User talk:Czar/2016 Sept–Dec

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

Alt.ed

Noting your comment on the Wikipedia Library: "Working on a project with mid-20th century British alternative schools". It is certainly an area that is lacking in persisting material, but I am thinking that a serious rummage in my attic may retrieve material on White Lion St and Barrowfield in particular, if these are within your area of interest? AllyD (talk) 08:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@AllyD, that would be great! Would you have secondary sources? czar 04:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@AllyD, ping czar 15:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• I'm keeping your interests in mind for my next venture into the attic! Meantime, I noticed an online archive of Undercurrents magazine and pages 33-37 of issue 36 may be of interest. Also a short mainstream press piece on Barrowfield Community School: [1].AllyD (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Poppybud.jpg

Hello. I'm confused. What's the issue with File:Poppybud.jpg ? The talk page has been deleted, so I have no idea. Looks like some kind of licensing issue? Thanks! --Jp07 (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jp07, the discussion was at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_August_10#File:Poppybud.jpg. The double license issue was resolved and the image was transferred to Commons, where it can be used across all language Wikipedias. czar 19:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge

Hello. I've revamped the contest page into this, based on the new British model. Long term goal, but I've added entries since the beginning of July to give it some initial life. Please add anything you've done then this then too! I hope it proves productive long term. The contests are still planned, but will be more tools towards increasing bulk output in overall goal. It's a permanent goal now, and open! I would be grateful if you could keep a record of all your articles you do there, as I really think seeing the combined efforts will encourage others to create more content too! Please spread the word to the others, cheers!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of game-based marketing

Please note the differnce between the terms 'advertising' and 'marketing'. Advertising stands for promotion and Marketing stands includes everything including 'promotion, selling etc.,'. That is the main point of difference which is not noted in In-game advertising and Advertising in video games. Let me know if you have any issues... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsnarendran14 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Since you posted this in two places, see my reply at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game-based marketing czar 16:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder

Hello! Just wanted to remind you about the few questions I asked you at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Czar . Thanks for your help! --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Merge

Can you merge Activision Blizzard Studios (company) over Activision Blizzard Studios? No comment on notability, just not created appropriately. -- ferret (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ferret, ✓ done czar 01:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Xbox One system software

Hello Czar,

I have noticed that the problem with the changelog that we had last year on the Xbox One system software page is starting to creep back in. I have posted numerous warnings on the talk page, but this has been falling on deaf ears. I wonder if we can protect the article somehow by banning users or IPs who are the offenders? Wagnerp16 (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Wagnerp16 · Well color me unsurprised. Wasn't there a basic consensus to remove the changelogs? If so and the issue is enforcing that, I can help. If not, it needs a talk page consensus. Page protection is only for when editors are going out of process (ignoring talk page consensus, being disruptive). czar 15:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Czar If you can help me, then that would be great! The users involved are accusing us of vandalism, even though point four of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information clearly states Exhaustive logs of software updates. Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included.. You can have a look at my talk page to find out what one user has said. Wagnerp16 (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I put a notice at WT:VG for some outside attention. I agree with you on the indiscriminate list interpretation. Bringing in outside editors usually helps stalemated discussions. czar 04:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I don't know if you have seen the article, but it seems that some users clearly don't read these guidelines. I have tried pointing these users to the discussion that we had last year, but they don't seem to read it. I know that one user has given up on enforcing this because they were 'shouted down'. We don't have the same issue with the PS4 system software article. My argument is why do we need duplicate information, when I posted the link to Microsoft's official changelogs in the footnote of the article for reference? Wagnerp16 (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Wagnerp16, I agree. WT:VG is a good place to go to bring experienced users to a discussion. Just give a few objective details (explain the dispute) and editors will come. Much better than going back and forth czar 17:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Czar, I have posted a comment on WT:VG hopefully someone will pick it up. I won't do any changes to the Xbox One system software for the time being, as this would only aggravate the situation. Wagnerp16 (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

American Assassin (film)

Hello Czar! It's been long, how are you? Please take a look at Draft:American Assassin (film) and I need you to merge it into American Assassin (film), and I'll do the rest of improvements after merging. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 08:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 15:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

El Ain, Lebanon

Redirect ? Xx236 (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Xx236, ✓ done but a little more detail would have helped jog my memory czar 15:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

My first FAN

About a week ago, I nominated Allen Walker to FA (first FAN) in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Allen Walker/archive1 once a fellow user from the guild of copy-editors cleaned up the prose and a second peer review helped me fix some issues. I got two supports and image reviews after editing what issues they found. However, for some reasons the review became inactive. I'd rather the review fails due to other issues rather than inactivity so I would appreciate if you share your thoughts on the article's review. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tintor2, don't have time for a full review at the moment but if I can help with anything small, let me know czar 20:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Get me more reviewers? ...Sorry, just kidding. I already bothered too many people with getting feedback to the review. There is something I'm concerned though. I tried adding alt texts to the two images from the article's body: the sketches and the cosplayer. However, their text is not showing up. Did I mess up something or my computer is too old (Windows XP...)? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tintor2, write them as "alt" instead of "Alt"—they're working now. I'd expand the alts, though (and add one to the infobox image). Alts are designed for the visually impaired so they should describe in a relative amount of detail what you'd want readers to see in the photo (features, context, etc.) czar 03:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Expanded alts. Thanks, I hope get more reviewers. Do you think I should ask for help in the video games project? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Totally not stalking. I could provide a review, in exchange for a source review for the Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward FAC. Been trying to drum up attention, but it seems that no one is interested. Famous Hobo (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

(That's the way to do it!) Your first few noms of anything will always take a significant effort to get up to code (and you'll learn and the rest will be easier) but, accordingly, these reviewers have a greater burden than reviewers of your later work as they need to address structural issues rather than small fixes and grammar. I'd try a Wikipedia:FAC mentor who has interest in the topic area before leaving blanket messages. I find that the latter reaps little reward unless there is a sense that previous attempts have been successful. Reviewing each other's work is also a good idea, but the reviews should be independent and rigorous, not quid pro quo to pass each other without substance. The FAC closers usually discount reviews from editors who have not shown either a history or current evidence of close reading. czar 18:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Jumanji (2017 film)

Hello Czar! Please move Draft:Jumanji (2017 film) → Jumanji (2017 film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 17:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 20:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Marcel Saucet

Hello there, This unpatrolled, newly created article was deleted by you some two years back. Here is the deletion discussion. Can you check whether this article qualifies for G4. Thanks Hitro talk 18:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@HitroMilanese, the content is substantively different (not G4) but it's still a trainwreck and guaranteed COI. If it gets deleted again, let me know and I'll salt it czar 20:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Wonder (film)

Hello Czar! Please do a histmerge of Draft:Wonder (film) → Wonder (film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 13:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 15:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Czar. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I Kill Giants (film)

Hello Czar! Please move Draft:I Kill Giants (film) → I Kill Giants (film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 11:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 20:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Mute (upcoming film)

Hey Czar. Can you move Draft:Mute (upcoming film) → Mute (upcoming film)  ? Thanks!! Tammydemo 13:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tammydemo, ✓ done czar 20:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

WM NYC Header

I reverted the change you made to the WM NYC Header because the Header something that needs to be vetted and discussed by the WM NYC Board. Although it is on the Wikipedia mainspace, this is a critical element of how we deliver information to the Wikipedians who participate in our events. Making a significant change like this without our whole Board having a chance to evaluate impact and discuss it is an over-step. If no one took the time to bring this up on the Talk page discussion, I am sorry about that. But wanted to let you know this is a big deal and needs to be done with more consensus. The Header has too much importance for the chapter to have it changed like this. -- Erika, WM NYC Secretary and Board Member, aka BrillLyle (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey @Czar: -- Right now the template you built is appearing on over 100 of our pages and I am not seeing where the redirect from Template:Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Main to your template is happening. Some of these are admin pages so it's important that the header is up to date. Beside which any sort of global change like this as I said above needs to be discussed by the whole WM NYC Board. I appreciate your efforts here but I am one of the stakeholders who works with and maintains this data and implementation was done without any notification. Can you ping me ASAP so this can get fixed? I really appreciate it. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 04:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, I fixed the template recurring all over our historical pages issue. Probably not the most elegant solution, and I am sorry that this didn't work out but it was really important that the current and past event pages aren't affected like this. Thanks. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Hi @BrillLyle, I responded at Wikipedia_talk:Meetup/NYC#Seeking_ideas_to_redesign_Wikipedia:Meetup.2FNYC.2FHeader.21 and I think we should centralize discussion there. I think it's fine for the NYC board to weigh in on the design however they want, but I'd just like to clarify that for the actual decisions, the community norm is to build consensus on-wiki in a public place. It usually goes without saying that it's against WP spirit to have external, private discussions and vetoes/overrides—ultimately all decisions affecting wiki and project content are made on-wiki by individual editors, board members or not. (I think it's fine to take more time to discuss but let it be open.) Until then, I edited the draft template to reflect that it isn't updated with the latest info. Since I believe you reverted back to the previous version, it isn't on display anywhere and I doubt it has any potential to confuse anyone. czar 17:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Czar,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:FEZ trial gameplay HD.webm is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on October 17, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-10-17. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Death Wish (upcoming film)

Hello Czar! I did not notice that someone has already created Death Wish (upcoming film) until now, so please do a histmerge of Draft:Death Wish (upcoming film) → Death Wish (upcoming film) — And I will do the updates later, because filming has just begun a week ago. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 12:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ did this a day or two ago czar 09:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your proposal to the WM NYC event board. It seems like you made a sincere attempt to suggest positive changes. Soon people who organize meetups there will discuss what you suggested. I appreciate the time and thoughtfulness that you gave to our meetup in designing this very useful header. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Bluerasberry: -- where exactly is this discussion happening? I would like to be involved in a discussion -- and I think the rest of the Board should be as well. -- Erika, Secretary, WMNYC aka BrillLyle (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

BrillLyle I posted it on the list of proposed topics for upcoming board meetings. Can you help me by also posting it wherever else you would expect to see this topic raised? I had imagined that this list was the best place but perhaps you have more ideas. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, @Bluerasberry. Sunk a few hours into it and hope it can be useful. And I replied on the main meetup page, but I hope whatever the board discusses comes back for on-wiki consensus rather than vice versa. Perhaps I'll see both of you at a future event? Just moved back to NY. czar 17:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Oooh. @Czar: -- This is great news that you are in NYC now. Please definitely come to the next meetups, etc. whenever you have time. WM NYC would be lucky to have you! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/ReCore/archive1

I requested your article to be peer reviewed before I nominate it for GA status. If you have time, I'd appreciate your contribution. Cognissonance (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cognissonance, looks like some nice work has been done on this article but I won't be able to peer review for a while. You could try asking at WT:VG czar 19:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Suburbicon

Hi Czar -- could you move Draft:Suburbicon to Suburbicon now that filming has started? Thanks! NathanielTheBold (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@NathanielTheBold, ✓ done czar 07:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Meg (film)

Hey once again! Can you move Draft:Meg (film) to Meg (film) for me? :) Thanks! Tammydemo 19:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tammydemo, ✓ done czar 00:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft review?

Would you be kind enough to review User:Ferret/sandbox/Turbulenz‎ let me know if you see any major sourcing issues? I am fairly certain it is good to go (Decent sourcing, not a ton to say, but relatively complete), but with a prior (5 years ago) AFD, I'd like a second opinion first. I believe the original article was for the engine specifically, while I've written this geared more towards the company as a whole. -- ferret (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ferret, sourcing looks good—nice work! I'd add paragraphs about the two games within the article rather than splitting them out just yet. The dev itself as a topic looks weak for significant coverage (mostly coming from same source) but together with articles about the engine and the two games, won't be contested czar 16:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes I plan to set some redirects and work on expanding history as I dig deeper. I think one reason the topic has been hard to find is they release stuff under a team name, Wonderstruck. But it's all copyrighted back to Turbulenz. -- ferret (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Dan Jeannotte

Hi could you explain why you deleted the stub about the Canadian actor Dan Jeannotte. I know it could use some more referencing, but couldn't you have just put a label on saying it needed more references without deleting the entire article?

Hi @Kingstoken, I left a detailed edit summary that explains the redirect and the notability guidelines. If you have reliable sources, feel free to add them, but the article would have gone up for deletion if it wasn't used for a redirect. Reliable sources are the most important part of creating new articles as they create the case for the topic's notability czar 20:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

video game and education
... you were recipient no. 1311 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Gerald's Game (film)

Hello Czar! Please move Draft:Gerald's Game (film) → Gerald's Game (film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 12:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 16:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Deathmatch Classic

Do you mind if I prefer deferring the merge to AfD, that often can bring better sourcing and more editor participation. The term "deathmatch classic" often refers to a mode in FPS so it can be difficult finding sources for the mod "Deathmatch Classic" when the term is so generic. I am certain reviews for a mod purchased by over 10 million people exists. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 08:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I do if only because three experienced editors besides me have plainly explained on the talk page why you have no case. If you want a greater audience, take it to WT:VG but AfD is not for a single editor's disagreement over the basic notability criteria. Consensus is designed to happen at the talk page, and if you are certain reviews exist, you don't need an AfD to wait to find them. I don't understand the point either—everything we can reasonably source on the subject is already at the redirection target, so if there were to be a standalone page, we'd have quite literally zero additional sourced content to add to the stub... That's what standalone notability is all about. Also you repeat this claim of 10 million purchases but I don't see your evidence. The best you've presented is that the mod was included for free for all purchasers of the main game. So if you're extrapolating based off of inventory counts (original research), we're not talking about evidence that a single person "purchased" it by any means, nevertheless played it, nevertheless any indicator of popularity. czar 19:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Restoring an article

Howdy Czar. Would you restore Denis Malgin article, now that the fellow is playing in the NHL? :) GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay, looks legit—✓ done czar 15:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

So how to proceed on this?

Hi. We haven't had to opportunity to work together before (to my imperfect memory), so just to state the obvious: all this is just business, nothing personal.

Regarding your statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hidden Curriculum "I'll note that I've personally deleted and redirected a great many such articles (on that topic) with far more 'coverage' if the above is what passes for significant coverage with this audience"

My take on the question is that of course the article in question meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK (our basic guidelines for book notability). So naturally I'm a little worried that good articles are being deleted by misunderstanding! So some questions:

1. Is what you said true? Maybe you were just puffing up a little bit? This happens in the course of hammer-and-tongs arguments, and it's perfectly understandable.
2. If it is true, by "deleted" do you mean you are just flat-out going around deleting articles you don't like?
3. Or are you approaching AfD discussions with the intent of closing them to delete articles like this?
4. Or are you just erasing the contents of articles like this, and recasting them as redirects, without discussion and consensus?
5. Or what?

If it's #1, OK. But if it's one of the other numbers, sounds like there's work to be done! We need to work together to see how to fix this. A list of articles that you have, ah, taken care of in this way would be a good start. Do you keep something like this? Herostratus (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, but it reads no different from condescension. I struggle to understand how those charges could possibly follow from that sentence without a supreme lack of good faith. If you want to review my edits, you know that they are public. If you have a specific issue with my edits, I'm happy to discuss them individually or as a specific group. But with sloppy charges like "just going around deleting articles I don't like", you already knew your answer before you posted and I can hardly think of a more offensive way to write off a Wikipedian's labor and taste. czar 01:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Ocean's Eight

Hello Czar! Please move Draft:Ocean's Eight → Ocean's Eight — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 15:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 07:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

An article you tagged for deletion

I just removed the CSD G8 tag from the article AMG Sebastiani Basket Rieti because it did not redirect to the same page. It redirected to Nuova AMG Sebastiani Basket Rieti. Just to let you know. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 00:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Yoshi24517, I didn't tag that page—think you got the wrong editor czar 00:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh. Is there more than one Czar?

Edit: Ah. Found it. You last edited the page which got me messed up. Sorry! Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 00:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Quick question from MarkWankel

Hi, I want to start working on the article CARiD, but I see that this page has been deleted in the past. I checked the archived debate of the proposed deletion of this article and Wikipedia pop-up suggested to contact You for any case before starting the work. I was wondering if there is anything else that I need to know before starting the work on it, except for relying on Wikipedia standard content policies and guidelines like I did in my previous article and edits? MarkWankel (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi @MarkWankel, thanks for reaching out. There were two issues last time (which were why the article was deleted): First, there was not enough significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) to justify the article. We can only write about what can be verified in secondary, reliable sources and won't base an article on other material or original research. Second, there was a conflict of interest issue—that an editor may have been editing without disclosing an affiliation with the subject. We ask that editors who have a conflict of interest in a subject disclose the nature of this conflict on the article's talk page, or preferably, do not edit the article at all but, at most, propose edits on the talk page for others to adopt. czar 04:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Great, this is exactly what I have understood from the article's deletion log and the comments of editors. Thank you for your clarification and recommendations. MarkWankel (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft move to page

Hello again! Can you move Draft:Untitled Alfonso Cuaron/Mexico City project to Untitled Alfonso Cuaron/Mexico City project as filming has commenced. Thanks! Tammydemo 15:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tammydemo, ✓ done, but it looks like it'd be better as a redirect for now (unless you have more sources) czar 20:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

FA

I managed to make Allen Walker become a FA thanks to a lot of feedback. Now, I'm thinking if I can make the same with Tidus and started a peer review. If you could provide some feedback, I would appreciate it. I also requested it to be copyedited too. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Since Tidus' peer review will keep on going alongside its copyedit, I wonder if I could work on remaking the Tales of the Abyss characters you merged in my sandbox. Of course, I'll try to add as much out-of-universe information as possible. What do you think? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tintor2, I don't remember doing that so I suppose you mean User:Tintor2/sandbox? I'd first check to make sure sufficient sourcing exists first—if no one is covering the characters as an entity separate from the game, then it would be best to cover the characters with due weight in the character/plot section of the parent article (Tales of the Abyss). It's less about adding as much out-of-universe info as possible and instead prioritizing what a reader needs to know about the subject without dragging out listicle superlatives and similar crufty/unencyclopedic things. That may mean only saying a line about each major character, or only mentioning the characters as part of the plot, etc. czar 14:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I tried expanding the reception as much as possible. See User:Tintor2/sandbox#Reception.Tintor2 (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Right, but the issue is the sourcing. I see one for the series and the rest are reviews of the game, meaning that the main point of discussion is Tales of the Abyss and not its characters (and these are reviews, not book-length works covering other aspects of the subject in depth). By the same token, you could write a similar "Reception" of the game's gameplay, its atmosphere, or any other in-game element. If anything, the sourcing shows that perhaps a paragraph dedicated to character reception can be added to the main article, but it doesn't show that characters from this game in specific are independently notable from the main game. Alternatively, if the characters recur throughout the series and if there are enough separate articles that discuss characters in the series, the topic would warrant expansion in the main series article. czar 17:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I see. I heard the game got manga spin-off but I think they were never licensed so finding reviews for them is impossible.Tintor2 (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Now that I remember there is anime about Abyss but I don't know if reviews about it are good considering they are based on the original game. Also, the Tales series had a bunch of spin-offs with some Abyss characters also making appearances there. There is an entire paragraph about Luke's appearance in those games in his article. Would that help?Tintor2 (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

For an article about that single character, perhaps, but for the group, it sounds more like we're scraping for reasons to create a separate article when the sources aren't showing such a need. Plenty of room to build out the main game's character section, though (though remember due weight) czar 16:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there a list of characters I could follow as example? I mean, I think my sandbox has more reception than Characters of Final Fantasy VI (also, I remember creating the IV one when playing the IV games some years ago). Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, no, I don't remember seeing any character series article that did a particularly good job. I think List of L.A. Noire characters comes close as a model: each entry tries to have in-depth history, development, reception, legacy—content that is better aggregated together than as separate articles or a section within the original article. But even here the sources are mostly about the game's development and reception... The basic idea is that enough source coverage of the game's development would show that the development itself was independently notable from the game (there would have to be a lot of these sources to warrant the split). This said, its overall character reception section is on the weaker side, and many of the entries rely entirely on original plot summary, so much can be merged or pared down. There are other character series list examples at WP:VG/GC and WP:VG/FC, but I wouldn't use them as a model—many/most don't have a leg to stand on. Characters of FF6, for instance, should have much better sourcing to warrant the split from the main article, otherwise it will collect junk (and indeed it has). I've started a few different drafts myself but none are close to primetime. All in all, it's very rare for a series of characters to be independently notable from a game/piece of media, and it usually has to do with the volume of secondary sources proving that there is more to say than that can appropriate fit within the main article's character section. czar 06:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Soldado (film)

Hello! Please move Draft:Soldado (film) → Soldado (film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 15:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 16:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Guidance

Hi, I saw you edited the Rockstar Taskforce page and wondered if you could help me out with something? I need another opinion on the case of the cover art for Grand Theft Auto: London 1969. I had uploaded a basic cover art (from the Rockstar website) back in 2010 and it was in use on the article until now. Recently another user had an issue with it due to certain things being missing from the cover, notably the title, so I compiled a clean cover art including the title but now the user in question wants to use the plain version without the title again. Which cover is best to use? It's been six years since I uploaded the plain one and now I feel the title should be there considering it's a pretty important part, while ratings, platform, publisher logo etc. should be omitted to maintain neutrality. Your thoughts? Dell9300 (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Dell9300, best to respond on the talk page so I did so there: Talk:Grand Theft Auto: London 1969#Cover art and merge. Short version is to use the version affiliated with the original release (video games WikiProject guidelines) but point might be moot if the page doesn't need to exist separately at all czar 17:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Bright (film)

Hello! Please move Draft:Bright (film) → Bright (film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 15:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 16:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Pacific Rim: Maelstrom

Hey Czar! Can you move Draft:Pacific Rim: Maelstrom to Pacific Rim: Maelstrom? Thanks!!! Tammydemo 00:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tammydemo, ✓ done czar 00:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Joe Alwyn

Hello sir! Please move Draft:Joe Alwyn → Joe Alwyn. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 13:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 15:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Czar.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Molly's Game

Hello...! Please do a histmerge of Draft:Molly's Game → Molly's Game — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 10:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 15:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello again! I just want to know that can I nominate this article for the DYK as you merged it just three days ago, technically you moved it, right? --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 08:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, yeah just write that it was moved from draftspace on the 16th, which it was czar 15:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 06:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Papillon (upcoming film)

Hello again! I was there to update Draft:Papillon (upcoming film) when I saw that someone had already created Papillon (upcoming film) before even filming could begin, so I need you to merge the mainspace article into the draft until filming begins. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 16:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Czar. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Revenant (2015 film)/GA2

Hello Czar! I won't contact anyone else when you are here. :-p Would you please take a look at Talk:The Revenant (2015 film)/GA2, and I'm not able to resolve the "Themes" section's issue. Are you able to help me in this as soon as possible? Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 07:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, done. That was a particularly florid source. Always happy to translate academese czar 07:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 08:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Murder on the Orient Express (2017 film)

Hello Czar! Please move Draft:Murder on the Orient Express (2017 film) → Murder on the Orient Express (2017 film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 15:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 18:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

closerfd.js

The format of RfDs have changed a bit so I've taken the chance to update closerfd.js and add extra functionality. My script is at User:Deryck Chan/closerfd.js. Let me know what you think. King of Hearts seems to be happy about it.[2] Deryck C. 17:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Cool, nice work. Would be better though if the links on Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion also closed the discussion instead of saying "[ Closure: (@subpage) ]", given the volume and that the only subpages are by date. czar 18:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The @subpage thingy is there because it is needed for the auto-generated edit summaries and deletion summaries to work. I suppose there's a way to get around it by some complex subst: trick but the RfD crowd seems to be averse to complicated wikicode. Deryck C. 10:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

On second thoughts, the @subpage thingy isn't really a problem we need to solve - for RfD the procedurally correct workflow should be first close discussion and second delete / restore redirect. When the discussion page is saved, the editor automatically lands on the daily log page where the closure links work. Deryck C. 13:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

TFA

Precious again, your Killer Instinct Gold!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

It's been two years, today.

Wishing Czar a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Wishing Czar/2016 Sept–Dec a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Mz7 (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Your removal of the MUME article

Hello,

On the 12 May you deleted the MUME article because of "dearth of significant coverage".

I am new to the WP processes, but I've read Wikipedia:SIGCOV and Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion and don't quite understand how that came to be:

• MUME was cited by Raph Koster, a major game designer, as a source of influence. The article had several more citations under "References" that tell of the significant role it had back in the MUD days.
• MUME was notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page since 2004.
• WP:NTEMP states that notability is not temporary.
• Even if prior editors were indeed wrong and MUME was non-notable, there is apparently a process for deletion, WP:FAILN.

Thanks in advance for your answer, Wpwaba (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Wpwaba, I redirected MUME to Middle-earth in video games#Unofficial games because it lacked reliable, secondary sourcing—for example, books and magazines with reputations for fact-checking and editorial credibility (not blogs or fansites, not primary or official sources either, such as sources personally affiliated with the subject matter). And significant coverage means having enough of those types of sources such that we can write a detailed article on the topic. MUME used predominantly unreliable sources (Usenet, fansites), and the few blurbs it had from decent sources could adequately be covered within its parent article (we call this summary style). If enough detail accretes at Middle-earth in video games#Unofficial games, we would spin it out into its own article, but only if the source material warranted it. I can respond point-by-point if you would prefer. czar 22:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Czar, I'm still reading and learning about WP policies (so many pages...) and examining the sources of the article. It was pretty rare for a MUD to be cited in published books because MUDding was an Internet subculture (although MUME does have such citations!), even though MUDs are the direct ancestors of today's massively mainstream MMORPGs. In that regard ref. 9 in the MUME article seems reliable as per "Exceptions" § 1 in WP:RSSELF, don't you agree? I also understand from your answer that it would be OK to bring back documented details about MUME in M-e i v g. I find "MUME (1992)" a bit... dry :) Wpwaba (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes! Absolutely expand Middle-earth in video games#Unofficial games with reliable sources as much as you can (pertaining to the MUD and other unofficial games)! I hear you on the coverage aspect—it's actually a topic within the MUD community. I have the links somewhere but suffice it to say that MUD figures realized that WP articles on their work couldn't stand without vetted sourcing and so there was some push to fix that, though I don't know where that impetus went. I wouldn't use The Mud Connector as a source, personally, unless I knew there was some kind of editorial assurance behind the writing. (All kinds of blogs have staff writers—doesn't mean they pass editorial muster.) If the writer is related to the subject or is some sort of expert, self-published sources are good for filling in gaps but they lack the editorial pull that gives us reason to cover it. (For example, when a reliable, secondary source covers a topic, it informs us what might be noteworthy about a topic. Whereas if we look to self-published sources, it's harder to determine what parts really need to be explicated if it wasn't important enough for a secondary source to cover. But that gets into a whole different conversation.) I know there's a lot of pages, but the most important one is WP:IAR (and being bold, if you can stomach being reverted at first). Let me know if there's anything I can do to help czar 06:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Czar, I started drafting an expanded Middle-earth in video games#Unofficial games but did not finish it in time before my holidays. I'll resume working on that in January. Until then, thank you for the discussion and happy new year! Wpwaba (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Square Enix Montreal for Characters of Chrono Cross?

GA trade idea, let me know. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Judgesurreal777, for that Square Enix love! I would bite, but I'd have to warn you that it doesn't look like it will pass at first skim. (I have more or less the same comments I left at Talk:Characters of Chrono Cross#Merger objection last July.) Notability isn't part of the GA criteria, but I would really hope to see sourcing more dedicated to the characters separate from the game (outside of reviews, showing independent notability) in order to warrant the separate split from, say, a sourced Chrono Cross#Characters (which actually should be sourced, if possible, especially as an FA). As of now, the character article reads like a bit of a "coat rack" in that it uses a few sourced statements about some characters to justify entire sections of character plot summary without secondary sourcing (sourced instead to the game itself, a primary source). Not passing judgment on the value of that—I imagine there are readers somewhere—but it's the kind of content that we usually move to Wikia, as we try to only cover that which has reliable, secondary sourcing, and usually merge character articles when there isn't a deluge of secondary sourcing to warrant a separate article. czar 06:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I have held similar concerns. I am hoping that a GA Review may give someone the opportunity at some point to research its lack of notability and discover it is or is not recoverable. Perhaps another time, another article.... Judgesurreal777 (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Judgesurreal777, I'd be willing to give that sort of feedback—it's just that the talk page would be a better place to discuss notability issues than a GAN, I think. I can still do it, but let me know what you'd prefer czar 18:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I am uncertain... I think I will pull the nomination and do a different article instead. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

How about for this article instead? Final Fantasy XIV: Heavensward Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

That one's much closer. My major issue with that one would be its plot summary (not just the section, throughout the article)—it should be rewritten for a general audience, and so characters like "Artoirel and Emmanellain" should not even be introduced by name unless they're important or otherwise going to show up again in the article. It's also a bit longer so I wouldn't have time for it until perhaps the weekend—I could use a reminder then, if someone doesn't already pick it up czar 18:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok sounds like a plan. Review it at your convenience :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

You know what, don't worry about it. I'm too busy to do a trade right now, I'm going to withdraw the nom. Take care. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph D. Kucan

I was going to close a no consensus but you haven't commented after NinjaRobot's sources were presented. Would you care to add some sort of ref analysis before I close? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I think the NC close is fine—the sources could be okay but the pragmatic part of me knows that if it sat as an unsourced BLP for this long, it's even more likely to continue that way. At least when it's in a series article section, it can be given appropriate weight and has the opportunity for summary style expansion. czar 18:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Re:DK64 scans

Sure thing. I'll have access to my magazines in a few hours, so I'll grab the review then. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's the page: 1. All the citation details you need should be on the page itself, barring the issue number, which is Vol 1, Issue 4, Lifecycle 2. Hope this helps. It's a sure thing I've got the EGM review buried in my magazines somewhere as well, if you end up needing that one. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Pantsuit Nation

Hi Czar - thank you for the welcome. This is my first experience with editing Wikipedia. I think my source for my edits would be screen shots from the group, taken when I was a member. I've left the group, and so no longer have access to that documentation. I suppose that leaves me no way to communicate the basic fact that a book deal, trademarking, and merchandising of a "secret" group was carried out without the knowledge or consent of those who contributed to the group. Once the Pant Suit Nation book is out, people will be turning to Wikipedia for more information. I think it's important that those people know where the book came from. I'm especially concerned that people's stories will be fictionalized and used without consent - her application for trademark (which was found by a member, posted, and which I can't access now) lists "fiction" as one of her uses for the trademark. The way the information for the book was gathered is important. Thank you for taking the time to introduce me to the basics of editing. Ann345! (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Ann345!, I hear you, but instead of primary source screenshots, we look to reliable, secondary sources (such as major periodicals and books) for citations. If a source is concerned with the ethics of how the book is published, articles will (in turn) be published on that topic and then we (in turn) can cite them. This helps us determine what standard of content is worth mentioning on a page. But WP isn't a platform for original research such as extrapolating the intent/outcomes of the deal. Instead, you can take your case to a reliable source and have them write about it. For more about the purpose of neutrality and verifiability on WP, you might be interested in the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Let me know if you have any other questions while editing and welcome again czar 18:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Senile Team

I see that my Senile Team article has been deleted. Could I please receive a copy of that page.-Cube b3 (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Cube b3, yep, you asked in March and I moved it here: User:Cube b3/Senile Team. Everything I said then still applies—I'd focus on making the RRRR article's development section good and only pursue splitting the dev if there is reliable sourcing to warrant it. czar 16:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, completely forgot. Been out of Wikipedia since probably March. Will start again soon. Don't worry won't make any new pages. Just work on the old ones.--Cube b3 (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Re:DK64 scans

Sure thing. I'll have access to my magazines in a few hours, so I'll grab the review then. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's the page: 1. All the citation details you need should be on the page itself, barring the issue number, which is Vol 1, Issue 4, Lifecycle 2. Hope this helps. It's a sure thing I've got the EGM review buried in my magazines somewhere as well, if you end up needing that one. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Had to go looking for the thread from earlier! Anyway, the list wasn't in April 2005's issue, but I looked around in the adjacent issues and found it in May (issue 191). Apparently the magazine was ahead an issue when the list was released. You can see the page here: May 2005, issue 191, page 50. As was typical for this kind of feature back then, there is no author listed. Hope this helps. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

OMG are they shitting on DKC 1-2-3. BURN THEM! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not the best list in my magazine collection. A cheap stab at controversy-baiting if I've ever seen one—which isn't surprising, given that EGM was shuttered only 45 issues later. And without stunts like these, they might have been dead even sooner! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow, knives out for Rare—half of the list... It's funny to read through these passive-aggressive DK64 reviews that can't directly complain about the "collect-a-thon" being a waste of time... only to watch how the game is ultimately remembered. But to their credit, EGM and GameFan were the only two mags that put in any sort of complaint at the time (EGM was mild, GameFan went all out). I wonder whether it was because of advertising/marketing relationships, given how Nintendo wanted to promote the game. Thanks for the scans, JB. czar 02:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Re:DKL scans

• 1 - DieHard GameFan. Vol.3, Iss.7. Pg.12. Dave Halverson is the editor, and from left to right the three reviewers are Dave "Skid" Halverson, Nicholas "Nick Rox" Dean Des Barres, and Kelly "K. Lee" Rickards.
• 2 - DieHard GameFan. Vol.3, Iss.7. Pg.82. Author is Kelly "K. Lee" Rickards.

I'll also see if I can find the Famitsu index I have used in the past. Just so you know, it's all text and it's entirely written in Japanese. Remind me if I haven't gotten it to you in a week's time. -Thibbs (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Crush 40

Hey there! I see that the Crush 40 page has been merged. I know that it's an old article and all and the merge happened in 2014, but I see that it was once a 'Good Article' and I do see it as such myself. I'm not going to revert without someone else following the idea it because I read the talk page and see that there was reason to merge it (Also, I am still a kinda new to Wikipedia to do that). Anyway, I was thinking, could you do that? I just feel that the information on Jun Senoue doesn't reflect the information that was given on the old Crush 40 page. Thanks for reading, Amir Abdullah 08:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YemeniFriend (talk • contribs)

Hi Amir (@YemeniFriend), the discussion is on its talk page (Talk:Crush 40). In short, the Good Article criteria is more of a check for basic structure, not for whether the topic is independently notable from Senoue, etc. The sources that were used in the article were largely unsuitable for an encyclopedia (not reliable, secondary sources). My understanding is that the section covers everything that we have sourced to say about the topic. As for who can merge, anyone can, and you can read more about the process at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If a discussion is challenged or otherwise controversial, it'll go to talk page discussion first, as it did in this case. (The talk page is a good place to ask questions, as is WT:VG for video game-related questions.) Welcome to Wikipedia and let me know if I can help further czar 08:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank You! Amir Abdullah 08:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hi Czar -- can you move Draft:Captain Underpants (film) to Captain Underpants (film) since production has evidently begun? Thanks! NathanielTheBold (talk) 22:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@NathanielTheBold, done czar 00:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 November 10#FC Dinamo Bucuresti logos

Hi Czar. Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 November 10#FC Dinamo Bucuresti logos. You deleted one of the two logos being discussed, but your close did not address the non-free use of the remaining logo. This was one of the issues I raised when I started the FFD discussion. I don't think the remaining file should be used in the reserve team's article based upon No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI and this also seem to be the opinion of the "Jon Kolbert", whereas the argument made for keeping the file in both articles by " Jkudlick" seems to be more of one based upon WP:LONGTIME than on policy. Could you clarify your close to touch on the non-free use of the file as well if you feel it should be kept in both articles? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly, done, though I'd say you should feel free to make those straightforward changes boldly, absent any objection czar 06:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I get the bold part when it comes to removing files, but it might be misconstrued as "putting words in your mouth" if it's not something mentioned specifically in the close. Plus, it is sometimes possible that a closing admin might feel differently about a particular non-free use. Anyway, I just wanted to clarify and appreciate you taking the time to take another look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

wp:Articles for deletion/Tung-Chai Ling

Hello, Czar. I don't know if you noticed in closing this AfD, but this article has been created multiple times by an editor who may be the same as the article subject. [3] Does salting apply to this type of article? Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Eggishorn, yep, saw that comment when I closed but didn't see a history of deletion on the page itself. (Turns out that there was an A7 on a different spelling in 2014.) A bit too early to salt, but I put the other pages on my watchlist (feel free to do the same) and will be proactive if the page returns without sources. czar 00:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I will take your suggestion and keep an eye on those three versions, as well as Tung-Chai ling. I think that should cover the bases. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

re: Motivation

There is indeed a lot of papers talking about his issue. Check WP:ACST for several surveys that asked this question, for start (the motivations and the general editor surveys). This was one of the classics, check on Google Scholar who cited it and you'll find some more, including my paper which has a paragraph, at least, on that. There is also a wiki about wiki research, check [4]. I hope this helps :D --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Piotrus, ironically, almost all of the links are down, but the paragraph in your paper was a useful summary. I'll dig around. Thanks! czar 18:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Benjamin Franks listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Benjamin Franks. Since you had some involvement with the Benjamin Franks redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

With apologies for this. I wish to stress that, despite our disagreement, I have considerable respect for the good work that you do on Wikipedia. I have no desire for this disagreement to sour our relationship. Josh Milburn (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

No offense taken—it's only content, after all czar 05:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Ivan Van Norman Page Deletion

Hey Czar, I saw you were the administrator to redirect the page Ivan Van Norman to King of the Nerds on the grounds of notariety and visibility. If possible, i'd like to open the page back up since he's had significant contributions since then as a Board Game Designer, Media Host, and Personality in the Twitch/YouTube space. Right now there is no way to re-instate the page from what I can tell. I'm happy to make edits to be reviewed later, I can also provide additional source if need be to help the process. Hydra Lord (talk) 08:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Hydra Lord, believe you're referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Van Norman. I wasn't involved in that discussion (apart from relisting it for more input) but I can still help. Since the article was redirected and not deleted, you can find the page history is still publicly available here. I could help restore that content to a draft but I would first have to ask what kind of reliable, secondary sourcing you've found that would make the topic require its own article. I recommend reading through Wikipedia's golden rule (and its links) before investing more time into this. czar 18:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)