User talk:Czar/2017 May–Aug

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

FfD Backlog

Hi Czar, we've developed a bit of a backlog at FfD. Any chance you could spare a few moments to help close some discussions? Thanks, FASTILY 01:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

So we have! I knocked a few out and will try to take another pass soon czar 08:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

HISTMERGE

Hello! You seem a little busy these days, Czar. Please do a HISTMERGE of draft:Mortal Engines (film) → Mortal Engines (film) and if possible then Draft:Bohemian Rhapsody (film) → Bohemian Rhapsody (film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 19:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done and yes, comme ci comme ça czar 08:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hahaha, thanks and I don't understand French but thanks to Google Translator for helping me in that. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Kervaire spectral sequence

About

• Czar (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Kervaire spectral sequence.jpg ‎(Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 February 10#File:Kervaire_spectral_sequence.jpg)

I have a feeling that I did not fully explain the issue. The short answer to the question whether it is possible to create a free alternative is no. Here, it is important to distinguish the theoretical and practical possibilities. The question needs to be considered as a practical one; not theoretical one. I think the closure was too premature; we need further inputs. -- Taku (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Only part that was premature was Wikipedia:Deletion_review#File:Kervaire_spectral_sequence.jpg, where I responded. Gotta give more than a day for a response in the future czar 08:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017 WikiCup newsletter

The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
• 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
• Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
• Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Menacer scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Menacer article has been scheduled as today's featured article for May 28, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 28, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The Glass Castle (film)

Hello again! Here goes another HISTMERGE case, Draft:The Glass Castle (film) → The Glass Castle (film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, done czar 06:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Read-Only Memory (publisher)

The article Read-Only Memory (publisher) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Read-Only Memory (publisher) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cognissonance -- Cognissonance (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Long Haul (film)

Another comes, please HISTMERGE Draft:Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Long Haul (film) → Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Long Haul (film) — And merge Draft:Home Again (2017 film) → Home Again (2017 film) or delete the draft, and this too, Draft:Gnomeo & Juliet: Sherlock Gnomes → Gnomeo & Juliet: Sherlock Gnomes — Please do HISTMERGE of latter two or delete the drafts, whatever, but merge the first one, thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 17:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 17:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Question on free video game media

As you're the expert of getting free media off developers, I'd like to ask you how you go about doing this? What is the process exactly? I was thinking about contacting a bunch of indie developers to see if they would interested in releasing anything for free. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

getting free media off developers

First step is to not position it as theft! Devs are generally either pumped or unresponsive, and a smaller minority are interested but fall through the cracks. If the game's article isn't new, check the talk page first to see whether anyone has already contacted the dev so as not to cross wires. I usually say something in this order: (1) I'm a Wikipedia editor working on your article, (2) I'd to illustrate it with videos, screenshots, animations, dev photos from your game, if you're willing to re-license the images under a Wikipedia-compatible Creative Commons license. (3) If it's easier, you can license the whole press kit so that they can be used as illustrations in other articles. (4) Next step would be sending the files (as links or attachments) with the standard Wikipedia consent text to permissions-commonswikimedia.org and <my email>.

Feel free to mix and match any of this—I combine the first two points and just say I'm writing the article. This, of course, puts you on the hook if/when that article goes on your back burner, though you can also phrase the email as saying that you're helping rather than writing (as went my email for Mini Metro). I used to link "Creative Commons" or specify cc-by-sa in case they used a WP-incompatible CC license (e.g., cc-by-nc-sa), but I eventually dropped it. I also generally add a postscript with links to some of my best work to show how illustrations brighten up the article. Fez (video game) is definitely the best example of this, and you're welcome to link to it as an example of why they should donate. Chiefly, don't be afraid to be direct.

The permissions email goes to WP:OTRS, which I'd read about if you're unfamiliar. OTRS documents permissions by official email for posterity. In fact, I'd recommend volunteering with OTRS to see how the tickets generally go and to help the months-long backlog, if you're interested. If the dev doesn't cc you, you won't know what assets were released, whether the permission is good, etc. And even if they cc you, if you don't get the ticket number from them and can't see the ticket from OTRS (you can't handle your own tickets but you can see them in the system), the you won't be able to include that OTRS ticket when you upload the images. (This last part isn't a big deal—you can exclude the ticket number—but I've had images deleted for lack of OTRS permissions just because the queue was so long that no one ever processed them. If the images have associated tickets, they're less likely to time out.) You could also just let OTRS handle the upload, but again, their backlog is huge. Alternatively, the dev can put a notice of the CC license on the press kit page and you can upload the images without involving OTRS, though I would run the images through Commons' {{licensereview}}, in which a reviewer will verify that the webpage did include that irrevocable license at that point in time (in case the clause is later removed or the site ever goes down).

A few other points: I've found the best illustrations to be good cover art, a video (not animation) of gameplay (WP handles GIF thumbnails poorly), and if lucky, a photo of the dev team and/or prototypes for the Dev section. Again, I think the Fez article does a good job of illustrating those points (and includes music!) Sometimes devs don't own the rights to the images, particularly if the contract gives the copyright to the publisher, so I phrase the "you" in the email to be the "copyright holder". Also keep in mind that a photograph's copyright holder (and therefore the only person who can license the photo) is the photographer. So if a personal friend takes the photo for the group, that friend needs to give the permission unless there is some explicit agreement that the copyright was transferred (e.g., as work done "for hire"). I should probably write this into a cleaner guide... but I imagine someone has already done so somewhere. czar 17:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Very informative. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Suspiria (upcoming film)

Hello czar! Please do a HISTMERGE of Draft:Suspiria (upcoming film) → Suspiria (2017 film) and renamed the article as Suspiria (upcoming film) because no release date is announced yet. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done. The article cites [1] for the 2017 release date, but I don't know about the source's credibility. I suggest discussion on the talk page if it's not credible. I'm happy to help if, after consensus, there are technical issues with the move. czar 03:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Gt it, thanks. I'll take a deep look inside sources. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

GTA Vice City soundtrack

Hi Czar, I am curious to know why you redirected the Vice City soundtrack page two years ago? That article contained the full set of songs ingame, that differed from the commercially released discs that did not contain all of the ingame music. Here is the page I am referencing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Theft_Auto:_Vice_City_soundtrack&action=history

I'm very confused by your actions because you didn't redirect the GTA3 and GTA5 soundtrack articles. Those 2 articles also had the the full list of songs ingame; but those articles weren't merged with the commercially released discs.

• Grand_Theft_Auto_III_soundtrack
• Grand_Theft_Auto_V_soundtrack

I am frustrated now because its very difficult to find a full list of songs from Vice City; because most front page web results only display the commercially available CDs. Reverting the article isn't working because now everyone is going in a edit-war. Can you do something about this to prevent the edit war and restore the original article? Thank you.

Damian001 (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Damian001: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate listing of information. When applied to video game content, that means that information uncovered in video gaming reliable sources, say, typically, information such as soundtracks, are not generally appropriate for Wikipedia. The existence of other pages, or actions with respect to other pages, is not usually a good reason to suggest that we should keep some content on other pages. If you believe this information is useful, perhaps it would be best to put it on another wiki, such as the GTA Wikia. --Izno (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Theft Auto: Vice City soundtrack czar 13:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Smallfoot (film)

Hello! Please move Draft:Smallfoot (film) → Smallfoot (film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 11:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done, but it's going to need more sources to satisfy the general notability guideline czar 14:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

IABot Question

Hi Czar, I saw you used IABot and figured I'd reach out to you. I logged in with my Wikipedia account but I don't know what to do after that. I'm stuck on the main page and don't know where to click/go. I'd like to archive all sources at once for an article I'm working on, how do I do that? Thanks in advance. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 21:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi @ComputerJA, when you're logged in (check the upper-right corner), go to the menu's Run Bot > Fix a single page, type in the page's name, and select whether it should archive all refs (not just the dead ones). I just ran it on the page, but feel free to revert if you don't like the results. czar 23:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! This is a pretty badass tool. I'll be using this moving forward. I hated archiving 50+ sources individually. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 20:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Donkey Kong Land

Here, I uploaded the scan to Photobucket: [2] --Martin IIIa (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

AMERICAN FIELD SERVICE

Thanks for your comment on the education talk page about the Friends of France. I really want to write about one of its members and I am just afraid that I will have to include so many details about the Friends of France that it will duplicate what is on the American Field Service page. In retrospect I think the best thing to do is to do the writing and see how things come out. There will be some overlap but hopefully not too much. Nicodemus (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Oldsilenus, I recommend first running your sources past someone (myself, another editor, a reviewer from WP:Articles for Creation, etc.) so that your time isn't wasted. This individual would need to have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?)—that is, not mentions in articles about Friends of France, but coverage and biographic detail specific to the individual. Also, if you have a connection to the individual, we ask that editors declare any potential Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest on the articles' talk pages before editing. czar 15:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks- Actually your response touches on something that I have been concerned about. The major source for the Friends of France is a 3 volume work: Andrew, A Piatt (ed.), The Friends of France, 1916, Houghlin Mifflin, New York 1916. This in the public domain. There are also contemporary magazine articles which I do not have at hand. My real question is this: The subject of my page is a somewhat forgotten American artist, Herman A Webster, whose importance I think I can convince you of by listing the museums which possess his work and the honors bestowed upon him by the French government. There are published articles on Webster. The really important sources are oral histories that he provided to Yale for his class reunions and a very long correspondence between Webster and William Ivins (The first director of Prints and Drawings at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC). I question whether this material, which is readily available, is considered a reliable source to use for Wikipedia. Nicodemus (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Oldsilenus, a Houghton Mifflin-published book would usually be the definition of a reliable source (reputation for fact-checking, reliability), as long as it was written by someone with editorial distance from the content (not affiliated with the org, unbiased). I couldn't find the book in HathiTrust. Is it this? Re: Webster, the most important factor is not whether he was highly regarded but what has been written about him in reasonable biographic depth. WP cares more about whether the material is verifiable from a good source than how easily it is to verify. I've written about several books from the sixties, and the sources/reviews are almost all from undigitized magazines, now only in university libraries and print archives. While that impedes easy verification, it doesn't detract from the fact that those magazines were reliable sources in their day and remain reliable sources we can still reference. czar 16:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry I gave you the wrong author. The books in question -only 2 of 3 are listed- are on World Cat. [3] .The correct author is James William Davenport Seymour. Title: History of the American Field Service in France: "Friends of France", 1920. Webster's college material is easy for me to get because the Yale Club of New York City has it. I don't know how widely these volumes are distributed. I assume the University has a set. The stories contained in the class reunion books were retold in published magazines in an abbreviated form. The magazines were and presumably still are available on Google Books. Finally the letters in question are part of the collection of the Smithsonian Archives of American Art (SAAA). Anyone can make an appointment and go in and read them, photograph them or copy them. Even though some are from before 1920 the SAAA will not allow their publication because this personal correspondence "may be copyrighted". I have tried for years to see the deed of gift which accompanied the letters in order to see what restrictions were placed on their donation without luck. Nicodemus (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC) {{ygm}}

@Oldsilenus, you can find the full text here at HathiTrust. Perhaps the first volume is under a different title? From what I was able to glean (and confirmed by the table of contents), the second volume appears to be a compilation of diaries written by service members, which makes it a collection of primary source reports. Unless you were using those sources as self-published sources in the absence of any better source, any conclusion you would draw from their accounts would be original research, similar to what any reliable, secondary source would have to do on their own when drawing conclusions from the diaries (same case with the collection of correspondence that you mentioned). The difference between you/me and that reliable, secondary source is that we are editors without pedigree on the Internet and the reliable, secondary source has the backing of a publisher, with an editorial process, reputation for fact-checking, etc. Since we lack the backing, our analysis of primary sources is not reliable, hence why we only summarize secondary sources. Those letters and diaries could have some good info and perhaps round out some biographical details (see the self-published source guideline linked above), but the basis of the article should be in reliable, secondary sources, and not those primary sources. czar 16:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Czar Yes, those are the books I had in mind. Sorry for giving you the wrong author. Please note that the author was a member of the American Field Service and I don't know how that impacts on Wikipedia's view of the books' content. Nicodemus (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

More review copyediting

Since we've talked about reviews, and I know you're planning to work on the guidelines we discussed, I thought you might be interested in Talk:True_Detective_(season_1)#Reviews, which the main editor is in the process of implementing in the article. I think the issues we've been talking about vary only slightly between TV, films, video games and books. This particular set of edits came about because of a FAC discussion. If we can get a set of guidelines approved for the video game project, I would like to use it as a template for other projects and see if we can get broader consensus. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Mark "Messhof" Essen listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mark "Messhof" Essen. Since you had some involvement with the Mark "Messhof" Essen redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi (✉) 23:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Mark Essen listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mark Essen. Since you had some involvement with the Mark Essen redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi (✉) 23:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Messhof listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Messhof. Since you had some involvement with the Messhof redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi (✉) 23:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Blumin (2nd nomination)

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Blumin (2nd nomination)... but you didn't leave an explanation for your closure.

I recently came across new press coverage of her, and looked her up. I was surprised to see that we had had an article about her, and that it had been deleted.

After looking at the AFD, I was surprised by the deletion closure.

My understanding of the role of a closing admin is that the admin is not simply a counter of votes, or !votes, but that they are supposed to evaluate the quality of the arguments, and how well they complied with our policies and long-standing conventions. It is my understanding that the closing administrator is supposed to discount bad arguments.

I asked nominator scope_creep to explain their nomination. I am sorry to say I found their expanded explanation disturbing, since they seemed to have based it on some serious misconceptions, including:

• articles can be deleted, "have to go" in their wording, simply for being badly written...
• articles can be deleted if their references go 404...
• articles written so they seem, to some, like advertising, should be deleted, not re-written, or have the puff-phrases trimmed.

So, when you closed the AFD, did you perform a web-search of your own, to check to see whether this was a nomination of a topic that was sufficiently well covered by good references, that triggered the concern of a well-meaning nominator who was unable to competently comply with WP:BEFORE? Geo Swan (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, even though the closer has no obligation to do so, as you already noted that the role of the closer is to judge the arguments and do due diligence, not to participate in the discussion. The article was redirected, not deleted, and its edit history is intact. The closure is only as strong as the participants, and the discussion was obviously weak/sparse even after being relisted twice. If you have additional sources, pen a draft without unsourced text and the participants will revisit their arguments. scope_screep's rationale was fine and your charge of "incompetence" is baseless: The reliable refs were indeed less about Blumin (the individual) than her Skylight Group, hence the cheap redirect. Given the time it took to dump this mountain of subtext on my talk page relative to the time it would take to resolve your concern, my recommendation is to spend less time litigating and more time writing. czar 20:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• "The closure is only as strong as the participants, and the discussion was obviously weak/sparse even after being relisted twice." Thanks for this.
• Sorry, I disagree as to whether nominator's deletion rationale was policy compliant.
• Yes, since there are new references I could revert the redirect, and add the new references.
• Nominator has told me that, if I do revert the redirect, and add new references, they will probably jump directly to initiating a third AFD, if they think the new version looks like an "advertising article".
• As I noted above, nominator thinks that articles on notable individuals can be deleted simply because someone thinks they are badly written.
• Nominator thinks articles can be deleted simply because references go 404.
• Since I left my last message nominator has claimed articles should be nominated for deletion when nominator is convinced it is "clear" they were written by paid shills.
• Thanks for your reply. I think you are implying your interest in thinking any further about this AFD, and your closure of it, is exhausted. Geo Swan (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Try the path with the least drama: Take the article's edit history and work on it in user/draftspace, and run it past the AfD participants when you think it's ready for primetime. That text would need re-writing from scratch—not just touch up & refs. And yes, there is a precedent of blowing up articles that read as advertising copy. czar 01:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Damian

Hi Czar, I have done the dirty work for you and redirected the soundtrack articles for GTA4 and GTA5 to their respective pages. Damian001 (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you're referencing, but it's clear that other editors don't agree with whatever you did, so I recommend bringing the edit to a talk page discussion before continuing. czar 20:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

20th/21st century categories by occupation

Re this edit - there's a well established consensus against 20th/21st century people by occupation (see eg here). Not least because they tend to fail WP:OVERLAPCAT as in this case - but also because they just don't tend to work very well as WP:DEFINING categories, someone who painted their last picture in 1901 doesn't have much in common with someone who painted their first in 1999. So I'd advise against creating them - better to leave people in more general categories and then let people who are really interested in intersections use WP:Category intersection tools.Le Deluge (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Le Deluge, sounds good, but what about the existing cats? (See Category:20th-century painters for precedent. Re: your example, either 20th c. American/Swiss was recreated or the consensus isn't so viscous.) czar 15:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It's one of those things, people like yourself keep recreating them without being aware of the consensus (or the reasons behind it) - I've done it myself in the past - and then periodically there's a purge to get rid of them. But see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it's no reason to create more. Personally I don't have a huge objection to 20th/21st century country by occupation cats for countries like say China where there's a) sheer numbers of people to classify and b) there's less overlap between *all* eg writers and 20th/21st century writers. But I don't think such categories are particular helpful for smaller countries and where almost all the people are 20th/21st century, either because it's a relatively new political entity or because there just aren't many reliable written sources before the 20th century. So these days I tend to go along with existing categories - if they get deleted at CfD at least a bot will upmerge them to a suitable category - but in general I don't create new ones, I'll do the "upmerge" myself to an equivalent people category as I did here. Le Deluge (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Le Deluge, I'm saying that the problem is more with the consensus and its implementation than with the whac-a-mole. (Category:20th-century painters & sculptors by nationality has existed for two years.) If century-nationality-occupation cats are non-defining triple intersections, isn't the solution to address Category:20th-century people by occupation directly? Is being a 21st-century businessman a defining cat for an individual? Or wouldn't that just be the intersection of birth/death years and an nationality-occupation category? If the centuries were added to these cats just to diffuse large categories, then are they causing more harm than good? (I.e., why do they exist at all?) Because you argued above that a 1901 and a 1999 artist have little in common, and even the distinction of year has less relevance than the genre/art movement associated with the artist's work. czar 17:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Well if you think there's a problem with a consensus, you need to take it up at CfD, not me... <g> I've no real skin in this game, I don't really work on bio articles - I just occasionally bump into these cats as part of my work on red-link cats. I can see it's a grey area - there are a fraction of these triple intersections which may not tick the guidelines but have kinda useful because there's not much else to use for some of the big categories like US/Indian actors - actors don't fall into neat genres like most visual artists (try defining Mel Gibson for instance). But then the 70%-useful categories get used as templates for hundreds of 10%-useful categories - for instance earlier today I came across Category:20th-century Tanzanian lawyers. Tanzania didn't exist before the 20th century so for the next 83 years the parent ..by century category is only going to have two subcats - and it only has 5 members so is hardly creaking at the seams. From here on the sidelines I can't really see a good way out - maybe something like Category:Indian actors by decade of birth or something, but that's pretty clumsy. In the meantime, I just try to avoid making things worse by upmerging red links rather than creating them.Le Deluge (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Respawn

Template:Respawn has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Eirik Suhrke listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Eirik Suhrke. Since you had some involvement with the Eirik Suhrke redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi (✉) 09:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Zach Gage listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Zach Gage. Since you had some involvement with the Zach Gage redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi (✉) 09:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Coleco (brand)

May I ask why you deleted the Coleco (brand) article and merged it with the Coleco article. I agree that there was some overlap in the content but this could have been mainly fixed with some editing which I had planned on doing in the near future. Based on your justification, one could also argue that there is significant overlap between the Atari and Atari Inc. articles seeing as both include history of the Atari Inc. company. The separate Atari / Atari Inc. articles I believe justifies splitting the Coleco article into the separate brand and original company articles. There is an important distinction between the brand and the original incorporated company, and like the Atari articles really should be kept separate to avoid confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikrananka (talk • contribs) 17:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I had posted on the talk page a week ago, which went without reply. The vast majority of its content was duplicated and the subject of the existing article was "Coleco", not just the company. The brand's activities since 2005 are not independently notable from the company's activities (note that it wouldn't make sense to have an article for the single paragraph on the brand since 2005 without the entire context of the brand's past), hence why they need to be covered together. Atari has completely different circumstances and each article is judged on its own merit. Atari isn't a precedent for splitting all brands from company articles—it's completely based on the sourcing. czar 17:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I didn't see your comment on the Talk page. I do have the page "watched" but didn't receive any notification that the talk page had been updated. Do I need to adjust my preferences to receive separate notifications for talk pages being updated?

With regard to splitting off the brand to a separate page I defer to your Wikipedia expertise in this area. I was just using Atari as a go-by and thought that was the appropriate structure. I'm trying to learn so thanks for the clarification.--Ikrananka (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Nope, watching the main page watches the talk page as well—you won't get notifications but changes will show in your Special:Watchlist. If you do find more sources, let me know and it might make sense to revisit the discussion. Otherwise, it's best to avoid premature splits by expanding existing articles czar 19:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Death Wish (2017 film)

Hello! Please move Death Wish (upcoming film) → Death Wish (2017 film) as the film now has a release date, "upcoming" should be replaced by "2017". Here's an old draft of mine Draft:The Mountain Between Us (film), merge it into The Mountain Between Us (film) or delete it, whatever suitable. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 21:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, first one done and I recommend tagging the second as G7 based on how the split histories play out czar 22:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Bethesda VR listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bethesda VR. Since you had some involvement with the Bethesda VR redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi (✉) 15:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rain World

The article Rain World you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rain World for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Godzilla: King of Monsters

Hello! Please move Draft:Godzilla: King of Monsters → Godzilla: King of Monsters — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 21:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, mainspaced czar 02:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

undo of Godzilla King of Monsters

Your move of the draft to take the place of the update article was a mistake IMO. I have reverted back to the updated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film). I have started a discussion at Talk:MonsterVerse#Article_updating_of_Godzilla:_KOTM. Alaney2k (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Alaney2k, the draft predated the "2019 film" page, which was expanded from a redirect today. As the film only today began principal photography, the article should have been built in the linked draft before today. Not sure what the discussion is intended to accomplish. Feel free to merge between edits in the page history as long as you attribute authorship in the edit summary. By the way, sources use both "of the" and "of", if either would even be the final title. czar 05:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Czar! You know what? It's better that you simply do the histmerge of early edits of the draft to the article, it's better to conclude the discussion. Do this to the all draft edits before February 5, 2017, and I know it'll not cover most of the draft but it's better for now. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 08:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the merge! I missed that in my watchlist. Alaney2k (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Anna Anthropy

Template:Anna Anthropy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Emeka Ogboh

Hell Czar. You reverted my edits on Emeka Ogboh. Can you show me where a policy states "SPS are acceptable for basic biographical details"? --Kbabej (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Kbabej, my revert's edit summary said it was in the page you linked: Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves czar 04:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Walks of Italy

Hello Czar,

I think the deletion of Walks of Italy page was speedy and without enough oversight. The GNG were, in my mind, not thoroughly reviewed for applicability in the case of this company. I would like to submit additional information to either reopen the discussion or propose a deletion review, however you think is best.

S.O. (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Redtalons1

@Redtalons1, there was a clear, policy-backed consensus to delete the article. If you have new sources, I suggest running them past the discussion participants first and if they are not available, I can take a look. czar 18:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Czar Would that be using the article's chat page, or talk to them individually? S.O. (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Redtalons1

@Redtalons1, their user talk pages individually, as I imagine you would prefer their responses to be impartial to the others, but you're welcome to alternatively centralize discussion here (or on one of their user pages) and {{ping}} the others czar 18:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Czar How does talking to them indivudally affect the current status? Can they change their response on the deletion nomination? Also, I think I should @Calton here as well as he seemed to administer part of the deletion. I have a post with a much more exhaustive, and current, list of notable sources for this page. The one they were nominating had barely been updated at all in over 6 years of its existence. S.O. (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Redtalons1

@Redtalons1, it doesn't—it's just easier to convince editors separately. If they are satisfied with your sources and want to overturn their consensus, I'll carry it out. Not sure when you put together this sourcing, but it usually does more good in the article or on its talk page than in a hidden draft. And re: User talk:Wcquidditch#Deletion of Walks of Italy, remember that we are looking for significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) (read: depth), not mere mentions in articles. And it looks like the latter in the dozen refs I spotchecked. (The sandiegouniontribune.com link is dead, by the way.) Also if you have an affiliation with the company, our policy asks that you declare it. czar 19:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Czar I sent it to some of the editors indivudally because that's what you said to do. I would've posted it on the deletion talk page otherwise. I can add more specific, in-depth references as well. Should this be in a central place as part of a new article, or should I wait to hear from the two others I've pinged? S.O. (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Redtalons1

@Redtalons1, I'd wait to see what they say, though I imagine it won't be enough to change their minds based on what I just said. Significant coverage would cover the organization's history, business model, etc., not just brief itineraries on some of the tours that journalists have taken. czar 19:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Czar I've yet to receive a response to the users I chatted to. What is the best next step? Can we initiate a deletion review? S.O. (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)Redtalons1

@Redtalons1, if you read the deletion review directions, the process is only for when something went wrong in the discussion. I mentioned above that I looked at the sources you posted and I don't think they would affect the deletion outcome. If any reliable sources went into depth on the company, its founding, its place in the industry, I would reconsider, but I only saw routine mentions of the company and its purpose. I don't see how it'd be possible to write an encyclopedia article that does justice to the topic based on that sourcing. czar 22:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@CzarWhat went wrong in the discussion was that it was marked for speedy deletion with extremely limited outside input. I'm also not sure you're looking reading into the content of the articles so much as just briefly skimming them, but there is more to notability than something having an in-depth article in the New York Times. Your view of notability seems to be quite exclusionist and oversimplifying. Frequent, widespread mentioning of the company across many major outlets over many years, to me, inherently assumes notability. Additionally, partnerships with hugely notable companies including Disney, celebrity chef Mario Batali, Showtime, the Vatican, GTA/Travelbound, etc, all add to notability outside of a journalist's cover story. S.O. (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Redtalons1

@Redtalons1, I understand that you're frustrated, but the terms you're repeating have specific definitions on Wikipedia and notability specifically refers not to whether something is famous/important but whether it has significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) You can take the topic to deletion review with your additional links, but I think you'll find it quickly thrown out with several others (less succinctly) repeating what I just wrote. The impressiveness matters less when writing an encyclopedia as much as whether reliable, secondary sources exist such that we can write an encyclopedia article that does justice to the topic without relying on primary sources.

Sources like [4] are good, but you've also included a lot of unreliable sources in your list. If you can pare it down to the major articles (not mentions), I can take another look and try to help. You can also, if you want, just work on a (less promotional) draft at your leisure regardless of the last discussion. Though, as mentioned earlier, if you have an affiliation with the company, you'll need to declare it on the draft's talk page. czar 18:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Knight Lore

Do you have a suggestion for a TFA date? It was released in November (the Amtix link says November 1985, but I'm guessing they just took a while to write about it), but I don't know what day in November. The November video game slots may be taken already, I'm not sure yet, but even if so, I want to put it on my personal calendar for next year. - Dank (push to talk) 13:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Dank, I was thinking any time in November 2019, as its 35th anniversary (first released for the ZX Spectrum in Nov 1984). Though if the pool is drying up, I suppose it wouldn't be bad to run it any time in November of any year. It doesn't have an associated day (and barely even month) so the date isn't specific. Thanks for checking in czar 14:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 15:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Editing of David Watson WP entry

Hello Czar,

FYI, together with other Fifth Estate editors, I am working to update the entry on David Watson ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Watson_(anarchist) ). We are all new to Wikipedia editing, so it will take some extra effort to get it done. But we are determined to do it.

Nobosses (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nobosses, unless there are reliable, secondary sources that discuss Watson's life/work in depth, it would be more appropriate to just cover his work within the Fifth Estate article. Happy to help, if you have the sources czar 18:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

re2: Editing of David Watson WP entry

Hello again,

Thanks for the pointer. We should have no problem coming up with reliable secondary sources, as David Watson is indeed prominent in his field. Nobosses (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to delete page

Hello Czar, you closed this as delete but never deleted Mr Puaz. Just wanted to inform you. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Anarchyte -- if you look at the history, he DID, but it was recreated yesterday. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: Ah, my apologies. Still trying to figure everything out. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't sweat it :D ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Draftspace move notice

Template:Draftspace move notice has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sims Place Bus Terminal‎ & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upper East Coast Bus Terminal‎

Hi Czar, Could you reopen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sims Place Bus Terminal‎ & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upper East Coast Bus Terminal‎ as there was no consensus to Merge or Redirect, If List of bus stations in Singapore gets kept then I could add merge templates but at present I don't see the point at the minute if it could be deleted in 5-6 days but regardless with these 2 there was no consensus to redirect, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 10:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Davey2010, I followed through on the consensus, which was clear enough to not warrant a relist. By a technicality, the article can't be deleted, so this is as close as it gets. If the redirect target is deleted in a week, the redirects will be deleted with it. czar 13:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

But that's my point it wasn't a redirect consensus, They can be deleted tho as those that have been merged have also been deleted not redirected, That all being said it'd be a waste of time dragging us all on the merry-go-round now when in a weeks time it may be deleted, Ah well thanks anyway, Happy editing. –Davey2010^Talk 14:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Davey2010, if there are other articles that were deleted after their contents were merged elsewhere, they too should be restored and redirected to preserve attribution czar 14:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Undid part of your edit to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eric_Katz

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eric_Katz&diff=789650374&oldid=789635444

Since they're all voting "No preference", I decided to remove that notice. This AfD is a bit weird I think, lol. Ethanbas ^(talk) 17:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ethanbas, {{nab}} isn't just for votes but for explaining some of AfD's core intricacies to new users. It's also a prophylactic against further canvassing. I recommend restoring the template. czar 17:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

OK. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eric_Katz&diff=789651797&oldid=789650374 Ethanbas ^(talk) 17:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Colette (film)

Hello Czar! Will you please spare a minute on merging Draft:Colette (film) → Colette (film) and I'll later improve the article? It needs much attention. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 18:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, done and godspeed! czar 18:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks like a thunder-speed. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 18:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Restoring my IPBE

Hi there. From your message on my Commons talk page I found you are an admin on English Wikipedia so I was wondering if you are able to restore my IPBE right that is revoked last year without very clean reason? Not having the right is very annoying for me as I have to change my network configurations every time I want edit, usually some of my scripts on English Wikipedia. The user who did that seems retired for a while thats why I couldn't ask himself why that revoke is happened and whether possible to restore it. Thanks. −ebrahim^talk 13:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Ebrahim, there is a ticket system for requesting/restoring & documenting the right at WP:IPEC. Looks like you originally had the exemption when an IP range block affected you, and I imagine the (now-retired) admin removed it when that range block expired. In any event, the ticket system is the best way to ask for its reinstatement. czar 16:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Rare Replay scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Rare Replay article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 4 August 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 4, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The Nutcracker and the Four Realms

Hello! Need another histmerge of Draft:The Nutcracker and the Four Realms → The Nutcracker and the Four Realms — Just leave the last edit in the draft done by TriiipleThreat. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 17:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, done czar 17:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Structured Data on Commons Newsletter, July 19, 2017

Welcome to the newsletter for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons! You can update your subscription to the newsletter. Do inform others who you think will want to be involved in the project!

Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons?

The millions of files on Wikimedia Commons are described with a lot of information or (meta)data. With the project Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons, this data is structured more, and is made machine-readable. This will make it easier to view, search (also multilingually), edit, organize and re-use the files on Commons.

In early 2017, the Sloan Foundation funded this project (see documentation). Development takes place in 2017–2020. It involves staff from the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) and many volunteers. To achieve this, Wikibase support is added to Wikimedia Commons. Wikibase is the technology that is also used for Wikidata.

Recent developments: groundwork

• A new and crucial technical step (federation) now makes it possible to reference data from one Wikibase website in another. Because of this, it will be possible to use Wikidata's items and properties to describe media files on Commons.
• Another important piece of groundwork is under development: so-called Multi-Content Revisions. This feature allows structured data to be stored alongside wiki text, so that one wiki page can contain several types of content.

Team updates

• Amanda Bittaker was hired as Program Manager for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons. Amanda will take care of the overall management of the project.
• Sandra Fauconnier (known as Spinster in her volunteer capacity) is the new Community Liaison. She will support the collaboration between the communities (Commons, Wikidata, GLAM) and the product development teams at the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Deutschland.
• We have open positions for a UX designer and a Product Manager!

Talking with communities and allies

• Long-term feedback from GLAMs. Besides the Wikimedia community, many external cultural and knowledge institutions (GLAMs - Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) are interested in Structured Data on Commons and are willing to provide feedback on the long-term plans for the project. Alex Stinson, GLAM strategist at the Wikimedia Foundation, is currently in contact with Europeana, DPLA, the Smithsonian and the National Archives of the United States. Alex is also looking for other GLAM institutions who might be able to advise on the long term. If you know of an institution or partner that may be appropriate for consultation, do get in touch with Alex.
• Jonathan Morgan, design researcher, is starting to work on two projects:
  • Researching batch upload workflows by interviewing GLAM institutions
  • Researching the enrichment, organization and improvement tasks on already uploaded media files by engaging with active Commons contributors. This research follows up on existing research by Wikimedia Deutschland on heavy Commons users.

What comes next?

• The Structured Data on Commons team meets in the week after Wikimania to lay the groundwork for the next steps. This includes new backend development and design work, for better and more clear integration of the structured data in pages on Wikimedia Commons.
• The project's information pages on Wikimedia Commons will receive a long overdue update in the upcoming months. The team will also work on more and better communication channels. Feedback, wishes and tips are welcome at the project's general talk page.

Get involved

• Join us at Wikimania! We are present at the hackathon, and there will be a session on Saturday, August 12: Structured Commons: what changes are coming?
• Follow the Structured Data on Commons project on Phabricator: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/profile/34/
• Subscribe to this newsletter to receive it on a talk page of your own choice.
• Do you want to help out translating messages about Structured Data on Commons from English to your own language? Sign up on the translators page.
• Stay tuned for requests for input, discussion and participation as soon as the info portal is refreshed (see above). These will also be announced via this newsletter.

Many greetings from SandraF (WMF) (talk), Community Liaison for this project! 13:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Need some eyes on Talk:Cuckservative please

I noticed you have edited this article in the somewhat recent past. There's an IP/SPA editor who is posting accusations & now verging into WP:NPA territory - they are posting at a rapid rate so who knows what they've posted since I started here. But this article & its talkpage have a tendency be a hornets' nest so would like some backup around before I decide to wade in. (FYI: I have also posted this same message at Ad Orientem's talkpage). Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Dragged Across Concrete

Hello! Please move Draft:Dragged Across Concrete → Dragged Across Concrete — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, done czar 02:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronic music#Sub-project EDM

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronic music#Sub-project EDM as a participant of WP:WikiProject Electronic music. - TheMagnificentist 13:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

National Museum of African Art

Morning Czar, for reasons I'm not quite sure about, the bot doesn't seem to be putting the notifications through, so I'm just dropping you a note to let you know I'm done with the GAR and the article's On Hold. I would stress that some of the comments made are suggestions, not requirements, and you're quite at liberty to reject them! It's a strong, well-written, well-referenced article on an interesting topic and was a pleasure to review. Just raise any queries on the Review page and I'll respond there. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of National Museum of African Art

The article National Museum of African Art you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:National Museum of African Art for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of KJP1 -- KJP1 (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

If I've done the technical bits correctly - which is by no means guaranteed! - you should be getting a Pass notification shortly. Glad you found the review helpful, I found the article fascinating. One of the wonders of Wikipedia is the opportunity it gives to stumble across something of interest, of which one had previously never heard. And I include docent in that! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thank you, Czar, for creating the new article, Devil's Bargain. All references now used to expand the article, and all converted to in-line citations. Sagecandor (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you please revert

Can you please revert your changes at Elijah Daniel ?

1. It screws up the refs columns and I very much prefer the footnotes section.

2. Hate the book section. Please can you revert this? This is just awful. Forever his whole life will be described out of order chronologically. This is just wrong.

Please revert yourself ?

Sagecandor (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Gotta give me a chance to respond to your messages on the article talk page before posting elsewhere... "Forever his whole life"? It's an encyclopedia article—please keep an open mind and try not to take edits to heart? I justified my edits in their edit summary and on the talk page, but do what you will. czar 04:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Czar? It's going to be out of chronological order like that forever? With a dedicated book section? And all the later 2017 stuff appears above it? That is out of order? Can you please self revert? Please? Sagecandor (talk) 04:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Nothing on WP is forever. He could write another book and the whole section could become a level-2 header. The book could split out summary style and the separate subsection could become unnecessary. The book certainly needs a subsection to separate it from the rest of the career, and it wouldn't make sense to add another subsection just for his post-book activities. It's more sensible to group by theme than chronology in this case. Feel free to revert if you want, but I think the pre-copyedit version's organization is a step backwards czar 04:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree and I much prefer a straight chronological style that is not out of order. I'm asking you to please self revert, can you please do that, please? Sagecandor (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Done czar 04:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry

Czar,

I'm sorry if I've upset you in any way.

Please understand this particular article feels like ... it feels like multiple bosses with multiple different hats, each wanting the article to change in a different particular direction -- until there's nothing left at all but one sentence.

And then it would be much easier to delete it.

While it's ongoing at AFD.

It would be different if all this wasn't happening at same time as a deletion discussion.

But it is.

It makes it more stressful.

I know you don't want the page gone, but others, do.

Most strenuously so, they do.

They've poured lots and lots of energies into trying to make that happen, commenting at the AFD in reply to many different people.

I admit it's been a bit stressful trying to respond to different queries from different parties trying to whittle down the article to nothing or get it deleted.

And to then be followed over to your user talk page by another user with sarcasm, etc. [5]

Once again, Czar, I'm quite sorry if you're upset by all this.

Sagecandor (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Sage, it's okay, but I think this can be a good lesson in not taking things personally. How long do you plan to defend this one article from outside edits? How long do you think it'll remain more or less with the same sentence structure? The best reason why articles don't belong to any one editor on WP: Everyone moves on, and you have to trust whomever comes after you. The article that was your world for weeks on end will fall into disarray (eventually—not immediately!) and really the only thing you can do about it is tighten the prose so no one sees anything to fix in the future (i.e., have a really good copy editor). You're concerned about forever, but I'd be more concerned about the red flags other editors are throwing than about how the article will look in ten years. When your edits get a bit obsessive (Talk:Elijah Daniel), you can afford to unwatch the pages, or even take a week off for your own health. The encyclopedia goes on just fine without either of us, and the Daniel article will be fine in a week, a year. And if a crater is all that remains of the article after a month, perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from what others agreed was appropriate to remove. The best you can do is put forth your best argument and get out of the way. But if being edited by others (bosses with hats) brings you inordinate stress, wikis won't be a great fit. Power's comment was snide, but surely you get the point (and would be wise to drop it)—if your editing habits are making yourself (and others) miserable, move on to topics/pastimes/work that will bring you some joy. czar 05:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I think I've also been quite stressed out about this issue. Sagecandor (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion

Thank you, Czar, for your suggestion to me to help you improve the page you created, Devil's Bargain.

I really appreciate your thinking of me.

I'm glad you liked the way I expanded the page.

Maybe sometimes it's easier to work on pages that have a defined beginning, middle, and end.

If you have other suggestions for articles to expand, or even better yet, create, feel free to let me know.

Sagecandor (talk) 05:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Stepping back from article

I'm going to follow your wiser example and step back from the article, Elijah Daniel.

I wish other editors the best of luck to improve the page.

Thank you,

Sagecandor (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Czar/closexfd.js

Hi, some of the scripts in Czar/closexfd.js are a bit dated. Is it perhaps a good idea to replace parts of it with User:Evad37/XFDcloser.js ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd replace the whole thing with the latter, but I don't want to spring the change on editors who (for whatever reason) prefer the working parts of the old scripts. I left an edit recently recommending Evad's script, and if there is some normal notification used to alert editors of a script's deprecation, I'd be fine with someone adding it. czar 15:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Bumblebee (film)

Hello Czar! Please move Draft:Bumblebee (film) → Bumblebee (film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 17:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 17:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters merge

I closed this discussion per your request at ANRFC. I merged the lede and redirected to start the process. Not familiar enough with video games to attach the sources from the body to that, but they should be available from the history. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

GA review for Emeka Ogboh

It isn't showing up yet but I've signed up for this GA review. Seven months is a long time to wait for this. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 11:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Stamper apologies

Posted on the page, but wanted to make sure you saw it. It can be easy to confuse how articles should look in a perfect world with what is possible in reality. While I still feel the coverage is a little slight, it's not out of line with several other GAs now that I look, and there is no point in me taking an extreme position on policy out of some supposed principle. If you would like to renominate, it would be my privilege to give it a full review with the goal of passing once any minor concerns are met. Indrian (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Emeka Ogboh

The article Emeka Ogboh you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Emeka Ogboh for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Barbara (WVS) -- Barbara (WVS) (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I nominated your article for DYK. Please feel free to change the hook if you don't like it. See it here: {{Did you know nominations/Emeka Ogboh}} Congratulations and Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 02:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Advice needed

I've been working in the article Lars Alexandersson. Due to my prose being too weak, I requested it to be copyedited but I still think it could be reworked more. I checked the notes you posted about how writing the reception sections of the article and I tried to reorgranize the reception section. Still, I wonder if you could give me more advices before the copyedit. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2, the specificity of the prose struck me most—I think it could impart the same information at a fraction of the size.

Harada wanted Tekken 7 to have a completely new approach, and after hearing Swedish rock band BatAAr, he was impressed by them and felt Tekken 7 could benefit from their songs. Therefore, Lars being half-Swedish, he asked them to compose the character's theme, hoping that fans of the franchise would look forward to this theme song when playing as Lars.

↝ Harada asked a Swedish rock band to compose the half-Swedish character's theme. (Is it important that he was impressed by the band? Is the band important if it lacks an article both here and on sewp? Is it important that he hoped fans would look forward to it, or is that to be expected?)

But that's also a symptom of the sourcing, which appears to piecemeal a history from short mentions in various texts about Tekken 6/7, and much of that specialist material is more for Tekken fans than targeted for a generalist reader (and would thus fit better copied to a specialist wiki). So it's back to the perennial question of whether this topic is the subject of significant coverage so as to warrant a separate article. (None of the secondary sources appear able to be construed as "about" him, even the Siliconera announcement that mentions him in the title.) I could pare this down to what would pertain to a generalist reading, but I think you could do the same if you first expanded List of Tekken characters#Lars_Alexandersson to communicate what sources hold to be important about the character. czar 21:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I see. The article have though articles with most centered character article like the top 10 recommended characters, Guiness World Record or overpowered characters. I don't see how it would benefit more on the wiki, since those sites never use reception.Tintor2 (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Right, but those sources are about Tekken characters as a group, indicating that it could be worth splitting the concept of "Tekken characters" from the individual game article, but it's not like the sources make Lars himself the subject of the piece. The Guinness World Record is a good example, because Lars' importance is incidental to the story: The piece doesn't put any emphasis on why Lars was chosen or important. (This was also the Ken Rosenberg consensus: that characters only covered in listicles alongside other characters don't need separate articles, i.e., aren't independently notable.) Other in-universe wikis might not compile Reception and listicle appearance details just because it's harder to compile. At the very least, the ones I've seen have trivia sections for some of that detail, but the bigger point is less where those series of mentions belong on another wiki and more that they aren't appropriate in a generalist encyclopedia. In any event, I'd see what's left over after the character list entry is sufficiently expanded, as should happen anyway. czar 15:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Stamper GA Nomination

Looks like the bot is not sending messages on this, probably because of the way we reinstated it. Anyway, just wanted to make sure you saw that I had completed my initial review and have placed the article on hold pending several minor changes. Indrian (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Mark Sutcliffe (ottawa) deleted

Can you please explain the deletion of this page? There was a lot of work put into the page and now it's gone. Struttinmystuff (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Lisa

Hi Lisa, it was deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Sutcliffe (Ottawa), in which you participated. The discussion links to the relevant policy pages. We don't keep separate articles when the topic lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) czar 16:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The Spy Who Dumped Me

Hello Czar! Please do a histmerge of Draft:The Spy Who Dumped Me → The Spy Who Dumped Me — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 18:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, done czar 19:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Christopher Robin (film)

Hello! Please move Draft:Christopher Robin (film) → Christopher Robin (film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 20:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, done czar 20:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Devil's Bargain

On 10 August 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Devil's Bargain, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Devil's Bargain describes how Steve Bannon used his experience at Breitbart News to gather white men to support Donald Trump? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Devil's Bargain. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Devil's Bargain), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Black America

Hey, nice work starting the article on Black America. I was wondering whether you intend to go back and add inline citations; if not, I'll tag it (and maybe go in and do the citations myself if I can make time). Thanks, GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 14:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist, thanks. Feel free to expand (not that you need permission) as I likely won't touch it again any time soon. As for the two sentence stub, the general references for basic information do not require inline citations (indeed, the basic info could be verified in any of the sources listed). czar 16:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I mainly asked since you had left that editing-in-progress template up on it for a while, and to be courteous. I went ahead and put citations in (and expanded on what you had written) to make it less likely some overzealous editor would nominate it for deletion. It seems, even over a week later, to be too soon to expand the article much (if any) more than I have, but I think there's enough there now. I know Wikipedia was the first place I went looking for info when I heard about the series, and I'm sure many other people have done or will be doing the same, so I wanted to insulate it from deletion as much as possible. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

High Life (2018 film)

Hello czar! Please delete Draft:High Life (upcoming film) or histmerge it → High Life (2018 film) — Whatever you think is right here. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 04:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Skyscraper (2018 film)

Hello czar! Please move Draft:Skyscraper (2018 film) → Skyscraper (2018 film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 19:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, done czar 19:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Chaos Walking (film)

Hello again! I need you to move Draft:Chaos Walking (film) → Chaos Walking (film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 02:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again!

Hello czar! Please move Draft:Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again! → Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again! — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Participate our study to help recruit editors for WPVG?

Hi Czar,

Thanks for your insightful suggestions about our study. They are really helpful. I have made some improvements in our system based on the feedback of our last discussion, and hope we did a good job in responding it. I wonder if you personally would like to participate our study? Just want to double check. No pressure :). Please let me know. Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources check

Could you check these sources: User_talk:MBisanz#Cyber_Nations_Deletion? MBisanz ^talk 21:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doomfist

The article Doomfist you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Doomfist for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Aladdin (upcoming film)

Hello czar! Please do a histmerge of Draft:Aladdin (upcoming film) → Aladdin (upcoming Disney film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 17:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, done czar 17:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Check in with you about our Wikiproject study

Hi Czar,

Thank you again for your interest in our study and your great suggestions. We will send our recommendations to you in the next couple days. A bit more details, we will send you a list of 16 candidate editors for each WikiProject. There will be 2 batches with a two week's gap. I've noticed that you signed up for eight projects. We will provide a semi-template for your when you recruit the new editors which will make it easier for you, but recruiting editors for eight projects seems still a lot of work. So just want to double check with you, or maybe just help one project, like VG, this time? Please let me know. Thanks again! Bobo.03 (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bobo.03, I'm up for all eight, but whatever works best for you and the study. Templating new users isn't too hard. Some editors would even call it their specialty (to the dismay of the rest of the encyclopedia...) czar 03:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your understanding. In this batch, I'd like to send you recommendations for WPVG. I don't want to overwhelm you, but I might, or might not, add one more project for your in the next batch. Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Emeka Ogboh

On 25 August 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Emeka Ogboh, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that art curator Ugochukwu-Smooth Nzewi described sound artist Emeka Ogboh's work^ⓘ as capturing "the maddening hyper-visuality of Lagos"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Emeka Ogboh. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Emeka Ogboh), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Awarded for excellent work on Emeka Ogboh. Keep it up! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ugochukwu-Smooth Nzewi

The article Ugochukwu-Smooth Nzewi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ugochukwu-Smooth Nzewi for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Chappaquiddick (film)

Hello czar! Please remove or merge Draft:Chappaquidick (film) → Chappaquiddick (film) whatever you think is best here. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 07:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Recommending new editors to your WPVG

Hi Czar,

Our system generated a list of potential new editors for your project. They may be interested in collaborating with your project members to on your project's articles. As you will notice, the list contains both experienced editors and newcomers. Both are valuable for Wikipedia and your project. Please go ahead and introduce your project to them, and point them to some project tasks to start with. We also provide a template invitation message to make it easier to contact the potential new editors. Just click the invite link to write the invitation message.

We'd appreciate it if you could fill the survey to let us know what you think about our recommendations so we can improve our system.

Extended content

Username Why we recommend this editor First Edit Date Total Edits in ENWP Recent Activity Level Invite Survey AbateAmur (talk · contribs) AbateAmur just joined Wikipedia and made their first edit on an article within the scope of your project, Article:Castlevania: Order of Ecclesia. This is an indication that they might be interested in working on your project. Please welcome Wikipedia newbies! 2017-8-21 2 New Editor invite survey AlexanderPierce311 (talk · contribs) AlexanderPierce311 just joined Wikipedia and made their first edit on an article within the scope of your project, Article:Age of Empires. This is an indication that they might be interested in working on your project. Please welcome Wikipedia newbies! 2017-8-22 5 New Editor invite survey Jdrharris (talk · contribs) Jdrharris just joined Wikipedia and made their first edit on an article within the scope of your project, Article:Game Grumps. This is an indication that they might be interested in working on your project. Please welcome Wikipedia newbies! 2017-8-23 4 New Editor invite survey Miyazoo (talk · contribs) Miyazoo just joined Wikipedia and made their first edit on an article within the scope of your project, Article:Game Freak. This is an indication that they might be interested in working on your project. Please welcome Wikipedia newbies! 2017-8-20 7 New Editor invite survey Madbane54 (talk · contribs) Madbane54 made 164 our of their most recent 500 edits to articles within the scope of your project. If you invite them to your project, they will have the opportunity to contribute more! 2009-9-20 589 Active invite survey ThatPerson903 (talk · contribs) ThatPerson903 made 254 our of their most recent 500 edits to articles within the scope of your project. If you invite them to your project, they will have the opportunity to contribute more! 2014-2-20 1047 Active invite survey Homechallenge55 (talk · contribs) Homechallenge55 made 162 our of their most recent 500 edits to articles within the scope of your project. If you invite them to your project, they will have the opportunity to contribute more! 2013-1-13 2979 Active invite survey Maile66 (talk · contribs) Maile66's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Society and Arts, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project! 2006-12-25 70127 Active invite survey Verso.Sciolto (talk · contribs) Verso.Sciolto's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Arts and Society, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project! 2013-11-10 1003 Active invite survey Spin Boy 11 (talk · contribs) Spin Boy 11's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Arts and Society, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project! 2005-8-12 7333 Very Active invite survey DavidCary (talk · contribs) DavidCary's editing history shows connections with your project members! They have posted multiple messages on the user talk pages of a number of your project members. Studies have found that editors with these kinds of connections to project members tend to edit more and stay longer in the project! 2004-2-9 5683 Active invite survey Geraldshields11 (talk · contribs) Geraldshields11's editing history shows connections with your project members! They have posted multiple messages on the user talk pages of a number of your project members. Studies have found that editors with these kinds of connections to project members tend to edit more and stay longer in the project! 2004-11-29 14145 Active invite survey PapiDimmi (talk · contribs) PapiDimmi's editing history shows connections with your project members! They have posted multiple messages on the user talk pages of a number of your project members. Studies have found that editors with these kinds of connections to project members tend to edit more and stay longer in the project! 2013-5-29 2497 Active invite survey Jman98 (talk · contribs) Jman98 edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, Jman98 and project member Favre1fan93 (talk · contribs) edited 7 of the same articles in their most recent 500 edits. This suggests that Jman98 will be interested in editing your project's articles! 2010-6-13 505 Active invite survey Wikibenboy94 (talk · contribs) Wikibenboy94 edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, Wikibenboy94 and project member Cognissonance (talk · contribs) edited 5 of the same articles in their most recent 500 edits. This suggests that Wikibenboy94 will be interested in editing your project's articles! 2015-9-23 669 Active invite survey Bilbo571 (talk · contribs) Bilbo571 edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, Bilbo571 and project member Pincerr (talk · contribs) edited 13 of the same articles in their most recent 500 edits. This suggests that Bilbo571 will be interested in editing your project's articles! 2010-5-8 4660 Very Active invite survey

Bobo.03 (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

---

(talk page watcher) @Bobo.03: I know I'm opt'd in for this and this is czar's set, but wanted to comment on a couple just in case. Maile66 is an admin. I would exclude admins. They're long time editors aware of projects and their duties have likely caused editing in the area despite any lack of interest in it (I.e. blocking/reverting work). PapiDimmi is self-requested indef blocked, which came about as he was facing an admin-actioned indef block for edit warring and MOS issues. Wikibenboy94 already has a project welcome on his talk page (from me), and has a GA credit to his name since. Czar may have already submitted that on survey but wanted to drop those couple details. -- ferret (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Ferret:! Thank you for adding in those details! Yes, I will make changes in the next iteration, and will also post you a list on your talk page! Bobo.03 (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ferret, yep, I mentioned these elements in the survey. You might also be interested in adding to my feedback at User_talk:Bobo.03#Suggestions czar 13:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Operation Finale

Hello there, please take a look at Draft:Untitled Adolf Eichmann project and do a histmerge → Draft:Operation Finale as both are the same drafts. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 00:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

And this one, delete Draft:The Aftermath (upcoming film) or merge → The Aftermath (2017 film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 01:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Here comes another, Draft:Shock and Awe (film) → Shock and Awe (film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 01:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 17:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks fr all. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 17:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Ad Astra (film)

Hello, please move Draft:Ad Astra (film) → Ad Astra (film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 20:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, done czar 20:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)