User talk:GamerPro64/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

  1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
  2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
  3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
  4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
  5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

Pearl Jam FTC

Lightning Bolt passed, please close the removal candidacy! igordebraga ≠ 17:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll get around to closing the review as soon as I get a computer. For right now I'm mobile. GamerPro64 00:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/2002 North Indian Ocean cyclone season/archive1

Hello GamerPro64! I see that earlier today you closed the Good Topic Candidate (GTC) of the 2002 North Indian Ocean cyclone season "with no consensus to promote". Last night I finally fixed the remaining problems that User:Jason Rees had. However, I forgot to comment that I addressed his issues. Would you be willing to reopen the GTC and check if Jason Rees is satisfied with the progress I made or should I just move on and possibly re-nominate sometime in the future? Thanks! --12george1 (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I think you should first ask Jason if there are any problems left then start a new nomination. It was up for over three months and it was getting bloated at this point. GamerPro64 20:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive

It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:

  • This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
  • Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
  • The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
  • An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.

Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.

More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.

I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!

--Dom497

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Re:Blast from the past

Great to see you around, too. I've been good; just not had much Wikipedia motivation in the last year. I had some free time today and a sudden itch to write that Voyager article, so I figured I might as well. In all likelihood, I'll disappear again after dealing with the GAN and DYK stuff on Voyager, but we'll see. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for help with the Loadout article

Just wanted to add some thanks for your help with finding possible references for the Loadout article, it needed lots of work & I still need to work on it but, this should make the process easier & faster. I'll be sure to add some of your sources when I find the time. Thanks.Thdegy (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Thdegy

Anachronox on hold

Just a note; I guess the bot isn't coming. Tezero (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any comments from you relating to Reception. Tezero (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I know you're trying and don't want to sacrifice depth. It's still way too long, though. I'd ask around on WT:VG to see what other users think would be best to remove. Tezero (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Uh... not yet. I'm looking for something roughly the length of the main Reception text + Technical design together - maybe a little longer because the reviews seem rather in-depth, but not much. I'm not sure I agree with that standard, but it exists. Tezero (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, no one's responded there, and it seemed that you wanted another check-in in the meantime. Tezero (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
What I'll probably do tomorrow is go through Reception and put a version I'd be okay with in my Sandbox; then you can change it as you like. Sound good? Tezero (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Alright. See ya later. Tezero (talk) 05:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
How's this? Add more back in if you wish, but not too much, please. The sources I ended up taking out altogether are at the bottom; I left them there so you could merge them back into the article elsewhere in case other sections rely on them. Tezero (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah, I figured I'd know best what I wanted, and it felt kinda cheap to ask other WP:VG members for assistance when I was the reviewer. Tezero (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
The article is still at GAN, so please try to get to the Reception changes soon, or at least confirm that what I have is okay. Tezero (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Honestly? I've been a member of Wikipedia on-and-off for about a third of my life, and I took both AP English classes in high school during my semi-retirement, and I still can't really tell how FA-quality a given article is, prose-wise. I just perfunctorily PR and copyedit-request whatever I'm trying for FA with and hope for the best. Tezero (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I question the worth of it sometimes. I'm motivated to get articles to GA because I actually want readers to be better-informed on the topics and look at aesthetically pleasant documents, but as for FAs, I mainly just go by "Wouldn't it be hilarious/cool if this was an FA?" (Apparently I succeeded.) That's not usually enough, especially with some like Sonic and the Secret Rings, which failed its FAC after a PR and copyedit. Tezero (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

GAN March 2014 Backlog Drive

The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

tb

Hello, GamerPro64. You have new messages at Vantine84's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

tb

Hello, GamerPro64. You have new messages at Vantine84's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

DYK for Anachronox

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

FT

Not to pile more work on you, but is Wikipedia:Featured topics not being updated with the new topics as they are promoted? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

Another FTC question

I was looking over some topics, and I noticed that Wikipedia:Featured topics/Nickels of the United States does not include 1913 Liberty Head nickel. When the topic was promoted in 2012, the issue wasn't raised, despite said article existing when the topic was nominated. Should the topic be put up for removal, or is the topic complete since the 1913 nickel is already briefly covered in the Liberty Head nickel article?--十八 11:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, each of the topic noms have at least a couple of supports each, and barring any objections, could probably be passed before the end of this month without issue. FTC is generally a very slow process anyway, and the longer a topic is up for nomination, the more likely it is going to be seen by someone who wants to comment. Then again, FTC generally seems like the nomination process with the least amount of interest overall.--十八 00:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Considering the only supports for it came before all those extra comments were made, and hasn't received any new constructive comments in over a month, it probably would be safe to fail it for lack of support.--十八 04:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Now for a new issue. Project M (mod) was created two months ago, and the mod was released back in 2011. Should we first inform User:New Age Retro Hippie and User:Tezero about this, and then put Wikipedia:Featured topics/Super Smash Bros. series up for removal? Or does Project M (mod) not have to be included in the topic?--十八 23:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Oof. I kinda forgot about that article. I'll see if I can't improve it to a GA-ready status regardless of whether it's determined necessary. Tezero (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Hopefully it can be done. Question, does anyone here think that there's merit to a "Characters in Super Smash Bros." page? There is a lot of concept and creation content, as well as a lot of reception for the characters as they appear in the Smash series. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
As for Project M, I think if GA proves to be a difficult task for the article, we can simply exclude it and operate on the idea that the topic only covers Nintendo-developed games and its series. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The thing about Project M is that there are just two obstructions to me finishing it up for GA: it needs more reception, and I'm not sure how much about generic Melee/Brawl gameplay to include in Gameplay.
And I'm neutral about a SSB character page. I'm skeptical that there's really that much reception for the character cast as a whole (otherwise, it might fit better in those characters' articles), but if you have it, go ahead. Tezero (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't have the sources, but I've seen reviews and coverage of Smash that discusses the rosters a bit. I'll have to do some research. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • God sakes you two. I would've gotten to this earlier but was away from the computer. Now to answer the big question: No. Project M does not have to be part of the topic. I will direct you all to this thread from 2011. It had to do with a mod question I asked and it applies to this one too. GamerPro64 01:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Since no one has outrightly opposed the topic as it stands, I think it would be safe to pass it. Although of the 4 current supports, Nergaal (talk · contribs) is the only one who has expressed interest in wanting Sonic added to the topic in the future. Everyone else, other than Ritchie333 (talk · contribs), seems to agree that the topic doesn't need it.--十八 05:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm not really a game fan (still struggling to work out what Minecraft actually is), but my "outsider" view seemed to work well for the Sega Genesis GA, which everyone involved enjoyed and let to a quick and painless FA nomination. I think Sonic is to the Genesis what the Beatles were to Parlophone Records, or Sean Connery was to James Bond. Still, if nobody agrees that it's required for the FT, then I'm okay with that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I briefly glanced at this discussion, and if anybody has any issues with any current topic, feel free to raise those points somewhere at wp:FT?, wp:FTC, or wp:FTRC. Nergaal (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Debate about Impossible Mission article.

I'm having a debate with JakIIDax about Impossible Mission here. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 18:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

GTC questions

Hey. Looks like I didn't lose interest like I thought I would: I finished up the last few articles in the Looking Glass Studios video games topic, and I'll be nominating it for GTC as soon as those articles pass GAN. A couple of years ago, I asked about the scope of the topic, and you said that it would probably be fine. I wanted to make sure that nothing had changed in the meantime. You can see the current topic draft here.

Aside from that, I was wondering if there was anything I should know about GTC that isn't explained in the nomination guidelines, since I've never really been involved in the topic process before. Any advice on my nomination would be a huge help. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@JimmyBlackwing: An important thing for a nominator to do when getting a topic prepared is making a book for the topic. I know it says it in the nomination procedure page but people usually don't get that part. And usually I will promote a topic if at least three Supports are brought up. The topic is rather small and takes a while for reviews to be completed so I find that to be a decent way to gather consensus. And the topic itself is pretty airtight. Unless someone manages to make article pages for the cancelled games in the future, it's okay for now. I gotta say, this feels like the end of an era with this finally seeing the light of day. A good way to go out if this is your last hurrah. GamerPro64 05:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll keep that in mind. And yeah, it's hard to believe that the topic is done. This probably will be my last hurrah, so big thanks there. You can expect to see the topic nom up relatively soon. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

You have a question to the project report. As it's not really about the topic I come here for an answer. Look at the top of my talk and ask more if you don't find enough ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

ps: you seem to be interested in video games. Follow the link for Duck Attack! in the report, - the author left end of December, I translated, - I am happy he's back. Similar thing for Gilbert Foliot. I translated Stargazy Pie just for fun, had done the DYK review. Unfortunately, the other authors (and many more) are still missed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding: today is the anniversary of giving Precious to one I particularly miss. I also had reason to translate another article, - "anyone can edit" is a myth, Remember not, Lord, our offences, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

Re: LGS

Thanks for the heads-up. And yeah, I've been waiting for David's image before nominating. I'm not in a massive hurry, but I might end up nominating without an image if he's too busy. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

Re: Saffron

That's bizarre; I only posted that earlier today. Anyway, I feel bad about bringing that up, but it really is a serious problem; I couldn't exactly go through the sources and place them as appropriate, since not only are they quite long, but many are print-based. Usually in my experience, the nominators of old, problematic FAs are inactive but haven't officially gone on retirement or semi - so I wonder about this one's. Tezero (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

To do so fast

How do you find the new content with which to update the to do list so fast? czar ♔ 21:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@Czar: Being on the site for over five years, I've used lots to things to keep the list up to date, like using the changes to the project and the changes to this to-do list links on the to do list to keep an eye on the entire project. Even sometimes looked at some editors contribution pages at the right time to see what they nominated. There's a reason some people look at me as the one who does the behind the scenes work for the project. GamerPro64 21:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Impressive monitoring. I think people look to you as the project maintainer because you are the project maintainer. Anyway, thanks for doing what you do. I track the to do list and I like seeing the new articles pop up. (A thought: I'd suggest reformatting the to do section to be closer to milhist's—much cleaner.) czar ♔ 22:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

How would you feel about adopting a new format for VGTD along the lines of {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}? It's somewhat cleaner. Wanted your thoughts before I work on it I am watching this page for the near future—no need to whisperback czar ♔ 18:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Saw your note. Take your time. And when you come back, check out {{WPVG announcements}} and let me know what you think. I came up with a much nicer GAN scheme than theirs ({{ganl}}) and I have a plan to make it even nicer czar ♔ 21:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
If you can take another look at my draft, I'd like your feedback on whether you prefer the first or second GAN implementation (manual listing or flatlist). For us on the wikicode side, the manual listing is like what you do now, adding commas or bullets between each item. The flatlist (right underneath it in the wikicode) lets you add and remove items like a bulleted list—which should be a a little easier on the eyes (and easier to edit while mobile). When rendered on-screen, they're almost identical, but you'll see that the flatlist bullet separators are a little less bold. Do you have a preference? czar ♔ 06:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Everything's set up to go, so the only place "to do" is left in use is on WTVG. There's a conversation on that page about removing the project banner and just leaving announcements à la MILHIST. Thoughts? Ready? czar ♔ 23:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

Anachronox

Tried to get some work in tonight; got some of czar's minor issues resolved, so I think we've substantially addressed all of his. I'm wall-to-wall destroyed with apartment hunting and a huge exam the next couple of days, but I should make another pass Monday night. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 23:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Just a ping; if you've addressed everything, please leave a note on the nomination page, because I might miss your edits if you don't. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

Sleeping Dogs

Hey man! Would you consider doing a peer review, or giving some feedback on Sleeping Dogs (video game)? I would like to get some feedback about issues that need to be resolved. Thanks for you for your cooperation! URDNEXT (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey

Just wanted to say hi! What's up! URDNEXT (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

May I help you with something of sorts? GamerPro64 15:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Nah, I just wanted to know what's up! Btw, do you when editors are most active here? URDNEXT (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. Seeing how my schedule can happen from hours on end, it can be a scattershot. But that's just me. Why do you ask? GamerPro64 15:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I asked SO many editors if they could help me getting sleeping dogs to a good article nomination, or just giving me feedback on the page, but no one answered back. I think I'm doing something wrong. URDNEXT (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I do have plans on giving some feedback on the article since it is NOWHERE near GA status. Also coupled with the fact that some of us have work for other articles and you being a new editor on the site so we may have trusting issues, I think that explains for the lack of responses. But again, I'll look at Sleeping Dogs. Peer Reviews take a while to get comments. Sometimes they close without a remark on their page. GamerPro64 15:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, man! Think you can give me some tips on getting an article to GA status? URDNEXT (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not really the member who does extreme amount of editing and doing article work. I'm more of the maintenance man for the project, But, what I do know involves references. Some references in the article are a bit dubious to me. I suggest checking Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources to see which is reliable. Also, I do not think the "Music" reference is up to snuff. For that section I'd suggest User:PresN for help. GamerPro64 16:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Signature

Hello! I wanted to let you know that your signature is in violation of policy because it uses the deprecated "font" tag. I have made you a visually identical signature using the acceptable "span" tag: 

[[User talk:GamerPro64|<span style="color:red">GamerPro64</span>]]

Which yields:

GamerPro64

--AmaryllisGardener talk 17:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I changed my signature to the above. I've used that tag for years and never got called out for it. Can you explain to me how it was a violation? GamerPro64 17:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
It is stated as a violation in Wikipedia's signature policy, because: (from deprecation's "reasons for deprecation" section) "The feature is considered extraneous, and will be removed in the future in order to simplify the system as a whole. Early versions of the Web markup language HTML included a FONT element, to allow page designers to specify the font in which text should be displayed. With the release of Cascading Style Sheets and HTML 4.0, the FONT element became extraneous, and detracted from the benefits of noting structural markup in HTML and graphical formatting in CSS. Thus, the FONT element was deprecated in the Transitional HTML 4.0 standard, and eliminated in the Strict variant.". --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
This change to SIGAPP was made recently (March) and I don't see the consensus for it. I brought it up on its talk page czar ♔ 22:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Starved Vietnamese man
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Starved Vietnamese man, 1966.JPEG, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 03:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • So pipe dreams do come true. ;) (My pipe dream was to take FP quality pictures... it took a fairly large investment [paid for by a lucrative translating gig] but it came true too). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh yes. I'm pretty happy with myself getting that Tiff to make this all happen. Mainly due to how much I like the image in the first place. Pretty good stuff to have this be the first Featured work here. Now I wait for Anachronox's turn. GamerPro64 05:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I'll take another look; you seem to have replied to most of my comments. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
        • I would like to also mention that I talked with Zeality about helping with the ones that I can't address seeing how he has done most of the ground work. He said he'd look at it today but he also mentioned apartment hunting and other stuff. GamerPro64 05:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

FTC question

  • Roughly how much overlap is allowed? Say, if we had a Roekiah filmography topic, and a Kartolo filmography topic (only difference would be the main article and Berdjoang being included in Kartolo's filmography), or (a less extreme example) a Films written by Saeroen topic and a Films produced by Union Films topic (overlap of four articles), would they all have a chance for FTC? (Union Films is only two articles short; Saeroen is a little further back but still in good shape) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    • First, I recommend going to Wikipedia talk:Featured topic questions to hear some other opinions on the matter. But what I'm thinking is that a topic for Saeroen could work since it seems that he's made more films outside of Union Films. A topic on Union Films can work as well. But the issue on the two topics involving the separate actresses. Now that's puzzling for me. I would argue that they could be part of the Union films article itself though that could raise a concern on if they should belong in the topic. That's just me though. GamerPro64 02:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
      • One actor, one actress (husband and wife, actually), both mostly active with Tan's Film though they also did work with two other studios. Each made one film without the other, although Roekiah's is likely not notable enough for an article (all I'm finding is proof of existence) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Union and Saeroen would look like this — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

What's your opinion on Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Para-skiing classification/archive1? The nom's been up for almost 2 months, and the last comment was over a month ago. It doesn't seem like it's going anywhere, so should it be closed for lack of activity? And are two supports enough to promote Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Australia at the 2014 Winter Paralympics/archive1?--十八 07:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Seeing that there was a discussion at least, you can close it for lack of activity and mention that it can always be nominated again. As for the Paralympics topic, yeah you can promote it. I've promoted topics that only had two supports before. GamerPro64 15:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congrats on your big article man! How does it feel like to be in the big league now? URDNEXT (talk)

Eh. It feels the same. I've been on this site for nearly six years with lots of changes go by. But hey, this is the year I now have work be considered Featured content. Works for me. Besides, I'm a delegate for Featured Topics so I think that I have been an established editor on the site for a while now. GamerPro64 19:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Re:Anachronox

Thanks; and great work getting that thing featured. Zeality is a hero of mine (who else could keep working on The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest over three years and five FAC noms?), and it's really good to see his masterpiece get the star. Honestly, I considered Anachronox probably the best video game article of all time when he first wrote it. Flight Unlimited was my shot at rivaling it. And yeah, I've been meaning to update my History section. I'll most likely get to it after I've finished User:JimmyBlackwing/Sourcing video game articles, my pet project right now.

As an aside, has the possibility of an "Ion Storm video games" topic ever crossed your mind? It would be really ambitious, given the vast number of sources available for games like Deus Ex and Daikatana. However, there would only be seven articles in it, and one of them is already featured. An Ion Storm topic was always a dream of mine, but I knew I couldn't write it and the Looking Glass topic at the same time. If anyone ever went for it, I'd be there in a heartbeat to do the research, like I did for Anachronox. Food for thought, I guess. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm in if you are czar ♔ 11:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Responded on Jimmy's talk page on the idea. But yeah. Having the three of us working on this project might work out. GamerPro64 14:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
It sounds great to me. If we're all agreed on Deus Ex, I'll start compiling sources on the article's talk page later today. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@Czar: What do you think of doing Deus Ex? GamerPro64 18:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy to start anywhere. (Also I imagine you'll find Invisible War sources while searching for the original, if you want to pull those en route.) czar ♔ 21:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Will do. Pretty excited to see this get off the ground. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a ton, everyone. I got sidelined again the last week with more new job logistics (I'm moving cities tomorrow), so I was criminally kept from helping more. Couldn't believe the news when I finally checked in today. It's been a while since I've had something as a TFA request, so I don't know how long this article's going to have to "age" before we can get a successful TFA nomination... ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 22:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Considering how Bencherlite's been running the page recently, I doubt you'd get refused. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Hooray for low standards! But seriously, I had the idea of just having it show up on the main page unless it can be up for an anniversary. Whatever works I guess. GamerPro64 00:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Whoa whoa whoa, I never said low standards! He's just taking a much more democratic approach than the previous TFA director. Anniversaries are nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
        • All right I get it. I wasn't serious about the low standards comment. I just don't want to slap the article on the main page immediately. There are other video game related articles that were featured first so why not have them under the spotlight first? GamerPro64 00:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Agree, an anniversary would be nice. 15th anniversary is 2 years away ;) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

NARA

Question for you: when you inquired into that image we put through FPC a couple weeks ago, did the archives administration reply to you quickly? Considering how there's a film on "The Monuments Men" out right now, this would likely draw some attention. I'd like to work from a TIFF if possible though. Otherwise I'll just work from this version. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Oh yeah, and if possible could you tell me what address you emailed? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Well according to my emails I got a reply on the same day I sent it to them. I think I waited a few hours for a response from them. Also, the email address is "stillpix@nara.gov". Also, I watched Monuments Men a couple months ago. Wasn't as bad as critics said. GamerPro64 15:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I'll contact them immediately. At the very least we need to get rid of that huge stain in the upper left corner. I think it Monuments Men would be an interesting film to watch, though I don't think it's screening here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Featured Topics and the Signpost

Bit of a blast from the past there; I remember writing that almost 6 years ago. I used to be much more involved in Featured Topics back then (2006-2008), so you can see my signature all over the talk page archives- I was the one who pushed the minimum featured percentage up to 25% back in late 2008, and was heavily involved in the creation of the GT process around then. I was still around a year later when we bumped it to 50%, but kinda faded away since (besides nominating my own topics). Glad to see it still going strong, largely thanks to you! --PresN 00:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it had a storied past- first just "a bunch of 'good' articles", then "everything B+", then "everything GA+" (with some quibbling about A-class), then "20% FA/FL", then 25%, then 1/3 after GT became a thing, then 1/2. At the time I thought we'd keep going (to "more than 50%", next) but instead the rules just froze 3, almost 4 years ago and we've just been adjusting standards for what should be in certain types of topics since. The thing that strikes me is that nowadays it's such a "done" thing, with mentions in the Signpost, used in the Wikicup, etc., and I can't remember the last time I saw someone disparage it, when in 2006 it was almost deleted for being a useless contest, and a bunch of people hated that it was putting on airs by calling itself "Featured" topics. Although, I do recall back in 2006 there was still a strong movement to keep the GA process from being official- I guess that got solved the same way as FTopics, by raising standards everywhere. Hard to believe it's been almost 8 years. --PresN 01:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to crash your convo, but I just noticed you talking about Featured Topics, and I too cannot believe it has been 8 years since I joined Wikipedia. Hard to believe Featured Topics were not always required to have 50% Featured. Guess they stopped to keep the featured topics from only being lists! You think maybe 60% would be a good stepping stone? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Currently I think 50% works out pretty well right now. But you can suggest upping the percentile to 60% and see if you can get a conversation going. GamerPro64 16:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

re: List of retired Pacific hurricanes

Hey there! Sorry I missed your earlier post. Yea, Manuel should be part of the GT. It was officially retired on April 11, so I guess the three month rule would go from then? I informed User:Yellow Evan of this conversation, as he may have further thoughts (since I know he was one of the main editors to the article). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep! I don't wanna lose a topic, so I'm glad we still have some time. Thanks for reminding us. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I am aware of the 3 months rule, and in the process of finishing it up. It's not that far off from GA status anyways. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Definitely, I'll review some. I'm currently at work (eek), but when I get home tonight I will :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

Triple Crown

It's an honor to bestow upon GamerPro64 this well-deserved Wikiproject Videogames Triple Crown for his hard work on video gaming articles. Yikes! → Call me Hahc21 18:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Idle curiosity about a topic scope

I hate to waste your time, but I've developed a habit of creating templates for topics that I find interesting, and my most recent addition to the list has me confused. The topic is Seumas McNally Grand Prize, and I was wondering whether it would include only winners or runners-up as well. As one of the guys behind FTC, I figured that you would probably know the answer. Sorry to bug you. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Nah its all right to bug me. Always important to ask the delegates for answers. But to answer your question, it should only include winners of the award. Though this topic is a bit unorthodox compared to current topics involving awards. Example being the Gaylactic Spectrum Awards. GamerPro64 20:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Also, I agree that it's unorthodox, but I think that's because the Gaylactic Spectrum Awards (for example) covers the award categories themselves. The Seumas McNally Grand Prize is a specific award category within the IGF awards, and so a Seumus McNally topic would include its winners rather than a bunch of award category articles. At least, that's my thinking. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
You know, thinking about it now, you can also attempt to make a topic on all the categories involving the IGF awards. If its possible at least. GamerPro64 03:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Iron Storm

Hey, would you mind if I helped you with the Ion Storm articles? I'm looking to get some experience. URDNEXT (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh certainly. The more the merrier. If you want to work on any articles specifically, you can. There are links that Jimmyblackwing dug up in some of the talk pages to look at. GamerPro64 20:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to do it kinda like, each of us work on specific parts of an article, so then we can get it to GA easier. What do you think? URDNEXT (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Well that is what we're doing with Deus Ex. I called the Reception section, for example. You can do Gameplay if you want. GamerPro64 21:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Perfect. I'll take it as soon as I finish my work on Trevor Philips. Which has just been promoted to GA. URDNEXT (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GamerPro64/Archive_6&oldid=1160897299"