RollbackEdit

Pres that was a rollback misclick that I thought didn't go through. That was an accident. GamerPro64 02:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@GamerPro64: No worries, I figured that right after I reverted. --PresN 03:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!Edit

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q4 2020Edit

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 12, No. 4 — 4th Quarter, 2020
  Previous issue | Index | Next issue  

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2020, the project has:


Content


Project Navigation
To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list.
(Delivered 08:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC))

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  • By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
  • Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Featured contentEdit

As you may know, I'm quite open to poking fun of myself. But I don't want to bring other people in (however incidentally) without checking, so could you check out the entry and image for "List of herpestids" here? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 09:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Ha, that's funny; you're good to go I think. --PresN 14:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2021-01-31/Featured_content ...And we're published! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 10:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
Someone wrote two paragraphs about the history of Raven software and skipped over Quake 4 entirely. I'm one of the devs on that project and laughed for like a solid minute, as did a lot of the other devs in a private discord of ours. That is why we felt it very important to inform readers that The Makron lives. There was even a citation! Indisputable fact ;)

Sorry to mess with your list -- and it might not have been you who put it together but clearly you are a very serious wikipedia person. Truthfully, people like you are a boon to every reader. Madjackmcmad78 (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Madjackmcmad78: Oh, I was the one who wrote the whole list, and those 2 paragraphs, that's why I noticed your change. No worries about the edit. Sorry for skipping a game you cared about; Raven made 9 licensed titles over 11 years so I couldn't squeeze them all into the lead without just duplicating the table since it's just a summary, not a comprehensive history. Not sure what you mean by "one of the devs on that project"- like, you worked on it back in 2005? Or you're on a project about it now? --PresN 22:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
@PresN: That's correct, I was at Raven from 2004-2006.

Precious anniversaryEdit

Precious
 
Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Dang, you're old. Panini🥪 11:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Are you talking to me, as the indent suggests? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Pretty sure he was talking to me; but yeah, Panini!, first edit 6-30-2006, so coming up on 15 years here. --PresN 15:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Dang, you're old. Panini🥪 15:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Paper Mario (series)Edit

My above comments were simply jokes, by the way. Feel free to heckle me when I become a Wiki-boomer.

I've been drafting up a series article (linked above) and was looking around to find a general way to format it. However, all the series articles are oddly drastically different. Is there some sort of MoS, or good series article, that I can refer to? Panini🥪 22:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Panini!: Oh, child. You heckle me for my age, then turn around and expose that you are but an infant. No, there's no good standard for series articles; at best we try to hold the line on not creating them in the first place for 3-game series with no sources talking about the series as a whole. Most of our FAs on the subject are old or actually about compilation releases; Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy by Protodrake is from 2015, and Sonic the Hedgehog got promoted just last month, but the problem you'll run into is that every series is different. I got Commander Keen to GA in 2016, but it's a linear series of games; Paper Mario is more thematically/gameplay connected than plot. Really, I guess just look at the GAs and FAs that are about series, and try your best to keep it focused on the series, not each game one after another; talk about what they have in common, and how they're viewed as a whole, rather than just each game's [gameplay/plot/development/reception] in sequential order. The hardest part is finding sourcing that discusses the whole series (or a subset of the series) collectively—how things changed over time, how they built on each other, how they're viewed collectively—instead of just being about one game and offhandedly mentioning its prequels. --PresN 03:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
PresN, Thanks for the response! With this in mind, I'll make changes to keep it more general and broad. I'm refusing to not do this, because Paper Mario is so close to becoming a good topic and this is one of the only obstacles. After a bit more progress, could you take a re-look? I'm new to the whole "series" thing. Panini🥪 12:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
PresN, Okay, only focus on the Development sections because that's what I've been working on; how do you think it looks? Apart from some key points about each game's key individual development points, I've written about the thoughts and philosophies about the developers and where and how they're taking the genre to a different approach. Does that make sense? Panini🥪 16:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@Panini!: Made some points on the talk page, but I think in general you're doing good talking about how the aim of the games changed over time and how they reacted (or didn't) to criticism of/reaction to prior games. --PresN 22:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
PresN, I think of these games being bunched into three categories: the RPG (first game, TTYD), the Action-adventures (Sticker Star onward), and Super Paper Mario. Because of this, it's hard to compare them because they are all very different. Panini🥪 22:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
PresN, This time around, focus on the "Main series" section; is this a good structure? I've explained what each game does differently from each other, and simply said "it's similar to this game" when two were similar in gameplay. Does that make sense? Panini🥪 14:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@Panini!: That looks good to me! --PresN 23:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
PresN, In an attempt to move the page to the main space, I've realized that I don't know how to do so... the article currently exists as a redirect, and it's refusing to let me move it. Panini🥪 14:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Looks like you got a different admin to do the move, congrats on the new article! --PresN 15:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of If Found...Edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article If Found... you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lazman321 -- Lazman321 (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of If Found...Edit

The article If Found... you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:If Found... for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lazman321 -- Lazman321 (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

You've got mailEdit

 
Hello, PresN. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.NASCARfan0548  17:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Video games Newsletter surveyEdit

Hello PresN! I'm conducting a feature for the video games newsletter similar to that of a survey. I'm going to ask users their opinions on a specific matter and highlight unique and common answers to determine consensus on a subject. Your input would be very valuable, alongside others, to help answer this question.

The question is: How do you determine what makes a video game character notable enough for their own page? Do you follow pre-existing guidelines or have your own opinions on the matter?

Panini🥪 10:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Panini!: A video game character is notable enough for their own page when there are multiple reliable sources specifically about that character; more practically, it can support its own article when there are enough sources about the character to write an article that contains good-sized development and reception sections, as in multiple paragraphs each. The editor should consider (for any article) whether there is enough information for an article to stand on its own independent of the parent article, regardless of notability. A good article about a character should be as long as a good article on a video game, and with the same sorts of information and sources (e.g. not a series of brief mentions in listicles. --PresN 16:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
PresN, Thanks for the input! Panini🥪 16:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Followup on Release DatesEdit

Hello, PresN. I apologize for coming back to you on this, but you seem knowledgeable on the topic and I felt like I needed a second opinion. I posted the details of the new information I found on the Project Video Games talk page, but it ultimately boils down to a simple question.

After the RTM date, a manufacturer makes a game (the machine itself) available to purchase for arcade owners. The arcade owner then provides access to the machine, and the general public purchases individual plays of the game on the machine.

Do we treat the date of the former or the latter as the "release date" for the sake of our articles? That is, which date better meets the definition of "available for purchase by the general public"?

I can make an argument in favor of both. The former is when the game itself is available to purchase from the manufacturer. However, the latter is when the machine is generally available for the public to purchase plays on (even if they aren't technically purchasing the software itself.)

I think it's worth mentioning both dates regardless, but I want your opinion on which date ought to be the primary "release date" when we have both. Pacack (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Pacack: I'd say it's the "public can play" date that counts, similar to how the release date for video games is when you can buy it in a store, not when the publisher ships it to retailers; that said, I think generally it's hard to pin down an exact date for arcade games, so it depends on your sourcing what you can do. --PresN 22:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

FAC mentoringEdit

Hello. I am working on getting Plants vs. Zombies to FA status. The article recently passed a WP:GAN review by User:J Milburn. I have the article currently on peer review and would like someone to review the article and do some mentoring of the article for a future WP:FAC nomination. Lazman321 (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Lazman321: I'll take a look and comment at the PR when I get a chance. I just skimmed it real fast, and immediate feedback would be that typically you don't want to divide up sections into one or two-paragraph subsections like that, as it makes the article pretty choppy. The reception table is also pretty long; typically you want like 7-10 representative ones. Additionally, and this one is bigger, the reception prose reads as: 'A said "quote1". B said "quote2".', and that gets repetitive and reviewers are going to ask why the quotes couldn't be paraphrased instead. As far as FAC goes, the biggest thing to be prepared for is that no matter how good the article is, reviewers are going to find things to fix, and it can feel a little overwhelming at first. No matter how long the list is, just take a deep breath and try to fix it all in a timely manner without getting defensive- people don't like to review nominations that have a lot of un-resolved issues or combative behavior. Note that you don't have to do exactly what a reviewer asks for, you can disagree and explain why you chose to do something else. If a nomination goes a couple weeks without much traction from reviewers, you can/should post around at WT:VG and elsewhere asking if anyone is willing to take a look, so that the nomination doesn't get closed due to lack of response. Will look at the PR later. --PresN 15:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@PresN: I have dealt with most of the things you requested about the content of the article, along with the request in the peer review, with the exception of the section headings, which I feel are necessary for organization. I will remove ones considered unnecessary is multiple people are pointing them out. Lazman321 (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Good article drive noticeEdit

This message has been sent to users signed up for the Good articles newsletter. Add or remove your name from the list to subscribe or unsubscribe from future updates. Alternatively, to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

-- For the drive co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Reverted change to Commander KeenEdit

You reverted my change to Commander Keen in this revert. May I ask what's wrong with using {{anchor}}? I was using it to link Standard Galactic Alphabet to the paragraph. Also, in that change I split two paragraphs which seemed to have been combined accidently at some point, you reverted it, so I've re-done the paragraph split edit. --GoodClover (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@GoodClover:Nothing was super-wrong about using anchor, the problem was that, because the two images were so near each other, on wider screens it was creating a big whitespace gap because it wouldn't let the paragraph text start above where the image was displayed. Now that you've added a couple sentences there, it seems to be better. I've added your Anchor back in. --PresN 14:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

FAC mentorEdit

I saw you are a mentor when it comes to music articles for FA. I was wondering if you could please help me with prose issues for Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon? I really want the article to be FA. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@The Ultimate Boss: Unfortunately, I don't think I have time to do in-depth copyediting, which was the major issue with your last FAC and outside the scope of a mentor; I recommend making a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests for someone more focused on that area to take a look. --PresN 14:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Nvm about that article. It still has a bunch of work to do. Can you help me see what sources I need to get rid of or replace on "Dior (song)"? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

  Administrator changes

  TJMSmith
  Boing! said ZebedeeHiberniantearsLear's FoolOnlyWGFinley

  Interface administrator changes

  AmandaNP

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
  • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 March newsletterEdit

Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

  •   Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
  •   Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
  •   ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
  •   Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
  •   Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
  •   The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
  •   Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
  •   Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
  •   Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
  •   Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. 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. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or something 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 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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

51st Academy AwardsEdit

Hi there,

I currently have a featured list candidate for the 51st Academy Awards. User:The Rambling Man gave me comments on the follwinf:

  • "Multiple nominations and awards" tables row scopes and captions please.
  • Same for "Presenters and performers" tables, which also require col scopes.

I'm not so sure how to fix this. Can you help, please?

--Birdienest81 (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
See MOS:DTT. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@Birdienest81: Yeah, it's pretty straightforward- just did it, please see what I changed (! scope="col" | <COLUMN NAME> for column headers, ! scope="row" | <FIRST CELL OF ROW> for rows). --PresN 15:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Square Enix listsEdit

Hi, apologies for my SE list edits, I did not take proper MOS care. However, I find the lead sections to be not concise and too repetitive with the main articles. There was also some minor formatting and linking stuff that I might be worth restoring.

E.g. Why is it necessary to state the sales numbers on every list again (except the franchise one) or have a "Square Enix's current logo" image description?
Can we change the paragraph structure, e.g. having a short lead paragraph, then background one and then one that details what the list includes?

Regards IgelRM (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Each list is independent of each other, so cross-article repetition isn't an issue. We can't assume that reader of one list has read the lead of a different one. You have to take each list as it's own thing (though consistency is nice).
Single-paragraph sections are choppy, awkward, and not advised. We're not talking about a ton of text here- none of these lists have a more than 3 paragraphs, and most have 2 plus a set of links to other lists. Rearranging the contents could be fine, depending on how it's done, but I feel that the edits you were making were essentially stripping out all context for the list, which isn't much use to the reader. I guess I don't really understand what your goal is? It's not like the lists have lengthy section getting between the reader and the list of games, they have short blurbs explaining the real-world reasons why certain things are included in a given list. If we wanted to not include anything that wasn't present in another article, then none of them would have leads at all and the reader would need to read Square, Enix, and Square Enix for context. --PresN 02:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
@IgelRM: forgot to ping, sorry. --PresN 04:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok. And right, I definitely ended up removing a lot of context while trying to change something for me that wasn't actually an issue. Will leave rearranging to someone else.
What I meant specifically about the content; the mobile games list uses the general franchise sales numbers, but specific mobile sales numbers would be more relevant. The Square and Enix lists use the latest franchise sales numbers too, but the pre-merger sales numbers with a as of date would be more relevant. Also, I had previously removed the sales numbers from the main games list, so perhaps you would like to restore those too. I might try to restore the minor formatting stuff from my edits, but leaving the content in peace. Thanks IgelRM (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding closing FLCEdit

I am the creator of a page and I nominated that article for FLC recently, but I wish to close the FLC and remove the template from Article's Talk Page. Till when can FLC be closed, and the template be removed, can I remove the template manually. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: Please do not remove the template manually. When the FLC is closed, within a day the bot will clean everything up, and it needs the talk page template to be there to run correctly. --PresN 03:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, it was written that the director and his delegates would decide when to close a FLC, actually I nominated it by a misunderstanding, so I wish the FLC to be closed. Link for the article - Living prime ministers of India
Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering but...Edit

If you have been active in the past month in the gaming project, I tried creating an article for Danganronpa character Hajime Hinata (also known as Izuru Kamukura). Due to an editor rushing the article in early January, the article was listed for deletion. When I went back from my break in February, I tried working into Hajime/Izuru but the article was directly merged back due to rules involving recent deletion. As I made a request for a deletion review I kept expanding the real world of the article here. After searching multiple articles, I managed to give the character some content based on all of his appearances but it seems the deletion review is still focused on the idea of not recreating Hajime/Izuru. Could you give it a look? At first I was told that the problem with the article was that it was also lacking notabilty but in the past days, I managed to find more sources about his development in the franchise and reception. Could you give it a look? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tintor2: It looks like the thing to do is to close the long-running DRV, not go around it; that said, while it's a mess, the current consensus and right thing to do seems to be to move your draft to mainspace, and point Hajime Hinata at it. Now done. --PresN 03:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
@Tintor2: Someone else pointed out that I may have the articles flipped in name, since the "old" one is at Hajime and the "new" one is at Izuru, even though the "old" one was named Izuru. Which name did you want the article to be at? It's easy enough to flip, though I'll/an admin'll have to do it. --PresN 13:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
His most common and original is Hajime Hinata since the novel where he was first introduced as Izuru was never translated.Tintor2 (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
@Tintor2: Alright, swapped them. --PresN 15:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Requesting Third PartyEdit

Hello, there. I was wondering if you might be willing to act as a third party in an edit dispute between myself and user Namcokid47. I reverted some article deletions that they did and instead of discussing it on the talk page, they simply re-deleted the pages. I want to make sure that I'm being reasonable as well regarding the articles, though, and I know that you're a more experienced contributor than myself. The discussion is here, if you're willing. Thanks. Pacack (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

A featured list questionEdit

Hi PresN. I am pretty experienced in the Turkish Wikipedia, but not so familiar with the English Wikipedia dynamics so I am sending a message to you about an issue. This FL candidate was closed by you by promoting the article as FL. The problem with this article is kind of complicated. Neither the Turkish Football Federation or the UEFA considers those champions as "national champion". The list is basically tells this: "those organisations were in a national level, therefore, they are national champions". This is a clear violation of Wikipedia:No original research policy, because the editors are basically make comments on sources and add them as a different information. I am sure you didn't count this user's support who is a sock puppet that can easily be seen.

On the other hand, this all "the Turkish football champion" process was started by the administration of Fenerbahçe S.K. in 2017/2018. If you can just look at the older versions and changes have been made during those years, the article was transformed from the "List of Turkish Super League champions" into the "List of Turkish football champions". This version doesn't even mention about the other organisations because there is basically no reason to mention since they're not considered as one. If we look at the RSSSF source on January 2018, we can see that those championships are not listed. But by February 2018, during the time that the Wikipedia article is also being converted, and the Fenerbahçe S.K. administration activities, the RSSSF source is also being converted.

Furthermore, if you can just look closely to this edit, you can notice that "while Galatasaray is the most successful in the professional era with 20 Super League titles so far" is being removed. At that point, I have to mention that Galatasaray is the biggest rival of Fenerbahçe. Now, it starts to make more sense I believe :) By this edit, the same user adds "denied and not counted by the Turkish Football Federation, even though they were official championships by the TFF itself" part to the article which is a complete violation of the "no original research" policy that I mentioned before. By July 2018, the RSSSF source adds this "information" (!) as well. As you can see in here, that "source" is used by Wikipedia again and voila! We have the source for that content! More "improvements" were being made in the article after it's promoted to FL, and Fenerbahçe becomes de facto the most successful club as well (according to the original research of the user or Fenerbahçe S.K. of course, not for the Turkish Football Federation or UEFA or any governning body or any legal institution).

So as you can see here, since 2017/2018, those manipulated edits and "improvements" are being made to support the claims of Fenerbahçe S.K., and they are clear violations of "no personal research" policy. What should we do about it?--Nanahuatl (talk) 08:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: Hi; so it seems like there are two issues here: 1) that you feel the list itself has problems (due to original research/editorializing and circular citing) and 2) that as a result the list should not be a Featured List. My role deals only with the latter- the Featured List process is not and cannot be in charge of the content of every list that comes through it, and cannot enforce changes. If you feel that the list should not be an FL due to the issues you raise, the thing to do in regards to that is to nominate it at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates, for editors to decide if it should be de-listed. It seems like your real problem, though, is not that the list is featured but with the actual content of the list, and that's outside the scope of what the FL process can do. The thing to do there is to get consensus to change the list at it's talk page (I see you have not yet participated in the recent discussion there) or at WP:FOOTBALL project. --PresN 15:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I will nominate it to remove the status, but the problem is unfortunately bigger than that. First thigns first then :) Thanks for the guideness.--Nanahuatl (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Lists that change annuallyEdit

Feel free to send me elsewhere. Some of the feedback I'm getting from plants people suggests that they might want a list of, say, all genera currently in cultivation (according to lists updated, say, annually). Could a list that changes once a year ever be a Featured List? Would I be expected to update it manually once a year (under penalty of a trip to FLRC if I don't)? - Dank (push to talk) 03:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dank: We've had a few "changes annually" lists become featured, though they're uncommon; mainly sports ones that add some number of players to a list every year or politics lists that list out e.g. all of the current governors of provinces. I don't think it's an issue in that regard. That said, a common problem with that kind of list is that they stop being updated and go stale for years (and then go to FLRC)- I wouldn't go so far as to say you'd be "expected" to keep it updated, but there's usually an underlying assumption for any dynamic list that someone, probably the nominator, is going to maintain it, and if it's not something you think you'd be up for at the outset then it may be worth trying to find a way to make it a static list, e.g. "list of plants under cultivation (2010–2019)". --PresN 04:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, and my personal preference would be something date-limited as you suggest, that would be easier ... but it's important to me to let the plants project choose what they want and to support their choice, and the little bits I'm hearing suggest that they might want the list to be updated. - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

List screen reader accessibilityEdit

Thank you for your edits yesterday to the FLC. I have several other list articles that are in the various process of review, and I want to update them like you suggested. Can I enquire, did the following edit do what you suggested correctly? Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@EnigmaMcmxc: Yes, that looks good! --PresN 13:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Awesome, thank you for taking a look. Ill get cracking on making the same changes to the other list articles I have been working on.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).

  Administrator changes

  AlexandriaHappyme22RexxS

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
  • Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

  Technical news

  • When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
  • Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

  Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Potentially Dated StatementsEdit

Guess who's back! I was trying to get ride of the cleanup tags that have appeared in the last few months, and there's a bunch for potentially dated statements. I can't find where they are or what they reference! Could you take a look? Also, how have you been? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Judgesurreal777: Welcome back! I've been well, you? That category comes up for any use of the {{As of}} template; it's a pretty pointless maintenance category and I don't know why it's considered a "cleanup" category. Easiest thing is to just remove the template and have just text. --PresN 21:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I've been good! Learning to teach English as a second language, that's been pretty interesting! Thanks for the category thing, I really hate those "as of" templates since video game data doesn't come up that often that we can expect regular sales updates. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Ok down to three articles with cleanup tags! So Final Fantasy XII has a plot summary tag, could you take a look if you get a chance? It exceeds 700 words, perhaps a slight trim back to 700 would warrant the removal of the tag :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Judgesurreal777: Managed to do it! 699 words. --PresN 16:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Final Fantasy XV downloadable content has a no publisher cleanup tag, can you see which reference needs it? I can't figure it out! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
@Judgesurreal777: It was a "missing periodical" tag, one ref was a cite magazine with no magazine parameter given. Now fixed. --PresN 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

2012 Summer Olympics medal table (RE: Medal map)Edit

Hi there,

I currently have 2012 Summer Olympics medal table nominated for featured list promotion. However, one of the reviewers (User:SNUGGUMS) is unsure of the fair use rights for File:2012_Summer_Olympics_medal_map.png. I am unsure what to do. I know that 2014 Winter Olympics medal table has a similar map and is currently a featured list. Do you know anyone who is familiar with fair rights usage?

--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2021Edit

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 13, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2021
  Previous issue | Index | Next issue  

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2021, the project has:


Content


Project Navigation
To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list.
(Delivered 13:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC))

-- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Alternative -- noun vs adjectiveEdit

Hi, just a heads up, since I don't want to cause an edit war: I've restored my edit that you reverted on Nier, since there seems to be a misunderstanding about the grammar there. "Alternative" can be both an adjective (meaning "different to something else"), and a noun (meaning "a possible choice"). In the sentence in question, it's an adjective. "Alternate" is either an adjective (meaning "every other" or "in a succession"), or a verb (meaning "to change places regularly"), although technically it also has a rare noun form. The use of "alternate" to mean "alternative" is a US-specific confusion, and it's better to observe the distinction on Wikipedia, which is an international project. mathrick (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Bounty!Edit

Ok, you’ve done so much to help clean things back up with our project, one last thing! If you have time, if you’re willing, I was wondering if you would do what is needed to cleanup Nasir Gebelli. This, added with your other cleanup efforts I believe warrants a new barnstar! Offers open! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

FA mentoringEdit

Hey! I'm aiming for my first FA with Rockstar San Diego and am looking for some help. The article is a GA since 2019 and the PR just closed (though with less input than I had hoped). I saw you listed at WP:FAM and, since you already weighed in a bit at the PR, I was hoping that you could help out, provided you have time for that. Regards, IceWelder [] 19:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@IceWelder: I'll try to take a look through it tomorrow! Before I do, here are some general FAC points of note that are more important than anything specific to the article:
  • FAC is hard emotionally for many people moreso than it is hard to actually physically do. A nomination may sit there for a couple weeks without any feedback at all because it doesn't hook a reviewer into taking a look, only to suddenly get an incredibly in-depth critique. The most important thing is to not get anxious about it, and not to take critiques personally. The goal is for the article to come out the other end as good as it possibly can, and if that means that it doesn't pass the first time, then that's no big deal. Reviewers aren't looking to score points, they're just looking to identify all of the issues with the article they can—and every article has issues to find, because none of us are perfect at every part of article writing.
  • When you get a review, respond to it. Be open to criticism of the article, but if you disagree with something, say so respectfully. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, as long as you can calmly explain your perspective, and there's no rule that says all reviewers are right and you're wrong. Just make sure if you disagree that you have a real reason for it and aren't just feeling defensive. Reviewing an article at FAC is a big investment of time and energy, and pretty much no one wants to invest that time and energy into a review where the nominator gets argumentative and angry or just doesn't respond when there's a perfectly good nomination to review instead a few inches lower on the FAC page.
  • Relevant to that, if there's a big review on a nomination that's not been addressed, most reviewers don't want to jump in with another big review. They'd rather wait and come back later. So it's in your best interest to try to respond sooner rather than later, even if you can't get to it all right away, to make sure the nomination doesn't stall out and get closed.
  • Every review process on wikipedia is backlogged, and has been for years and years. Be proactive about asking people or wikiprojects to review your article, and remember that a great way to make that happen is to review other people's stuff.
  • If the nomination doesn't pass the first time, take a deep breath, let it sit for a bit, and see if you can address any concerns raised without time pressure. The waiting period before nominating again is just 2 weeks, and there's no stigma against repeat nominations.
  • All that said, I'm being a bit discouraging here, but many many first-time noms get promoted without issue. There's just not as much for me to say about that case. --PresN 04:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    A lot to take in, thank you so much! I'm looking forward to your feedback on the article. Regards, IceWelder [] 19:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
@IceWelder:
  • Angel left Rockstar San Diego in May 2005 and returned to Colombia; he was succeeded by Alan Wasserman, who was replaced by Steve Martin in 2010. Martin left the studio in 2019. - if the CEO matters so much, who is it since 2019?
  • which meant he would not accept any offer that came his way.,, films and [music videos - seeing some minor copy errors; you should give the article a read-through (consider reading it backwards!) for errors like that
  • You use "Angel Studios" over and over in the first section, which results in it feeling a bit choppy- consider using synonyms like "the company" or rearranging sentences, especially in the 3rd paragraph
  • marked the studio as fit to develop Nintendo's recently announced Project Dolphin console, - develop for, surely
  • There's an awful lot of sentences in a row that are structured like "in x, y happened. In x+1, z happened". Try to find ways to restructure or combine sentences to let it flow better.
  • I'm not sure that "N/A" makes sense in the notes column of the table as opposed to a blank cell; you also shouldn't combine cells just because they're the same text but instead only if they're logically the same thing (e.g. don't merge notes
  • Might be nice to have the year of cancellation with the cancelled game name if you have them
  • Sources look good
While I'm sure that reviewers will find things and grammar issues (they always do), mostly it seems that you need to give the article a pass for flow, to get the narrative of the studio coming through more than a series of events. It's not bad as-is, though, and I think you have a good shot. --PresN 17:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I worked on some copyedits on Friday and Saturday. The article was actually GOCE'd just two weeks ago but they don't catch everything. Unfortunately, we know neither the cancellation dates for any of the games nor who succeeded Steve Martin (yet). I removed the sentence on director changes after Diego Angel's departure from the lead as it didn't feel that relevant anyway. Is there anything else that needs to be weeded out before the nomination? Regards, IceWelder [] 15:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Just hoping that this doesn't go under. The article hasn't changed much since the copyedits in April. Is there anything that needs immediate changes or should I just go for the nom? IceWelder [] 19:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@IceWelder: I think go for it. --PresN 19:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Done. Thank you so much! Regards, IceWelder [] 21:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The World Ends with YouEdit

The anime episode plots are tagged as too long, are they also supposed to be 700 words? Or is there another guideline that applies in this case? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Judgesurreal777: I can't find a guideline, but way less than 700 I would think- 700 is for the plot section of a game or movie where there's only one plot. I'd expect an episode summary to be 1/3 to 1/2 as long as what's there now for episode 1, aka a short paragraph. --PresN 13:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Someone came to the talk page and said the requirement was 200 words… I don’t mean this as a criticism of the World ends with you anime, but I don’t know the story, so it all sounds like gibberish to me, hard to know what to cut! lol Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

JudgementEdit

Just nominated Judgment (video game) to GA but I had to cut down some parts from the plot as it was quite bigger than 600. Now it's better but I'm not sure about the prose. Could you give it a look if possible? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tintor2: I think the prose is fine, though these two sentences don't seem to flow together: During Ayabe's trial, Japanese Vice-minister of Health Kaoru Ichinose covertly arranges a hit on Kuroiwa. This results in Yagami defeating Kuroiwa who is murdered by the police shortly afterwards. How does a git on Kuroiwa result in Yagami defeating Kuroiwa? Did you mean defending? --PresN 16:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks as usual. I revised those sentences.Tintor2 (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Square (video game company)Edit

Sorry to bother you, but I was wondering if you could do a quick mini review of what the article needs for GA status, I want to prep it for a GA run and I’m tired of being blindsided. Thanks in advance if you have the time or inclination! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Judgesurreal777: Honestly I think it has a ways to go- the history section reads as if every paragraph was a bullet point, like it's just a series of things that happened without any real connection. Subsidiaries too, but in that case it's more necessary since they weren't connected to each other really. I'd expect it to look more like Accolade (company) (GA), Namco (FAC), or Bandai Namco Studios (B), which is probably going to take some major rewriting. --PresN 13:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 May newsletterEdit

The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in Round 2 were:

  •   The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
  •   Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
  •   Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
  •   Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
  •   Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
  •   Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
  •   Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.
  •   Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.

Please remember that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of Round 2 but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in Round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

  Administrator changes

  EnchanterCarlossuarez46

  Interface administrator changes

  Ragesoss

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

  Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Help with an awardEdit

@PresN: Greetings! I am aware that you are a very busy but prolific WP:FL writer, and therefore request some of your help. I wanted to nominate the Milner Award for featured list, which according to another prolific writer has the minimum limit of the number of recipients (namely, 10). No matter how hard I try, I can't find more information and therefore think that it is maximally comprehensive. Another thing is with the images; there are only a few and I am not sure if I should remove the images of the participants or add one to each, although I do not know how to add new images and handle BLP copyright rules correctly. I wanted to do a peer-review but I think that would be too elaborate for a list this short. Could I kindly ask for some of your time to perhaps quickly review the list as if it is a peer-review? Cheers. Wretchskull (alt) (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: I can give a quick pass, yeah.
  • Biggest issue is that you need sources that aren't the Royal Society to show that the award is notable in the first place. I did some quick searching and found this from HPC Wire, which also has a nice comment of calling it "the premier European award for outstanding achievement in computer science". I also found that SIGPLAN has it's own Milner award for young researchers ([1]), which should be mentioned I think.
  • I'd expect the lead to mention the Royal Society in the first paragraph, and explain who they are. It should also give another sentence if possible to explain why Milner was worth naming the award over (e.g. what did he do that was so pioneering)
  • The lead is going to be short, but please don't have 1- or 2-sentence paragraphs if you can avoid it.
  • The table needs a caption for screen reader software (either |+ whatever the caption is or |+ {{sronly|whatever the caption is}} if the caption would be a duplicate of a nearby header). You have column scopes, but you also need rowscopes- so e.g. "| 2012" becomes "!scope="row"| 2012". See MOS:DTAB for more details.
  • Keep the images, even if you can't find any more free ones for the others
  • The reference formatting is messy. Pick a single date style; cite the organization/website name, not the url (so The Royal Society, not royalsociety.org)
  • What's up with the google doc link? It should be cited to the actual author/publisher, not google docs, and it would be better if you could somehow prove that it's an actual official list, not just a random public doc, perhaps by citing the page that linked to it instead. --PresN 14:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@PresN: Thank you very much for the review! I have taken care of the issues, but I am slightly confused. I have added the rowscopes to the years, but shouldn't they be on the names? For example, the Pritzker Architecture Prize only uses it on the names. Apart from that, I do not quite understand the first point about captions for screen reader software and the example either. Don't I already have "| captions" in the table? Do you mean that all the "{{-|center}}"-templates in empty image boxes should have a rowscope? Because I prefer having one "{{-|center}}" for each box to facilitate adding images and showing whose image is missing; I have also seen this in other featured lists. If you have inquiries or criticisms about the list in its present form, feel free to tell me. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
@Wretchskull: On the names is fine; I personally find it weird-looking to have it on the second column (or third in this case), but there's no consensus that it's wrong so as long as you have them it's fine. The argument is that the rowscopes should be on the "primary" column, and that the "primary column" should also be the first column, but there's such a strong tradition of putting the year as the first instead of names that no consensus exists. As to caption, it's for the entire table as a whole, not individual lines; I've added one for you to show you what it looks like. Table captions were added as more than a recommendation to the MOS relatively recently and WP:FL has only started actually enforcing it a couple months ago, so there are a lot of FLs that don't have it and we haven't systematically gone back to add them to existing FLs. --PresN 14:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
@PresN: Thank you very much for your help! Wretchskull (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

FLC Source reviewEdit

Is there a place where I could request a source review for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season/archive1, similar to the list of ones for FAC? NoahTalk 00:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: Yep, it's the box at the top of the FLC page. I've gone ahead and added it for you. --PresN 00:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I struck it since the list passed the SR. I haven’t done much work at FLC. Does everything else appear to be in order or there is something missing? NoahTalk 10:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@Hurricane Noah: Looks fine to me at a brief glance; I did a promotion pass last night for lists down at the bottom of the page, and I plan on doing another one today or tomorrow for ones higher up, which would include this list if I don't find any problems when I take a closer look. --PresN 12:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. NoahTalk 19:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Fabula Nova Crystallis FT nomEdit

Hope I did the right thing. It was suggested by Judgesurreal777, and it seemed like the articles were in a descent-enough state. Definitely let you know about the nom since you were the one who handled Final Fantasy XIII originally. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Source reliability questionEdit

since you’re our music guru I thought you might know, is Game OST a reliable source or not? Protodrake is doing a GA right now and he and his reviewer are unsure and if not it means cutting a lot of interview material. You might want to comment, it on the Music of the Dead Space series I believe. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Judgesurreal777:I'm not sure it is, actually, it seems like a handful of people in Russia running it with the last Russian posts from April and the last English from last March; nothing I see asserting that they're employees or have editors or fact-checking. --PresN 19:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Weird that they have interviews, oh well :) Thanks! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Video games Newsletter surveyEdit

I'm conducting another survey for the Wikiproject Video games Newsletter. If you could leave your thoughts on the matter it would be greatly appreciated. Every response will be compiled into a MOS-Esque answer that balances the thoughts of our top contributors. You're one of them! The question is as follows:

What would you consider the requirements of making a video game series article? What about franchise articles?

If you would like to respond, please ping me here and write your reply. I'll handle the rest. Thanks in advance, Panini!🥪 14:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Panini!: I think the requirements for making a video game series/franchise article are that there are sources talking about the series as a whole, rather than individual elements of it, or a lot of sources talking about how the games give context to each other. Sometimes we sling around ideas like "at least 3 games", but for a lot of series articles that just means that we end up with text copied from 3 articles and glued together, instead of an article that adds something on its own not found in the games' articles. It seems like often editors try to create series articles as a way to add "legitimacy" to the series, but don't actually have anything to say about the series as a series. --PresN 15:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!Edit

  The Special Barnstar
PresN, thank you for your help over the topic nominations. I honestly didn't think anyone would do what you've done. I've been overstretching myself in my personal life and Wikipedia, and this is a sign of it, but you've hopefully managed to salvage a bad move on my part. It's very much appreciated. ProtoDrake (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Reference converter?Edit

Is there a tool or gadget that converts references in an article to one standard regarding dates? So you can convert all the 08-01-21 to August 1, 2021? Just curious. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok I found one but it won’t load for me, what do you do to check your JavaScript to make sure it works right? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@Judgesurreal777: No clue, I've never used one. --PresN 01:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I found one if you need it :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Date sorting troubleEdit

Hi there,

I have trouble getting the date column for List of accolades received by Slumdog Millionaire to sort properly. I tried adding a day, month, year template at the top using Help:Sorting, but it still refused to sort properly. How can I fix this?

--Birdienest81 (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@Birdienest81: I went ahead and fixed it for you (talking about templates is harder sometimes than just doing it); see what I did for future note. The problem with adding a sort key to the top here is that the dates weren't all "dates"- most of them were wikilinks where the visible text was a date, and wikitable code isn't smart enough to understand that. So, you have to manually apply sortkeys to each row; for the non-linked dates the {{dts}} template does that just fine regardless of format (it handles a wider array of formats than table sortkeys), but it too can't understand wikilinked dates. For that, I just used the generic sort template, with an ISO date as the key- so 31 January 2009 became 2009-01-31. It's a bit of a hassle to set up, I wish the dts template was smarter.
Incidentally, while there's no point changing it now, I noticed that you were sorting names using {{sort|last|first last}}, which works, but there's also {{sortname|first|last}} (or {{sortname|first|last|linked article}}) for that use case if you'd prefer, which can make it easier to deal with multiple people with the same last name. --PresN 13:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Oerba Dia VanilleEdit

Ye, sorry about that one. I was going to finish it up some time ago, but I kind of lost the drive to edit and it fell to the wayside. There's actually a ton more sources that I found User:Abryn/Character reception#Oerba Dia Vanille. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021Edit

Recently another editor used rollback/twinkle to revert some enhancement edits I have been making on the BTS article in my carefully trying to bring it to peer review level. The editor Carlobunnie, however, apparently did not read through any of the detailed edit history comments I had left or he would have seen that the edit was made in agreement with another editor here [2]. Since Carlobunnie has used rollback/twinkle without any care for even reading the edit history, then may I request a restore of my edits. I tried to reach Carlobunnie on Talk but Carlobunnie is apparently ignoring Talk as well and has gone on to casually editing other articles. A restore of my edits might at least encourage Carlobunnie to answer Talk and to read edit histories before using rollback/twinkle without careful review. Could you restore my edits made in agreement with another editor [3]? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: I have no history with this article. I see in the history that you made some sort of larger change, someone reverted you, and you were asked to discuss the changes you were trying to make on the talk page. Instead of doing so, you just re-made the changes, and got reverted by someone else. You then, again, did not discuss your edits on the article's talk page but instead reached out directly to the second reverter, and when they didn't reply fast enough for you, to me. You need to discuss why your edits are improvements to the article on the article's talk page, not reach out to random editors. --PresN 15:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

List of presidents of the Indian National CongressEdit

Hi there-

This list has received three supports. Till what time it will get promoted to FL.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 09:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@25 Cents FC: When an FLC delegate reviews the list and nomination and feels it should be promoted. There's no timeline, and 3 supports is not an automatic promotion. --PresN 14:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
@PresN: Actually it's taking longer than ususal. Filmographies lists are quick to get promoted compare to this political list.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 20:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
@PresN: Right, so is it okay to nominate another article, (GA nomination) since this one is still under review.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 15:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
@25 Cents FC: There are no restrictions on making nominations in different processes at the same time; GA doesn't even have restrictions on making multiple GA nominations at the same time. The only restriction that applies to FLC is that you can't have multiple FLC nominations open at the same time unless the first one has general support already, which yours does. --PresN 15:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks mate.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 08:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Please have a look at the list.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 06:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

  Administrator changes

  AshleyyoursmileLess Unless
  HusondMattWadeMJCdetroitCariocaVague RantKingboykThunderboltzGwen GaleAniMateSlimVirgin (deceased)

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

  Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

QuestionEdit

Hello, thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia. I would have a question. Why are people over the age of 80 listed on the List of longest-living members of the British royal family list. Why not 70 or 60. Is there a Wikipedia criterion for this? OvalThunder9💬 19:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@OvalThunder9: Having never even seen that article, much less edited it, I have no idea why you would ask me; I'd guess, though, it's because 80+ gives 27 people, but 70+ or 60+ would give many hundreds, making the article unusably long. --PresN 20:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I just wondered. Thanks for the answer. OvalThunder9💬 19:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Text-based gamesEdit

Hi,

You wrote in the Category:Text-based games history: "Duplicate of Category:Video games with textual graphics)".

But that's not the case: Category:Video games with textual graphics is about video games with textual graphics, whereas Category:Text-based games is about games without graphics. The former should be a subcategory of the latter.

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

FLC ConsensusEdit

Hi @PresN: Just a question that is there any number of Supports needed for a list to pass FLC, or it may be passed when review comments satisfy that list meets the criteria? If so, the FLC "List of marches composed by John Philip Sousa" may have satisfied the criteria, and nomination is older that 10 days. If not, completely fine and will surely wait for some more time! Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021Edit

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive:
  • This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.

Click here to opt out of any future messages.

--Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Crocodilian listEdit

Hello. Would you be able to create a "List of crocodilians"? I would like to remove the species list from the main article. Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: Yeah, looks like there's enough species to support a list. I hopefully could put it together in the next week- I just moved across the country, and am still busy dealing with that. --PresN 03:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
@LittleJerry: Now up at List of crocodilians; I haven't touched the main Crocodilia article. --PresN 02:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 July newsletterEdit

The third round of the 2021 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 294 points, and our top six scorers all had over 600 points. They were:

  •   The Rambling Man, with 1825 points from 3 featured articles, 44 featured article reviews, 14 good articles, 30 good article reviews and 10 DYKs. In addition, he completed a 34-article good topic on the EFL Championship play-offs.
  •   Epicgenius, a New York specialist, with 1083 points from 2 featured article reviews, 18 good articles, 30 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
  •   Bloom6132, with 869 points from 11 DYKs, all with bonus points, and 54 "In the news" items, mostly covering people who had recently died.
  •   Gog the Mild, with 817 points from 3 featured articles on historic battles in Europe, 5 featured article reviews and 3 good articles.
  •   Hog Farm, with 659 points from 2 featured articles and 2 good articles on American Civil War battles, 18 featured article reviews, 2 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 4 DYKs.
  •   BennyOnTheLoose, a snooker specialist and new to the Cup, with 647 points from a featured article, 2 featured article reviews, 6 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 3 DYKs.

In round three, contestants achieved 19 featured articles, 7 featured lists, 106 featured article reviews, 72 good articles, 1 good topic, 62 good article reviews, 165 DYKs and 96 ITN items. We enter the fourth round with scores reset to zero; any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (one contestant in round 3 lost out because of this). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

TFL notification – July 2021Edit

Hi, PresN. I'm just posting to let you know that List of suines – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for July 26. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 01:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
  • An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

  Technical news

  • IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

  Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

United States presidential elections in ArkansasEdit

Hi @PresN: I have recently re-formatted this list (United States presidential elections in Arkansas) and added various sources, etc. Just wanted to ask you that would the list have reasonable chances of meeting the FL criteria, provided that some other minor changes are made? If the structure and other details about this article would be cleared, I would implement changes in all the articles throughout the series of 51 articles. Would appreciate any comments. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: Not doing a full review, but it looks pretty good- only major issue that I see is that the political party of candidates is only indicated in the table by color, which doesn't meet WP:ACCESS guidelines (e.g. the information isn't there if you have colorblindness or vision issues). --PresN 19:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@PresN: Yeah, but I now added double dagger, hash and other symbols as used in some other FL's. Just wanted to confirm that do I need to all similar symbols/characters for all 25 parties? Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
@Kavyansh.Singh: Yeah, it's unfortunate, but you're going to need something- right now, if you're colorblind, you can't tell political parties except for the few you've added symbols for, and even some of those (black text on blue doesn't really show up). I recommend using parentheses + letters instead after the person's name (e.g. Ulysses S. Grant (R))- some of the obscure parties might need more than one letter, but they also don't show up as much. --PresN 22:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
@PresN — I have added parentheses + letters instead of symbols for all 25 parties, and the sorting still looks fine. Should I go ahead and nominate it? Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and nominated it. Would appreciate your comments on its nomination page. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

List of plant genus names with etymologies (A–C)Edit

List of crocodilians is looking good, btw. Everything in the list series List of plant genus names (A–C) has been promoted, but I got a complaint at WT:WikiProject_Plants/Archive72#List of plant genus names a while back ("complete and utter foolishness" was mentioned) because they misunderstood the purpose of the list. I really think the name should be up to the plants guys ... but they haven't responded recently and I don't want to keep asking. What do you think of a name change to List of plant genus names with etymologies (A–C), to match List of plant family names with etymologies? Does it cause any annoying bookkeeping problems for you to change the name of an FL after promotion? - Dank (push to talk) 12:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dank: I have no opinions on the name, but no, there's no issue with renaming FLs- we just adjust the link at WP:FL whenever we notice the change. --PresN 17:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks much, I'll leave a comment on the list's talk page and see if I get any responses. - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
No objections so far, so I'm moving those 4 pages. - Dank (push to talk) 12:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Btw, for the sake of transparency: I just solicited a review for my current nom from Tim riley; he says he'll review it soon. - Dank (push to talk) 18:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

"WBFS" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect WBFS. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 16#WBFS until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. – voidxor 23:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Michael Jackson videographyEdit

Hello, it's been one month now since I submitted this list as an FLC. It has been almost four weeks now since the page got its last comment and second support vote. I wonder why there hasn’t been any more comments since. Can you please have a look at it?.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@TheWikiholic: The FLC coordinators have no ability to compel people to review nominations. You might want to ask around relevant wikiprojects or people who work in the area, or else just continue to wait. --PresN 19:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

FAC mentoring for SurvivalcraftEdit

Hi PresN, I'm doing on a peer review to bring Survivalcraft to Featured Article status. I see that your name is on the list of users willing to mentor on FAC nomination, so I'm wondering if you could be my mentor...thanks. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jeromi Mikhael: I don't have a ton of time, but I can give you some general advice about FAC and this article in particular:
  • The biggest thing to be prepared for at FAC is that no matter how good the article is, reviewers are going to find things to fix, and it can feel a little overwhelming at first. No matter how long the list is, just take a deep breath and try to fix it all in a timely manner without getting defensive- people don't like to review nominations that have a lot of un-resolved issues or combative behavior. Note that you don't have to do exactly what a reviewer asks for, you can disagree and explain why you chose to do something else.
  • If a nomination goes a couple weeks without much traction from reviewers, you can/should post around at WT:VG and elsewhere asking if anyone is willing to take a look, so that the nomination doesn't get closed due to lack of response.
  • Overall, the article needs an in-depth copyedit before it goes up- there are lots of tense issues and awkward phrasing, as well as an often almost-informal tone.
  • Also, paragraphs should have a bit of weight to them- 1 or 2-sentence paragraphs are generally discouraged.
  • You should go through the gameplay section with an eye towards "if someone who never played this game or Minecraft read this, would they understand by the end how the game works"- right now I think it's a little hard to follow; for example it never actually says if it's voxel/block-based like Minecraft or if you just get blocks for mining a deformable world.
  • The Survivalcraft 2 section should be after Reception, as it's not part of the development of the original game.
  • The article seems to have a general slant of "is better than Minecraft" or at least has a lot of things Minecraft doesn't, but Minecraft has changed a lot since 2011- it would be more accurate to say that some people thought it was better/different than Minecraft at the time. Your reviews bear this out- the later they are, the less impressed they were.
  • Speaking of reviews, typically the reception section is organized by theme, grouping what critics thought about different aspects of the game- you instead have one paragraph per review.
  • Overall, one of the biggest issues (which I'm sure you're aware of) is that there's just not that much there- a good chunk of the article is a changelog of releases, there's only 4 reviews, etc. I'm not sure there's much you can do about that, but if there's any sources you can dig up to add, that would help.
Hopefully this helps. --PresN 16:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

We are back!Edit

No stubs, no starts, no lists, no cleanup tags. And we got some new GA’s, Topics and an FL. Things are lookin good! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

List of games by Epic GamesEdit

Hello PresN, I think you made this page an featured list. What does it mean under the games? Those in nails. eg:
ZZT
("Town of ZZT", "Caves of ZZT", "Dungeons of ZZT", "City of ZZT")
OverKill
("Edrax", "Gallifrey", "Hoth", "Voltair", "Pax Verde", "Unknown!") ×Elvorixtalk 06:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Elvorix: In the text above the table: "Many of the games under the Epic MegaGames brand were released as a set of separate episodes [...] Titles are listed for games that gave individual names to their episodes instead of episode numbers." --PresN 13:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)