User talk:Torchiest/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 → Archive 20

Toril

Not sure why this AFD is still hanging open, but I figure it may help if we added the sources you found during the AFD. I added a citation to the Wired bit that you found; could you please make some use of the MacKay source? BOZ (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

See?  ;) BOZ (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cydia

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cydia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Dragonlance miscellaneous

Awesome work, as always. :) A few Dragonlance articles are up for PROD at the moment; they are a mixed bag, and may or may not have sources: Wizards of High Sorcery, The Atlas of the Dragonlance World, and List of Dragonlance artifacts. BOZ (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Any luck with sourced for any of these? BOZ (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

here - just putting this link back here, for my own convenience at the very least. ;) I didn't look again yet, but is there anything in there for Lord Soth before I consider restoring any other characters (I recall seeing Flint in there)? BOZ (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing about Lord Soth, but I added some references to the Flint Fireforge entry on the list article. —Torchiest talkedits 15:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Anything for Sturm Brightblade, Laurana Kanan, Tika Waylan, or Dalamar? I think the rest of the characters are too minor to spend time searching on, except maybe Verminaard (maybe). BOZ (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
None of them, although I see just a single sentence mentioning that Verminaard is the primary antagonist of the first Chronicles book. —Torchiest talkedits 15:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Do you know of any other sources for those others? BOZ (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Found what looks like a great source for Sturm: Jeff Gerke (2011). The First 50 Pages: Engage Agents, Editors and Readers, and Set Your Novel Up For Success. Writer's Digest Books. ISBN 978-1599632872. On pages 69–71, there is a section called "The Principled Hero" which focuses exclusively on him. I'll check on the others later. —Torchiest talkedits 15:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
That is awesome. I'm going to go ahead and restore at least Flint and Sturm, so that sources can be added. If you spot anything for the others, please let me know. BOZ (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
One thing I want to do (probably tomorrow) is look through some of the DL video game articles which features the Heroes of the Lance characters and see if they have any soruces which talk about the characters (or the artifacts, for that artifact list AFD). BOZ (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Good idea. The obvious candidate to inspect: Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: Heroes of the Lance lol. —Torchiest talkedits 22:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Well yep, that's the only game that I'm sure they are in, the rest not so much. I can at least get a source that confirms they are in the game, and it would be a gem if I can get a "this is my favorite character because..." or something like that. :) BOZ (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, some people seem to want to make it impossible for me to get any more work done. :\ I hate having to fight every step of the way to get anything done. Oh well, I did get some done, but that's not going to stop me from looking for more sources. I am going to go to the WP:VG talk page for help with some of these reviews. BOZ (talk) 06:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the Wizards of High Sorcery article has a chance. I can't find anything about it that isn't either forum, blog, or published by TSR or WoTC. The Atlas of the Dragonlance World I had some hope for, but I can't find any professional reviews. List of Dragonlance artifacts seems like the kind of appropriate merge target for groups of items that are individually non-notable, but work as a group, just like the list of character articles for so many games, TV shows, book series, etc. I'll dig around for individual items in a bit though. —Torchiest talkedits 15:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough! Those two articles will probably wind up merged. As for the artifact list, I dug up a little bit for the Dragonlances and Disks of Mishakal, and was expecting to find something about the Blue Crystal Staff but didn’t see it yet. As far as the rest, I get the feeling that there might be something for the Bloodstone of Fistandantilus, Dragon Orbs, Graygem of Gargath, Hammer of Kharas, Silver Arm of Ergoth, and Staff of Magius, but I’d expect them to be longshots, and the rest I am not familiar with at all. BOZ (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
No luck on the Blue Crystal Staff, except in primary sources. BOZ (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
It took some creative googling, but I was able to extract some great info about the Dragonlances themselves from that same Wolf book. —Torchiest talkedits 23:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Good deal, thanks for checking. :) BOZ (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Annual Report

Hi. A first draft is here. I'm still working on most of it, but the Plans for 2013 section is all yours. Do you have graphics tools that could create the charts? I've collected the numbers but haven't the means to create the pics. --Stfg (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I hope you don't mind that I edited the Plans for 2013 to avoid first person singular, as it's the Guild's report. I'm sure you'll get support for both the ideas you put there. Do you want to add anything about goals for drives, blitzes, where you'll take the CEM, etc? --Stfg (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I've now done as much as I'm aware of and have asked Dianna to go through it and make any changes she wants. Please feel free to adjust all sections now too. I will do the tba items at 00:00 and then ping Dianna that it's ready to go. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
No problem on the rewrite. I thought I'd seen the previous year's report written in first person for that section, but I double checked and found I was imagining that. I can create a chart, but it might not look the same as previous charts have. I'm still looking it over and may make more changes over the next few hours. Thanks for putting it all together. —Torchiest talkedits 15:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Excellent. I'm very happy with the changes you and Dianna have made. I don't think it matters if the chart gets a new style. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Just seen the new version of Plans for 2013 -- does "monthly drives" need clarifying in the last bullet? --Stfg (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

How's it look now? —Torchiest talkedits 21:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Still confusing, because they're bimonthly :)) Actually, is it the drives or the blitzes you plan to vary the themes of? --Stfg (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's both, really. I got to thinking about this after we had to change the second blitz from a WikiProject to the oldest tags. We could use lots of different groupings to determine what to focus on for each event, such as a requests-only blitz, a backlog drive that gives extra credit for any tagged articles that are in some way related to that month (e.g. St. Patrick's Day for the March drive or Summer Solstice for June), or a blitz for 5k+ only articles. Just trying to come up with ways to make the events stand out a little. —Torchiest talkedits 21:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, interesting! The bullet looks fine now. --Stfg (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup!

Hello Torchiest, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The competition begins at midnight UTC. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders: *The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page. *Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started the review in 2013.) We will be checking. *If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself. *Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens. *Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked. Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 18:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

GOCE 2012 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2012 Annual Report

The GOCE has wrapped up another successful year of operations!

Our 2012 Annual Report is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Industrial Annual Report 2012

WikiProject Industrial

Annual Report 2012

—Torchiest talkedits 02:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

2013

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg Have an enjoyable New Year!
Hello Torchiest: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 07:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup

Hello, Torchiest, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders:

  • The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page.
  • Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started and completed the review in 2013.) We will be checking.
  • If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself.
  • Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens.
  • Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked.

Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 12:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Q4 Newsletter

Hi Torchiest. I just finished a draft for the Q4 Newsletter feature (posted here). It's a bit long so anything you can do to cut it down would be appreciated. Sorry for getting this out so last minute. By my current local time it was due about 45 minutes ago (on the 2nd)... I can see from the draft we've got that there still are a few things missing like the December 2012 new article announcements, but I assume MuZemike will have those done very soon. So if you get a moment, please look over and cut what you think could be cut. I'll post at the newsletter talk too so others can look it over too. Thanks again, -Thibbs (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help again. It looks great. I really appreciate your efforts. -Thibbs (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
No problem, and likewise. You did an incredible amount of research. —Torchiest talkedits 21:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

HighBeam for D&D articles (part 6b)

Would it be presumptuous to think that maybe we could get back on track before someone comes along and tries to delete some more Dragonlance articles?  :)

OK, you were mostly done with articles from the Icewind Dale series. On Icewind Dale II, a particularly hardworking anonymous editor who apparently really liked the game, did a bunch of work on it to build it up to Good Article – of course, that is no reason not to work on it further, if those hits I found will help. :)

Icewind Dale II [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

BOZ (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hehe, yeah, fingers crossed. I kinda skimmed those a while back, but nothing caught my eye as adding anything huge compared to the already good state of the article. I'll give them another look this weekend. —Torchiest talkedits 00:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, sounds goo.  :) BOZ (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm looking them over, and although I squeezed a few tiny bits out of the first two, I just don't think these are the type of coverage we would need to push this towards FA, if that were the goal. The problem is they're all reviews or year-end recaps, with a basic description of the gameplay and plot, and then opinion on how good it is. Really, nothing beyond what we already have, and from better, games-dedicated sources. This article is really in excellent shape; I'm almost considering removing the parts I've added, since they're nothing special. I wonder if we could try raking it over the coals a few times and look for deficiencies instead of me trying to paste in whatever I find? —Torchiest talkedits 05:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with your additions, but that is up to you what you want to do with them; they are minor but useful changes to an article already in good shape. I personally wasn't thinking about taking this one to FA, but you never know if someone will in the future. BOZ (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're up for some more VG-related work, I split off my search regarding the Baldur’s Gate: Dark Alliance series when I saw that there was already quite a bit just for the main Baldur’s Gate series.

Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance II [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

BOZ (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources #2 and #3 were pretty useful huh? :) BOZ (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
And #4 it looks like. :) BOZ (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Heh, I know I'm going really slow on these, but in the last week or so the number of articles I'm wanting to work on has exploded. I'm suddenly dying to turn a bunch of ancient video game articles into GAs, lol. But I will try to knock out at least BG:DA Sunday. :) —Torchiest talkedits 04:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
No problem, I know you have been busy. :) Just bugging you a little, but didn't realize you had so much on your plate. Just trying to get these two articles out of the way before the two DnD GA reviews get rolling. There won't be that much left for our VG articles after these are done. BOZ (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • These two are done. The last few sources for DA1 were trivial or useless, and almost all the sources for DA2 were trivial or duplicates of each other, but I pulled from the two best sources for that. —Torchiest talkedits 18:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, sounds good! BOZ (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hyderabad, India

Hi. As you may have noticed, I've made announcements all over the place to the effect that I'll stay away from article, talk page and FAC review, to make way for a copy editor. Would it help if I add a request to our requests page? Simon --Stfg (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you'd already done that a few days ago. It couldn't hurt, although it might not be picked up soon enough for this FAC. I've gotten myself slightly overextended at the moment, with some real life stuff needing to be attended to as well, but I'll try to work on it some this weekend too. —Torchiest talkedits 15:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Previously I just put it on the talk page, but I've added it to the requests now, to let anyone who does it claim it for the drive. If it's you, that would be fabulous, but I do understand that life can raise bigger prioirites. --Stfg (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ratnapimpri (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Bajra and Borse
Cicognini National Boarding School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Madonna

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

We need help

Hello,
We are having a difficulty in reaching consensus regarding the genre of Kyuss, which we are discussing here. The discussion also includes the credibility of Allmusic. As you are a skilled contributor and have participated in discussions regarding Allmusic's credibility, we'd be grateful if you could participate in our discussion and help us to reach a consensus. Thank you. Myxomatosis75 (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Oldest articles

Hi boss! Before I "correct" something that's already right, I wanted to run it by you. In the current drive leaderboard, "Oldest Articles" are defined only as those from January and February 2012. But in the lede above, March 2012 is also listed as qualifying for the 50% bonus. It didn't seem right that March is old enough for the bonus but not for the leaderboard. Or was that intentional? --BDD (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Whoops! We have that information listed in so many places, we always seem to miss it in a few spots when changes are made. It should include March everywhere. —Torchiest talkedits 19:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

God of War FAC

I'm expanding the Setting section. Could you copy-edit it? [27] --JDC808 ♫ 22:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do that a little later tonight. —Torchiest talkedits 23:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I've never done a Setting section beyond what's currently on the God of War pages so it may be a little rough lol --JDC808 ♫ 01:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
It's gonna take a few passes to finish, but I do have a question: what exactly does "a shipwrecked graveyard" mean? It's pretty confusing terminology. —Torchiest talkedits 03:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that's how the novel described it, but essentially it's a mass of wrecked ships, boats, etc.
Just looked at the novel, and it named it the Grave of Ships. --JDC808 ♫ 04:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, did another pass, and the last sentence of the first paragraph has me stumped. I chopped the second half off into its own sentence, but it's covering too much ground and gets confusing: "Their defeat guiding him through the desert so that he can summon the Titan Cronos in order to access the Temple of Pandora, chained to his back, to find Pandora's Box." Can you break it down? How does the defeat of the sirens guide Kratos? Also, how are they defeated? I guess the temple is chained to Cronos' back? —Torchiest talkedits 19:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it can be possibly broken down. When he kills them, their soul is released and flys toward a door that goes to some kind of chamber. When all three are killed, the door opens so he can contine towards Cronos. He just has to fight them and kill them, albeit there are a couple minotaurs making it difficult, but that's unnecessary to mention. Yes, the temple is chained to his back, like a giant backpack. Here's a video that shows the desert, the sirens, and a little bit of Cronos. [28] --JDC808 ♫ 22:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Of the two versions, which do you think would be better for the article? --JDC808 ♫ 12:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
So this is going in the setting section? It seems to go beyond what a setting should do. I see in the FAC that another editor recommended removing it altogether. Expanding it is making it more redundant with the plot section. It's essentially a condensed version of the whole plot now. Just curious what your plan and reasoning is. I'd actually probably agree to remove the section and merge its few unique parts with the plot, unless you had something else in mind with regard to trimming back to avoid repetition. —Torchiest talkedits 14:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I didn't really wanna remove the section, and I was looking at the Final Fantasy articles (which is what the entire Synopsis section is based on) and it explains the environments pretty well, and looking at FFXIII in particular, it's two paragraphs long (albeit it is a much longer game). How do you have a Setting section and not be redundant with information in the Plot section? --JDC808 ♫ 21:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hm. Try removing descriptions of the events, like "Kratos fought/killed whoever" and add more descriptions of the locations. I think I'm favoring your second version, now that I've thought about it, but with more modifications. Every up until "The narrative begins..." in the first paragraph is good as is. After that, try just describing each environment, without necessarily worrying about what happens in each one. You've got it like that somewhat already, and I admit I may have moved it backwards with some of my edits, but try getting it focused back on the scenery and types of enemies etc met in each location. Maybe just describe then in chronological order without worrying about how Kratos gets to each one or moves between them either. Let me know what you think. —Torchiest talkedits 21:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, definitely the second version. I'm liking the changes you've made while I was typing that out. —Torchiest talkedits 21:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, any suggestions on what else could be trimmed back with what I've done to the second version? --JDC808 ♫ 21:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I ran through it again, and I think it's looking pretty good now. I say put it in the article and get some more opinions on it. —Torchiest talkedits 23:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Alright, cool, thanks for the help. --JDC808 ♫ 23:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Should the chronological placement be addressed in the Setting? --JDC808 ♫ 00:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean explaining the order in which the locations occur? They're described in order right now, right? I think the plot section takes care of that okay, unless you mean something different. —Torchiest talkedits 14:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I was meaning the game's chronological placement in relation to the other games. It's mentioned in the lead (that it's third chronologically), but nowhere else. --JDC808 ♫ 00:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
? --JDC808 ♫ 03:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Oops, forgot about this. Maybe just say something like, "After the events in [whichever game was right before it], when Kratos [did whatever]..." in the plot/story section. —Torchiest talkedits 06:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay. --JDC808 ♫ 22:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I put it in the Setting section, can you have a look and see if you agree/disagree? --JDC808 ♫ 23:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I finally read and finished the God of War novel. I've worked on summarizing some of the more interesting things it adds, differs, and omits. Could you have a look over to see what you think? [29] --JDC808 ♫ 08:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Graham Colm has given me permission to renominate. --JDC808 ♫ 23:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting again and your recent copy/edits. Did you get a chance to look over the novel mentioned two posts above this one? --JDC808 ♫ 22:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, whoops. I'd thought you'd already put it in the article, which is why I copy edited that section again lol. I'll take a look at that in a little bit. —Torchiest talkedits 22:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
lol ok. --JDC808 ♫ 22:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for copy/editing that. Implementing. Also, there's a bunch of points brought up by a reviewer on the FAC. I tried addressing/fixing all of them. --JDC808 ♫ 00:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A point was brought up about how the instruction manual and novel are being cited. I'm confused on which way is the correct way that should be used if you could have a look. --JDC808 ♫ 03:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter (4th Quarter 2012)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 5, No. 4 — 4th Quarter, 2012
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2012, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pi Kappa Alpha

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pi Kappa Alpha. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Navel

Thank you for cleaning up the article. On looking through it, I happened to notice that a large number of citations were incomplete. I took the liberty of running Reflinks, and then some of my formatting scripts on the resulting whole. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 02:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. It still needs a ton of work, but thanks for cleaning up the citations too. Heh, actually, quite a few of them need to be replaced with better sources, but that's a separate problem. Cheers. —Torchiest talkedits 02:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Dwarf GA

Well I thought it was a crazy idea, but I'd love to see it work. I started this thread here, so maybe something interesting will come out of that. I think the last GA we got was Unearthed Arcana, which if I am right that was longer ago than I thought, so it would be good to see another one. BOZ (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured what the hell. It covers the real-world history, the essential characteristics, the variations, and the versions for specific settings. In terms of the D&D dwarf, I don't know that there's much else to add for "broad coverage". But it seems like it could be one of those tough reviews that no one will attempt either. We'll have to wait and see! —Torchiest talkedits 03:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, me of little faith. :) Well done! BOZ (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hehe, thanks! Pretty fun to get a GA on that one. I wonder if there are any other classes or races that could be built up? I'll have to look around. —Torchiest talkedits 15:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Good question! I'd say the Elf at the very least; to a lesser degree the Halfling; to a much lesser degree, the Gnome, Half-Elf, and Half-Orc. Classes, I'd say take your pick between Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard of course, and if you want a real challenge you could try Paladin, Ranger, Druid, or rarer ones like Bard, Monk, or Barbarian. BOZ (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I remember last year, when I first went after the dwarf article, I tried looking for sources for elf and came up very very dry, unfortunately. It's probably at least partially due to the fact that searching for the word "elf" turns up eleventy-bazillion results. Some of the character classes might have better luck though, since they're a little more particular to D&D, especially cleric. —Torchiest talkedits 16:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Dragonlance novels mass merge

OK, I knew this was coming sooner or later, I just didn't think it would be all at once like this. Neelix has proposed a mass merge of some 40 Dragonlance articles. Maybe we will not find reviews for a lot of these (they're not the main books, after all), but I'm sure there are reviews for some of them. I did check HighBeam and at least found the following, if you could please check them out:

BOZ (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I almost started a thread saying Hourglass should remain separate, as it has two sources. On DDD, the first two have small reviews of the audiobook version. The third source is the same as the one you've listed for Hourglass, and is actually a very excellent source for the series as a whole, ironically. It only mentions the two books, saying Hourglass will be released in 2008, and DDD will be read out loud by Weis. The Huma source is pretty good. It gives an overview of the entire series, with some discussion of the first book, and then has some comments and reviews on the author Knaak's style. I'll dip into these over the weekend. —Torchiest talkedits 22:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I started a thread on the list talk page, so you can respond there with any concerns you have. So you're saying the "Huma" source has some info on Stormblade (novel) and Weasel's Luck too? You might be able to make use of the "DDD" sources if they discuss the book at all. BOZ (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
No, nothing about them. I misread it initially. It has two big paragraphs about the first book in the series, then a sentence about Kaz the Minotaur. Then it has another big paragraph of commentary on Knaak's writing. Then a fourth big paragraph about his video game crossover novels for Blizzard. —Torchiest talkedits 23:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, do what you can. :) BOZ (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, revising my statement again. All three sources for DDD were great. But there's nothing for Hourglass in the third source. I'll work on Huma tomorrow. —Torchiest talkedits 03:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Great work so far! For what it's worth, I found one review for The Dargonesti as well. BOZ (talk) 05:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to check something out at the library tonight, so wish me luck.  ;) As for the Knaak source, does it have anything good on any other DL or D&D books - whether or not they currently have an article? BOZ (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Good luck! I milked the first paragraph of the article to the utmost for the new background section. The second paragraph is mostly the dreaded "plot summary", horrors! It was tough to reference particular spots in the book article because the plot section is more detailed than the briefer summary in the source. The third paragraph is mostly about his Dragonrealm trilogy, and has some pretty good analysis-type quotes. The fourth paragraph has some quotes from Knaak about working with Blizzard. The last two paragraphs are much shorter than the other, and I used one of his quotes ("one should never give up") there for the background section. —Torchiest talkedits 17:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, so nothing really further about his DL/D&D work then. I don’t think there are any articles for Dragonrealm (I smell opportunity! If you are interested), but it looks like there may be articles for some of his Diablo/Warcraft books if the sources details those and if you want to get involved there. Meanwhile, I'm going to try to find some more sources for all the DL merge list articles tonight (and if necessary Thursday), and if you can find any more for them that would be great too – otherwise, I figure the ones with no source will likely get merged and I'll try to make a case for keeping those with at least one solid review. BOZ (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, it might not be terrible if the practically empty articles get merged for now. As long as they're not deleted, we can restore them if and when we find sources. I have been toying with the idea of adding a list of books with at least one or two sources, and suggesting people add more to the list as other articles are sourced, to simplify the possibly very complex task of figuring out which articles pass muster. On a side note, I'm putting together a response to your post at WT:GOCE. —Torchiest talkedits 17:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I know what you mean about the mostly empty ones – if we have no source and no content, might as well not have an article until we can get a source and some content.  ;) One possibility is that we could merge some of the solo articles with few sources into "series" articles; the FR novels already mostly do that compared to how the DL articles were handled. These should be looked at individually. Let me see what I can do tonight, and if I can get Paul Erik to look at a handful of these to see if he can add more, and then we'll talk more seriously about specific ways to handle them. BOZ (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sha'ir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wizard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: video game soundtracks

For soundtrack sections that are within a video game article as opposed to separated out in their own article, I usually lose everything except the track listing. I've done a few more novel approaches; for Halo Wars there was so much development info (although there wasn't enough reception to justify its own article) I just created a non-collapsible tracklist table, but for most cases I think the normal way of doing things is fine. I'd also recommend moving the reception of the audio into the general reception section. The most vital stats in the infobox should be covered in prose anyhow, and leaving the template there usually just acts as a magnet for cover art that WP:NFCC doesn't allow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Diablo 3 game development

Hello. I do not have the ability to edit the diablo 3 article. Can you please update the development section with the information that arena mode will not be implemented? Dueling will be used instead: http://ca.ign.com/articles/2013/01/14/diablo-iiis-pvp-dueling-detailed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odin156569 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at that today. —Torchiest talkedits 14:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Public Relations Society of America

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Public Relations Society of America. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn

Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn is one of my favorite games of all time, probably the game that got me into video games. I'm super excited to see it at GAN. I won't do the review though, I don't think I could approach the task neutrally, but kudos to you, and thanks. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Heh, that's awesome. When the BG1 came out, it was a revelation in RPGs for me, blowing away everything that had come before. And of course the second one improved on just about everything. The article was kind of a mishmash of quality, but I think I've evened it out now. I'm still working on it though, just figured it was close enough to nominate. I want to get the first one to GA status too, and maybe eventually get them both to FA somewhere down the line. —Torchiest talkedits 04:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I haven't taken a thorough look yet, but it looks like you have been trying to replace some of the copious references to the game manual... I was going to say something about that, because if I were a GA reviewer I would quick-fail it just over that.  ;) BOZ (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think using the game manual as a reference is okay to a certain extent, but yeah, third party sources are always nice. :) When I took Starflight through GAN recently, I passed while still referencing the entire manual almost literally from front to back. Some gameplay elements just aren't discussed outside of the book. By the same token, it might be a bit too detailed on some points and need trimming. I've done that a little here and there, but I plan on working it over continuously until it gets a review. —Torchiest talkedits 16:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Shows you what I know - guess it's good I'm not a GA reviewer, then. ;) But, it is good to replace them with 3rd party refs whenever you can - so carry on.  :) BOZ (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Excellent work. BOZ (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Excellent indeed. After the copy edit drive ends today, I'll have more time to work on NWN again. That could be the next GA target. —Torchiest talkedits 13:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good - I'm going to finish working on Al-Qadim today, so hopefully that will be at least a B-class.  ;) BOZ (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Help on Colin Farrell article

Hi Torchiest, happy new year! I wondered if I could get your feedback on making Colin Farrell a good article. It would be my first. I am working to make all of the descriptions of movies he's been in more consistent, so things other than this. thanks.--Aichik (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

GOCE mid-drive newsletter, January 2013

Guild of Copy Editors January 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter

We are halfway through our January backlog elimination drive.

The mid-drive newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aishwarya Majmudar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Star TV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Torchiest/Archive_14&oldid=1148817584"