This is an archive of past discussions with User:David Fuchs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Are you allowed to merge and delete? I didn't think that was permissible under GFDL as you had to retain the history of the article (WP:MM. Also, I don't see how the vote results favor deletion over no consensus - three keep arguments, one delete/weak merge, and one delete. You can respond here. Torc2 (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
That's the function of what I did, but I did not actually delete the page- I just made it a redirect. Also, AfD is not a vote, so the number of keep or delete arguments is null unless compelling reasons for keeping/deletion are presented (there are, of course, some exceptions.) David Fuchs (talk)02:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not referring to overall votes. I'm saying the arguments for keep were substantial and strong enough to warrant a keep or at least no consensus. Torc2 (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The only argument I was seeing was that it was really just a part of Camp Lazlo, and thus notable, correct? But that doesn't fly according to WP:FICT: "If the article becomes too long and a split would create a sub-article on a subject that is not individually notable, then the content should be trimmed." There was no way that the characters articles could be defended as being cut to the most concise length. David Fuchs (talk)02:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree about whether that section applies. I believe the more appropriate section is above that: "Sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but must rely on the parent article to provide some of this background material (due to said technical reasons)". Torc2 (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Cortana
I don't know if you realized it, but Cortana is now a featured article. You may want to add that to your "list of major contributions", or whatever you call it...J.delanoy (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
PlayStation 3 GA nomination
Thanks for pointing out all the problems with PlayStation 3 that needed to be addressed. I'm still kind of new here, and I guess I didn't read the GA criteria as closely as I should have; so my apologies for nominating it in the first place. Anyway, I've been working on the article all day (mostly adding citations; there are now 41 more refs than there were when I started :-D ), and I just rewrote the lead. I was wondering if you would give me your opinion on it. (I used the Wii's lead as a template) Thanks. Thingg (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Masterchief company h3.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Masterchief company h3.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Master Chief (Halo)
Hallo. Ich weiß nicht warum du meine Änderung zu diesem Artikel revertiert hast, jedoch habe ich das Metersystem entfernt weil das Umrechnen von Fuß und Zolleinheit auf das Metersystem kompliziert ist. D@rktalk17:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I was just wondering if you would look over PlayStation 3 as it is now and tell me your opinion on whether it could make GA or maybe FA. I still have a few areas to cite better (second half of "Games", first half of "Operating System", and all of "PlayStation Network"), but barring those sections, I feel that the article as a whole is very well written and more than adequately cited. (Perhaps too much? In the past, sometimes I've gone overboard with citing...) Anyway, I just wanted the opinion of an established editor before I renominate it for GA (sort of an informal peer review). Thanks for the help. Thingg⊕⊗23:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
PS3 GA
I believe that the PS3 is ready for its GA appraisal. I finished all the cites and reordered the sections as you suggested. Pretty much every statement is cited for a total of 179 citations. I realize that that doesn't necessarily mean that an article is GA qualified, but I think its kind of impressive. Anyway, I really appreciate all your input and advice. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗03:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
And School Reunion done. Now all we have to do is wait for the pages to be promoted (which I think, most likely, will happen) Will(talk)15:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Spartan.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Hello, David Fuchs! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.
I have been having some problems with images on my WikiProject page because they don't meet copyright terms. I heard that you made the Halo logo
which looks very good, so I was wondering if you could make me a Xbox (or Xbox 360, which ever is easier) logo for my page.--Blackwatch21 (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed you've referenced as far down as the page numbers in the novels for the articles on Cortana and Master Chief. I've been using their basic structure (in addition to pinching the image style, looks very good in our nice new infoboxes) for improving the article on Jim Raynor - Blizzard hasn't talked as much about their characters, but there's enough there to get the job done - and my question is basically "Do I really have to do that?", is it well advised for me to trawl through the novels to find the exact page number for the point I'm referencing, as opposed to simply referencing to a generic book reference? -- Sabre (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I noted you reverted the VG character template with the comment "rv for now". That implies that perhaps those changes could be restored in the future. What sort of circumstances would allow it to be put back? You've got to admit it looks a bit better with the two shaded areas, although I can understand removing them if similar item/character templates don't use them or have selectable colours - I thought Infobox Character's ones were locked at that colour, so adding them to VG character made sense then. (We could always try to get every other wikiproject to adopt that style for character and other similar infoboxes! :S) -- Sabre (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Question
Would it be plagarising/non-free use to use the info in this pic to make an svg file for wikipedia (specifically, Sirius)? I wasn't sure, so I would appreciate your opinion on whether that would be ok or not. Thingg⊕⊗00:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I contacted Harvard (they actually had a form in place to request permission to use their images), and if they say yes, I'll make the pic sometime next week. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗02:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
There are now 3,485 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 206 unreviewed articles. Out of 251 total nominations, 37 are on hold, 7 are under review, and 1 is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (57 articles), Theatre film and drama (34 articles), Music (19 articles), Transport (17 articles), Politics and government (16 articles), World history (13 articles), and Meteorology and atmospheric sciences (13 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
GA Sweeps Update
During January, 57 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 35 were kept as GA, 20 delisted, 9 currently on hold or at GAR, and 3 were exempted as they are now Featured Articles.
Reviewer of the Month
Ealdgyth is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for January, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Ealdgyth, known in real life as Victoria Short, hails from Central Illinois, and has been editing Wikipedia since May 26, 2007. In this short time, she has made significant contributions to 9 Good Articles, including Baldwin of Exeter and Hubert Walter. Her interests in editing are in the areas of the Middle Ages, History, and horses. Outside of Wikipedia, she is starting her own photography business, and owns three horses. She likes to read science fiction, history, and geneology books. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for January!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
On Hold versus Failing an Article
This month, I thought I'd focus on a less technical and more of a procedural issue at WP:GAN – determining what the appropriate course of action to take when reviewing an article. Currently, there are four options to decide what to do with an article:
Failing it – it does not meet the criteria; remove the article's listing from WP:GAN and add {{ArticleHistory}} or {{failedGA}} to the article's talk page.
On Hold – The article meets most of the criteria, but might fall short in a few areas; keep it listed at WP:GAN, add #: {{GAOnHold|ArticleName}} ~~~~ below the listing and add {{GAonhold}} to the article's talk page.
Second Opinion – Similar to the on hold option, except an editor is either inexperienced or not knowledgeable enough about a given topic and asks another reviewer to offer another opinion before passing or failing; add #: {{GA2ndopinion|ArticleName}} ~~~~ to WP:GAN below the article's listing and add {{GA2ndoptalk}} to the article's talk page.
So how to you know when an article fails outright, or fails initially, but meets "enough" of the criteria to be placed on hold? The answer to this question probably varies by about the same amount as there are reviewers of Good Articles! Everybody treats this slightly differently. The most important thing to consider is that articles should not be on hold for longer than about one week. Although there is no hard and fast time limit for this, most editors would probably agree that five to seven days is enough time to address any GA-related issues with the article to get it to pass. Some editors have extended this a few days in the past, due to other extenuating circumstances, such as an article's primary editor being very busy with school or work, so they have asked for extra time. But as a general rule, a GA nominee that is placed on hold should meet enough of the criteria to be able to be passed within five to seven days. Some examples of articles that might be placed on hold would be:
the article is mostly complete, but might be missing one topic (subcategory).
minor copyediting is required (needs a few minor manual of style, spelling, or grammatical fixes.
mostly well sourced, but missing maybe a handful of references.
a couple of images need to be tagged with appropriate copyright tags.
On the other hand, an article should be failed if it:
is missing several topic categories, or there are several sections which are very short (1-3 sentences per section).
contains numerous sections which are just lists of information, as opposed to written out as prose.
there's entire sections of text that have no references, or there are a lot of {{cn}} or {{unreferenced}} tags.
has evidence of an active edit war in the article history.
has any {{cleanup}} or other warning tags in various places.
Did You Know...
... that on July 19, 2007, 1,548 good articles that have not been categorized at all were categorized in 15 days?
... that in Chinese Wikipedia, articles need to have at least six net support votes before they are promoted to GA?
... that the English Wikipedia has the most Good Articles, the German Wikipedia has the second most (at over 2000), followed by the Spanish Wikipedia (at over 800), the Chinese Wikipedia (at over 400), and the French Wikipedia (at over 200)?
... that Simple English Wikipedia has zero Good Articles?
... that "Sport and games people" category has the most Good Articles?
... that Virginia Tech massacre (which is now a featured article) was promoted to GA just only about one month after the shooting incident, but took more than seven months to reach FA status?
From the Editors
Originally, I wasn't planning to do "Did you know" other than as a fill-in for Dr. Cash. However, I decided to continue writing this section until I ran out of ideas.
OhanaUnited
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
Hey David. I've been working on the Age of Empires article a bit, replicating (to an extent) Halo (series). I'm a bit stuck on information about the game's legacy/how influential it's been - you can see my attempt at User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Age. My question is how you went about finding relevant information for the Halo series - I get the feeling I'm looking in the wrong places. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 01:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You rock. I hadn't thought about Halo Wars until now, but I'll be sure to mention that (although it's Halo, so it can't be good!) And yeah, I'll give your search strings a go. Thanks mate, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 01:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
No...it was a payout of a Halo RTS. I just can't see how that could work (just like I can't see how AoE 4&5 will work). And that source kicks ass, thanks again. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 01:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh noes - that creates a GFDL issue if I want to delete that when I'm done. You wouldn't object to deletion, would you? (if that's OK, I'll just bug you to delete it and save the bother). dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 02:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The issue is that you "contributed" to the page. But I'll msg you, so there shouldn't be an issue. dihydrogen monoxide (H20)
Nope sadly no reply. Perhaps someone else should try, so that he doesn't get 2 messages from the same person. Use the same text if you like. James086Talk | Email02:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I sent Frankie a private message on Bungie.net but the first email (to the webmaster) was from my gmail account. For some reason though the private message didn't appear in my "sent" box on Bungie.net perhaps Frankie's was full? James086Talk | Email02:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
David, you have four FAC noms running right now, including the two you just nominated back-to-back. WP:FAC instructions state: "Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." Please don't add two nominations at once, when you already have two running, as this increases the FAC backlog and makes it harder for other nominations to get adequate attention. Can you please pick one of the last two to remove until the other has garnered support? Thanks. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Would you regard the StarCraft and Brood War sections in the Appearances section of Sarah Kerrigan as too long? Try as I might, I simply cannot shorten them to a similar state as I see in other VG articles (such as Cortana, or even StarCraft). I can only put it down to being a far more complex and indepth story crammed into a shorter time, ie I could sum up the second half of Half-Life 2 as "Freeman then fought through City 17 and infiltrated the Citadel, confronting Breen", but so much seems to happen in SC over such a short time I can't begin to get to that overview level for as much of the game. -- Sabre (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, another quick(ish) question. You've probably noticed that in those SC articles I've referenced to the game using an external transcript. Due to the length of conversations involved, putting direct quotations into the references is simply too unwieldy, but you've probably also noticed that the current transcript urls don't exist. This is because the site involved is having trouble with its code, but having contacted the site manager I was assured that they would be restored eventually (currently they only have about 1/6 of all the transcripts up, but they are at a different url), but I was informed today that they will take a bit longer to get back up than expected - its all being done as part of a major site revamp thats got delayed. The question is can the articles pass GA while those links are dead, even if they are to be restored in the future (the references do at the least specify the point in the game, if not the exact dialogue), or should I wait (potentially quite a while) until the transcripts are restored? You seem like the right person to ask, since you appear to do more VG GA reviewing than anyone else. -- Sabre (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Dante video game cites
Hiya, thanks for updating the cites on the Dante page! However, there's an issue with the cites, since they must all have the Title and Developer tags filled in, and apparently the Developer's name CAN NOT be Wikilinked. I'm taking a shot at fixing them, but notifying you just for future reference. But really, thanks for the contribution, seriously! -- Boradis (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Normally I check sites like Joystiq or RPGamer for mention of Japanese reviews. They sometimes mention the Famitsu score or some other comments. Though given the age of the game, this may not help as much. The other thing I do is a Japanese language only search on some search engine like Google and see what turns up or just a search using the Japanese text. Like search for "ゼルダの伝説 夢をみる島". If it brings up too many non-gaming sites, I try something like "site:famitsu.com ゼルダの伝説 夢をみる島", or put the quotes on the title like "ゼルダの伝説" "夢をみる島". You know, get a little creative with the search query. With Japanese sites that I don't know if it is a reliable source, I check to see who owns it. Normally if it's a company and not privately owned it should be ok. On the other hand, there may not be any readily available sources for the info. I know that sucks, but this would be the first it's happened to an article like this. Good luck with that, I hope you find something. (Guyinblack25talk21:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC))
Yeah, I see your point. But that's one of the things about being comprehensive, you need to include a broad viewpoint. Google and dictionary.reference.com/translate offer decent translations if you need a translator. (Guyinblack25talk22:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC))
Can you please talk to this user? After carefully describing to him the problem with mass-reverting templates he still doesn't seem to understand that he's destroying other changes made to the templates by me and other users. I've warned him in regards and gave him a lot more than the standard boiler plate template. However he has just re-reverted all of the templates in question.
This is the guy whom I referred to on my topic regarding Navbox styles. He also takes the time to slander me on my own and other users talk pages. I'd link to an example but it seems he's deleting his own infractions of that regard. He also casually removed the warnings I gave him for the mistakes he knowingly made in an effort to save effort.
Do you want to rollback the reverts or should I? I know the procedure for this type of vandalism (And that is what this is) so I'm not unable to stand up and do what's right. Even if consensus is reached in his favor he needs to understand the difference between adding a style and reverting legitimate changes. You've already given your opinion on the matter of styling, and that's why he's all up in arms like this... and alone in this crusade it seems, but this is bigger problem than mere color choices. Thanks. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Using rollback in a content dispute is highly discouraged. If you cared to look you'd see that I actually preserved the additional edits. I don't believe I've made any slanderous comments about you, whatsoever. And believe it or not, people allowed to remove inappropriate warnings from their talk pages. Really, Aeron, why are you freaking out about this? -- Ned Scott05:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: StarCraft icon
I'd love some help, I'm not that great with creating new material. But, I can see benefits to having a free icon for various uses across Wikipedia (my main reason was for User:The Clawed One's userpage), even if that Wikiproject thing is very much decomposed.
I think the original creator of the image was on to something in terms of design, perhaps something of similar style can be created - just without the non-free image parts and letters and a generally less drag-and-drop look. Maybe a sphere or dark planet instead of a simple circle for the background?. I'd imagine switching to a PNG version would be more beneficial for transparency as well. -- Sabre (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely outstandingly excellent! Thanks, it looks fantastic! I'd never have got anything near that quality. Thanks muchly!-- Sabre (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher04:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
){kind=link}
