Talk:The Seven Spirits of Ra
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Sergecross73 in topic Sources
Sources edit
- https://archive.org/details/GPGMSDOSCGVol1No2/page/n95/mode/2up?q=spirits
- https://archive.org/details/1988-02-compute-magazine/page/n95/mode/2up?q=spirits
- https://archive.org/stream/DragonMagazine260_201801/DragonMagazine135#page/n87/mode/2up/search/spirits
- https://archive.org/stream/PC-Mag-1988-08-01/PC-Mag-1988-08-01#page/n527/mode/2up/search/spirits
- https://archive.org/stream/FamilyComputingIssue041983Dec/Family_Computing_Issue_54_1988_Feb#page/n29/mode/2up/search/spirits
- https://archive.org/stream/DragonMagazine260_201801/DragonMagazine132#page/n85/mode/2up/search/spirits
- https://archive.org/stream/questbusters-v4n02/qbusters_v4_n02#page/n1/mode/2up/search/spirits
- https://archive.org/stream/pcresourcespcgamesissue1hiresscans/PC%20Resource%27s%20PC%20Games%20-%20Issue%201%20%28Fall%201988%29%20%28Searchable%29#page/n75/mode/2up/search/spirits
- @Sergecross73: It took me less than 10 minutes to dig up another in-depth review (from PC Magazine no less) and a number of news stories about this game. I was barely trying—I simply Google searched ["seven spirits of ra" site:archive.org] and looked at the most promising results. There are certainly others I didn't find, and the article already clearly passes WP:GNG. Is it perfect in its current form? No. But there is WP:NODEADLINE, and I feel obligated to say that WP:DIY applies here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Then that’s all the more reason why BOZ needs to put a little more effort in before he publishes articles. Sergecross73 msg me 03:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- As I said on the WPVG talk page, this is why the best people always quit Wikipedia. BOZ makes constructive edits for a decade plus, with a completionist dedication to old magazine reviews unlike any other editor in the history of WPVG, and this is what he gets: "put a little more effort in". There's no rule against stubs. If you'd like them to be more fully realized, all I can tell you is that the sources are readily available, and no one is stopping anyone in the world from editing the page. None of this mudslinging in his direction has helped the project one iota—all it's achieved is yet another loss to WPVG. And for what? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- So your stance is that we don’t need to illustrate that the GNG is satisfied when we publish an article? Because that’s my point. He objectively didn’t. Don’t act like it’s out of line to ask experienced editors to follow the basics. Sergecross73 msg me 03:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- My stance is that BOZ is an effective editor who's been scared off for no good reason. You used this page as a representative sample of his work, even though it isn't. Many or most of BOZ's articles have more sources linked at the bottom of the page, or on the talk page. This one didn't—it wasn't hard to correct that. None of us make perfect edits all of the time. That's especially true when, like BOZ, you're making an enormous number of edits across a wide stretch of articles in a relatively short period of time. We need editors capable of doing that. The vast coverage that WPVG boasts today wasn't built by WikiDragons, and we can't expect every new article to appear at C-class.
- And it's not like BOZ is making stubs about 2015 mobile games backed up by a single, shaky source—this is Computer Gaming World, and the majority of games that it covered back in the 1980s were notable, even if sources are tricky to find. This game is no exception. Almost every VG page he's created has been no exception, because the magazines he's drawing from... very rarely covered non-notable games. That would, in fact, be the exception. If you have notability concerns about one of his stubs, you could do what I did and take a few minutes to casually Google for more sources. Maybe you've found one of the exceptions—if so, feel free to nominate it for a merge or a deletion. But hounding him about failing the GNG simply because you didn't search the Internet Archive for more sources on this game? That's not constructive. All it's done is scare BOZ off, while making his long-running project of adding sources to articles seem even more underappreciated than it already was. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Look, I’m not bothering discussing with you any further if it’s all this hyperbole. He was not “driven off for no good reason”. He was asked to make sure his articles demonstrate notability. And he chose to run off, because he could handle advice like “use more than one source when you create an article”. That’s not harsh feedback, that’s something we ask all editors to do. No one is “harassing” him, I started a single discussion less than 24 hours ago to discuss his article creations that were in our weekly WikiProject creation report. Your blind spots for his faults are astounding, as is your apparent lack of understanding of how WP:BURDEN works - it’s not anyone’s responsibility but Boz’s responsibility to make sure Boz’s article creations meet the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- You started all of this by calling his work "awful" both in an edit summary and on WPVG's talk page. That's not harsh feedback? How about the targeted crusade that you started on the WPVG talk page against his decade-long editing project, before you'd even contacted him personally to figure out what he was doing? If you'd prefer to brush this discussion aside because you've scared away a more productive editor than either of us and you aren't willing to extend an olive branch to fix your mistake, I can't stop you. But this whole episode has made WPVG a worse place, with zero net benefit to anyone. It's done damage, even if you don't see it yet. But again: I can't make you do anything, and if you don't want to reply anymore, that's your prerogative. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Also, WP:BURDEN is about using inline citations to support article text. BOZ satisfies that guideline by citing all of his work. It has nothing to do with anything that's happening right now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- This article, as it is, is awful. You can’t even tell anything about it other than who the main character is (and even that’s pretty vague.) Theres zero info about what actually happens in this game. No genre. No structure. No goal. This article was not ready to be published as is. The rest of your assessment was equally ludicrous. There’s no “crusade”. I started a single discussion, pinged him in the very first edit that started the discussion, and then left him a talk page message after he didn’t respond to the ping. And I’ve literally and directly told him that there’s no need for him to stop editing, he just needs to follow the GNG. So, to sum up, I’m guilty of starting up a Wikipedia talk page discussion and telling an editor that they need to follow the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 22:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's clear that you don't plan to do more than justify, rationalize and obfuscate what's happened here. I see no reason to continue this discussion. Have a good day. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Nor do I have any interest in your hyperbole and delusion. Sergecross73 msg me 23:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's clear that you don't plan to do more than justify, rationalize and obfuscate what's happened here. I see no reason to continue this discussion. Have a good day. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- This article, as it is, is awful. You can’t even tell anything about it other than who the main character is (and even that’s pretty vague.) Theres zero info about what actually happens in this game. No genre. No structure. No goal. This article was not ready to be published as is. The rest of your assessment was equally ludicrous. There’s no “crusade”. I started a single discussion, pinged him in the very first edit that started the discussion, and then left him a talk page message after he didn’t respond to the ping. And I’ve literally and directly told him that there’s no need for him to stop editing, he just needs to follow the GNG. So, to sum up, I’m guilty of starting up a Wikipedia talk page discussion and telling an editor that they need to follow the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 22:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Also, WP:BURDEN is about using inline citations to support article text. BOZ satisfies that guideline by citing all of his work. It has nothing to do with anything that's happening right now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- You started all of this by calling his work "awful" both in an edit summary and on WPVG's talk page. That's not harsh feedback? How about the targeted crusade that you started on the WPVG talk page against his decade-long editing project, before you'd even contacted him personally to figure out what he was doing? If you'd prefer to brush this discussion aside because you've scared away a more productive editor than either of us and you aren't willing to extend an olive branch to fix your mistake, I can't stop you. But this whole episode has made WPVG a worse place, with zero net benefit to anyone. It's done damage, even if you don't see it yet. But again: I can't make you do anything, and if you don't want to reply anymore, that's your prerogative. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Look, I’m not bothering discussing with you any further if it’s all this hyperbole. He was not “driven off for no good reason”. He was asked to make sure his articles demonstrate notability. And he chose to run off, because he could handle advice like “use more than one source when you create an article”. That’s not harsh feedback, that’s something we ask all editors to do. No one is “harassing” him, I started a single discussion less than 24 hours ago to discuss his article creations that were in our weekly WikiProject creation report. Your blind spots for his faults are astounding, as is your apparent lack of understanding of how WP:BURDEN works - it’s not anyone’s responsibility but Boz’s responsibility to make sure Boz’s article creations meet the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- So your stance is that we don’t need to illustrate that the GNG is satisfied when we publish an article? Because that’s my point. He objectively didn’t. Don’t act like it’s out of line to ask experienced editors to follow the basics. Sergecross73 msg me 03:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- As I said on the WPVG talk page, this is why the best people always quit Wikipedia. BOZ makes constructive edits for a decade plus, with a completionist dedication to old magazine reviews unlike any other editor in the history of WPVG, and this is what he gets: "put a little more effort in". There's no rule against stubs. If you'd like them to be more fully realized, all I can tell you is that the sources are readily available, and no one is stopping anyone in the world from editing the page. None of this mudslinging in his direction has helped the project one iota—all it's achieved is yet another loss to WPVG. And for what? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Then that’s all the more reason why BOZ needs to put a little more effort in before he publishes articles. Sergecross73 msg me 03:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Sergecross73: It took me less than 10 minutes to dig up another in-depth review (from PC Magazine no less) and a number of news stories about this game. I was barely trying—I simply Google searched ["seven spirits of ra" site:archive.org] and looked at the most promising results. There are certainly others I didn't find, and the article already clearly passes WP:GNG. Is it perfect in its current form? No. But there is WP:NODEADLINE, and I feel obligated to say that WP:DIY applies here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)