been on my to-do list for a while. If it works for you both to wait for a few days until I actually do it, I think it'd be quite preferable to restoring the quite bad version that was deleted (whether it was CSD'able or not). Deal? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hahnchen, it was a redirect to draftspace so it qualified for WP:R2. The protection is autoconfirmed, not admin, so you're free to move the draft out of draftspace if you so choose. Or you could wait for Salv. If you still want it, I can undo the speedy and you can see for yourself. czar 16:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Undo the speedy. - hahnchen 00:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

✓ done czar 00:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Your Draft AFC enrollments

Hi there. I see you recently enrolled several pages into AFC Draft mode. Please be aware that the way you did it, did not include the page creator or the time that the page was enrolled into AFC. The optimal way to do this is by {{subst:AFC draft|USERNAME}} where USERNAME is the creator of the page. This way the page gets stamped with the date the draft was enrolled into AFC and the author for the purposes of G13 cleanup. Furthermore not all pages in the Draft namespace are AFC submissions, and not all AFC submissions are in the Draft namespace. Some editors may not want to use the AFC process (as it has the 6 months unedited deletion behind it). Hasteur (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The True Memoirs of an International Assassin

Hello czar! Please move Draft:The True Memoirs of an International Assassin → The True Memoirs of an International Assassin — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done. No relation, I presume. 😉 czar 03:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Five Seconds of Silence

Hello czar! Please move Draft:Untitled Robert Zemeckis project → Five Seconds of Silence — It is being filmed with a title now. I've not updated the draft yet, I'll do it after the move. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 13:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Why does this user consistently get away with this? I created this article not him/her. I don't appreciate my version practically being erased. This user's obsession with having their name as the one that created every single new film article is a farce and an embarrassment to Wikipedia.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"Your" version. The pre-existing draft. WP:OWN. Come on. czar 02:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not trying to "own" anything. Just because I used the word "my" doesn't mean I was claiming ownership on this. Like I said I just don't appreciate what I wrote practically being ignored. And yes I know the version I wrote was small but that's not the point.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 04:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Works both ways—should we ignore the draft that was already written? There's no reason you can't restore any text you think was removed unfairly. That said, I don't see much of an argument to restore the two sentences you had added, given that the draft already had that and more. czar 07:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Chipspeech

You redirect Chipspeech without even a discussion, I've reverted it and put on the talk page a template for "musical instruments".

For the last time; video gaming reference do not signal every dam legit source. When the article is not a video game software, it falls under differen guidelines and a different area. This one falls under "music" categories just as Vocaloid. While I have walked away from the Vocaloid project, I will fight an argument only once against you; I am not a fan of wikipedia politics. All I demand is that you hold a legit discussion before you walk in a reidrect a page.

You're not even given the editors on wikipedia a chance to react. Regardless, now its listed under the musical instruments project, its their job to defend it not mine. I said before, I know how these discussions on wikipedia work, and I'm not a fool to try and fight to the bitter end for this reason, I will only ask for a fair trial on the page and nothing more. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no "trial" though there apparently is a lot of vitriol. My redirect of the article didn't say anything about video games, so I don't know what you're referencing. The article needs to rely on more than primary sources—namely significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?). czar 20:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

While I did not say anything about there needing to be a trial, I simply said there should have been a discussion on what to do about the content. I have noted your redirects are just that... Redirects. Perhaps you should consider that the reason I am even concerned here is it isn't always the only solution to a article issue. A discussion itself highlights ideas, as well as editor thoughts and feelings and why you don't seem to like them and would rather avoid them, they can lead to other answers, thus the answer may and is not always to get rid of the article. A redirect in itself also would have more merit if the article it was being redirected to had significant information on the article itself. I prefer demographic discussions for this reason and do not mind if they lead to the same article outcome. I do not argue with the greater community of wikipedia afterall, I just feel when a single person does not do this they are neither assuming Good faith nor are willing to accept any other possibility of handling a article then that.

As I have tried to highlight my concerns with your redirects, but I will also not hold out for said editor to come along, but I don't see you trying to help find the missing sources... I was told in 2004, that delete/redirect is a last resort, not a first and pardon me, in my expereince of wikipedia and wikias, that has been my principle for any dealings with other editors... And that the best way was to see if one could help first with anything by mucking in and trying to find missing secondary sources for these pages, aI'd not even have a issue with you at all in fact. In short... You may feel you are helping, but really your not. I'm sure in your eyes I'm not helpful and you feel your are helping saying that, as I know there are some here who dedicate their time on doing the tasks don't want to see done. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It's fine to undo a redirect, but it's also fine to redirect when an article is poorly written and uses primary sources almost exclusively. You don't need to condescend to me about the benefits of discussion—I know them well—but I also know that this encyclopedia has a principle of making bold edits that are only brought to discussion when they are challenged or potentially controversial. The only "assuming of good faith" being done here is your presumption that redirects are inherently malicious, which goes against that principle on its face. I wouldn't have any issue with your articles if you just took the time to adequately source them (to reliable, secondary sources and not Twitter posts). You can expect to see many of these articles at AfD if they aren't cleaned up. The burden burden is on the editor adding the content to source it properly, not on me or anyone else. czar 21:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of List of people named in the Panama Papers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of people named in the Panama Papers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people named in the Panama Papers until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

For your research and work here. One of the most important issues brought to light in many years, IMO. — Ched :  ?  23:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Panama Papers

On 4 April 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Panama Papers, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The Mummy (2017 film)

Hello czar! Thanks for backing me up there, I don't really know whether I'm doing the right or wrong thing creating every film article on Wikipedia. Will you please move Draft:The Mummy (2017 film) → The Mummy (2017 film) ? — Thanks again. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, suppose it depends whom you ask. I say that prepared drafts invariably help the encyclopedia, but arguably less so if they make contributing into a game of win or lose. ✓ done czar 03:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right. You can't imagine the trouble I've been in before someone told me about draftspace to create film articles during development phase. Actually I'm obsessed with films and creating film articles, and I want to write almost every detail about a film from its announcement. So, I think userspace or draftspace is a better way to do that, and you know how much I worked on them, even on stubs. By the way, thanks for helping me always. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 08:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Alien: Covenant

Hello czar! Please move Draft:Alien: Covenant → Alien: Covenant — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 03:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Downsizing (2017 film)

Hello again! Please move Draft:Downsizing (2017 film) → Downsizing (2017 film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ done czar 05:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Justice League Part One

Hello czar! This big fellow has also begun filming, please move Draft:Justice League Part One → Justice League Part One — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ done czar 03:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata... for aggregators?

Had already thought briefly about this but you brought it to mind with your question at Infobox video game...... Could Wikidata be used to hold Metacritic/GameRanking/etc scores in some fashion? Having a template like {{Metacritic|Xbox}} that would output the Xbox score for the article could be handy. Or even {{Vgaggregator|MC|Xbox}}. -- ferret (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ferret, I don't know the scope of Wikidata, but if it is what I think it is, it would make sense to import all review scores there. Now I see the slippery scope there—even if we limit the Wikidata scores to vetted, reliable sources, it's still going to be a huge list for AAA games. Good thought and certainly worth broaching at WT:VG for feedback czar 14:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me try some research and sandboxing. I see easy potential for aggregators, which most people are opposed to having in the prose anyways. For other reviews and the fact they should be used in prose, it might be stickier. -- ferret (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ferret, if there's any way to have Wikidata auto-format the citation as well... that'd be wonderful czar 14:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Still researching, Wikidata makes sense but its a warren of stuff I have to map out. Each "property" can have a reference attached. I'm using Dark Souls III as a jumping point. What I want to do is be able to add a statement like "review aggregator". Under that I would add a "Metacritic" property. To that I would add a qualifier with "Score" and "System". To this, you can attach a reference. Then the template here on ENWIKI would pull that all in. That's the theory. Still working through the details. -- ferret (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

See here where I added a "score by" to the bottom and filled in Metacritic information. Now I need to look at a template that will pull it. -- ferret (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

d:Wikidata:WikiProject Video games and Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings (Q34852) may be useful. --Izno (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Izno, do you know how to go from {{#Property:P444|from=Q34852}} (92/100, 9.1/10, 9/10, 8.8/10, 91.81%) to just the Metacritic score? I don't see options for restricting the property parser. czar 16:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You cannot use the magic word to access only a certain qualified value (last I checked). You have to use Lua e.g. Module:Wikidata. --Izno (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Visit User:Ferret/sandbox for a rough draft. It's Lua based, as Izno already noted. It's not everything but it's a start for a rough sketch. Currently I'm not using shorthand system names. I know how to get them, but the API involved is noted as being expensive so I don't want to jump to it yet. I also had some trouble getting refs/cites output. I built them, but the rendering is off. Either it can't be done or I haven't done it the right way yet. -- ferret (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That was just how I played with Dark Souls III, but what has already been done at Age of Empires might be a better organization. I've got enough of an idea on how to dig through the entity table to do either. -- ferret (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Not just a better organization but is required by how certain properties are used. For example, score by is required to be a Wikidata qualifier (Q15720608), not a first-level statement. --Izno (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep, once I saw it I facepalmed. Unfortunately it doesn't seem Wikidata enforces the relations strictly. Side note: You cannot put metacritic into a Reference Url, apparently. It forces you to use Metacritic ID... which is fine. -- ferret (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Wikidata is a wiki.

No, the relations are not enforced strictly (and never will be--this is part of Wikidata's core design), but there is a really soft constraint system provided on the property talk pages, linking to a number of bot-provided reports where constraints are violated. Some extensions currently in the testing phase will probably roll out within the next year which will highlight the use of statements not in keeping with the constraints directly in the HMI, but will still allow you to save non-compliant values.

I fixed your reference--reference URL requires a full URL. Please take a look at the item. --Izno (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Sandbox and Dark Souls III wikidata have been updated to reflect the format in Izno's Age of Empires example. Everything is there, with two issues: "Also known as" shorthand resolution for systems, and figuring out how to correctly output/generate reference/cites. But, all the data is there. -- ferret (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Also known as"?

I would recommend against providing the Wikidata citations directly in Wikipedia for the time being. There needs to be a larger discussion about display of citations and whether "other tools" need to be built to support that display (that is probably not on anyone's radar). --Izno (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

"Also known as" are the item aliases. For example, Xbox One as XONE, PlayStation 4 as PS4. I can map them locally in the module, but they also exist in Wikidata. Regarding Metacritic URLs, when I added a reference with a "Reference URL" and placed the full URL for Metacritic in, the Save button would grey out. I resolved that by adding a Metacritic ID with the necessary url fragment. Maybe it was something weird with my work laptop, I can do it now. Regardless of issues around providing the citations, I'd like to figure out the correct method for outputting it, even if it's not used, just for learning's sake. -- ferret (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Found the answer I need. Lua modules cannot output other templates or ref tags, they will not process, period. -- ferret (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Not particularly true. They can use other modules (Module:Citation/CS1) as well as tags by extension e.g. result = frame:extensionTag{ name = "ref", args = {name=name}, content=result }; (from Module:Footnotes).

Regarding aliases, I'm not sure why you would want them from Wikidata anyway, but I would definitely recommend having a local map of QID to name, since that would help us avoid the effects of simple vandalism. --Izno (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I was simply looking to avoid having to maintain a list of systems and QIDs. However we can maybe drop them in another module to share amongst different templates in the future, which centralizes it. -- ferret (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. --Izno (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

extensionTag appears to force template transclusion. So that fixed cite web too. See User:Ferret/sandbox. -- ferret (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Module:Sandbox/ferret/Video game aggregator is for an aggregator template. The review printing code is now in Module:Sandbox/ferret/Video game reviews, so it can be reused, and has the systems numeric Id table. Feel free to further populate the systems table. This now is a solid demonstration I think, just need to flush it out then bring it up to broader VG project. And worry about populating values into Wikidata. -- ferret (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Added a link to the Wikidata item just to play with an idea, similar to how software infoboxes link to their release templates for editing. -- ferret (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ferret, do you have a sandbox test where I can see it in action? czar 14:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

See User:Ferret/sandbox/Video game aggregator/sandbox, including examples with Template:Video game reviews. -- ferret (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice. I suppose the next step is integrating it into the reviews template sandbox. And re: wikidata:Q20112508#P444, shouldn't the work/publisher be "Metacritic" instead of "CBS Interactive"? czar 16:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I built it off the existing cites in Dark Souls III. CBS owns Metacritic and publishes, is my understanding. Work could be Metacritic. I'll see about adding work to the module. Added it. I also just added a Template:Video game series reviews to the sandbox. -- ferret (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I've continued playing and made various updates. It is now setup to allow aggregators or reviewers (If they are in the table), and only output a single "Edit" link instead of on every line. It also sets reference names now, so that repeated uses won't crowd the reflist. The current idea is to name it Template:Video game review score. -- ferret (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Really nice work. Can you add a flag to make the publisher optional? I used to add CBS but now I just do Metacritic. Also would it be possible to add an "edit" link to the template itself (either in the template's heading or in its header bar) instead of next to the refs? I think that would make the most sense once the rest of the template pulls from Wikidata. I think the whole thing you've written could be vg rev score—that sounds fine—but most people won't need to see that if you bake it right into the vg reviews template. (It should default to showing all referenced scores from Wikidata unless locally overridden methinks.) Of course we'd want to draft that first and get consensus before making it live. czar 19:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding publisher, it's just pulling Wikidata... If publisher isn't defined to Wikidata, it won't pull it. When we broach the broader topic of how to get/keep Wikidata populated we can fine tune the required fields. As for the edit link, this "single reviewer" template doesn't have a header or bar, so there's no where else to put an update link really except at the end. I could add a newline at the end so it's separate from the ref, but that might look odd too. If integrated into the main series box, then it can be put in a single spot in the table header. One benefit of this "single reviewer" template is that it can be used without changing the existing templates, for localized/limited early use. -- ferret (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Flags for the publisher and date formats would still be good because their implementation will vary across articles (regardless of how Wikidata is populated). The change I'd propose: update {{vg reviews}} to automatically pull {{video game review score}} for each referenced field unless overridden (so integrated into the main series box but still using the new "single" template as the call). czar 19:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Df is an argument already, I added that earlier when implementing date formatting for "retrieved" Wikidata property. I can add a publisher=yes/no. I want to continue doing some optimization, but hopefully will move the template/modules to Template/Module-space tonight. Then we can hammer on it some more. -- ferret (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you kindly delete the redirects left behind at Module:Sandbox/ferret/Video game aggregator/doc and Module:Sandbox/ferret/Video game reviews/doc? -- ferret (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ done czar 21:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Everything is moved and placed, with sandboxes and all setup. Check out Template:Video game review score/testcases. I may make some further edits to the module but I would like to "beta" run the template for Dark Souls III scores. I'll make a section on the article talk page explaining. -- ferret (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's move further discussion of enhancement/updates to Template talk:Video game review score#Initial enhancements?. We've abused your talk enough. ;) -- ferret (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

S.C.O.O.B.

Hello Czar! Please move Draft:S.C.O.O.B. → S.C.O.O.B. — I just created the redirect, I didn't know the film was in-production, which director revealed by behind-the-scenes footage at CinemaCon. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 11:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ done czar 14:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3

I noticed that you supported a merger of this article into Super Mario Bros. 3. Looking at it now, it probably could be merged pretty comfortably, as the development is just a bunch of padding and the reception is a lot of people saying a lot of the same stuff. I'd merge it myself, but I just haven't the time, so I was wondering if you were still interested in doing so. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 16:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The two article should reflect each other's content, at the very least. But there was opposition to an outright merge (Talk:Super Mario Bros. 3#Proposed merge with Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3)—perhaps that has changed, and a partial merge can still go through, but there should eventually be another discussion if the article is heading for redirection. I won't be able to touch it for a while though czar 05:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Made me laugh

Thanks for the reply at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_4#'paedia. It was closed not long after. I hadn't seen your remarks before looking back today and I am glad I am not the only Wikipedian in the world to have some wit. Made me laugh out loud, really. (And your soviet got their wish.) Si Trew (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Allied (film)

Hello Czar! Please move Template:Did you know nominations/Five Seconds of Silence to Template:Did you know nominations/Allied (film), and be careful with its links. The film was retitled as Allied. — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 04:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ done, but I think you had the same userrights to do the move, no? czar 05:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes I've, I moved once and couldn't fix the links. I'll try next time. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 07:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Message

I left you a message on my page. --Palu (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

National ties for Stephen's Sausage Roll

Hello Czar,

I believe we hade this conversation earlier, but you seem not to respect WP:DATETIES, which states that things related to a country other than the US or Canada shall use dmy, US mdy (with exceptions) and Canada can use eitherm with consistency, of course. Same goes for WP:ENGVAR, which gives us British English for UK-related topics. Stephen "Increpare" Lavelle aka. Increpare Games, the developer of Stephen's Sausage Roll, is from the UK, so both should apply in dmy dates and British English. However, you have just undone that, with the explanation that it "does not apply", could you provide evidence for that claim? Thanks, Lordtobi (✉) 15:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Agree with Czar's undo. WP:DATETIES and WP:ENGVAR are meant to apply when strong ties exists. A game's developer being from a particular region is not a strong tie. Nothing about the game itself has any strong leaning towards UK topics or culture, etc. Existing formats should be respected in this scenario, per MOS:RETAIN and MOS:DATERET. -- ferret (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• If we've had this conversation earlier, then you know the burden of evidence is on you: Where is the strong national tie to the topic? A war that took place in a country? Yes, strongnat. A location in a country, yes. Products, however? Not necessarily. If a product was sold and used exclusively in a country, there could be a case, but not here, where the game is clearly international. There's absolutely nothing inherent about this game, especially as covered by reliable sources, to constitute a strong national tie to the UK. The rule to "respect" is to leave the original date format well alone unless there is some reason for changing it (through discussion). Even still, I don't know why you thought that changing the date format as a minor edit would be productive. czar 16:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)