User talk:Artichoker: Difference between revisions

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2014

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 7, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2014
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2014, the project has:

• 169 Featured Articles
• 63 Featured Lists
• 8 Featured Topics
• 10 Featured Pictures

• 42 A-Class Articles
• 665 Good Articles
• 8 Good Topics

---

Content

• Changes to Featured and Good content
• News items and announcements

• Feature:WikiProject Video Games in retrospect
• Report:Featured and Good articles by genre
• Interview: Red Phoenix

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

Madoka work, and GA

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Good work on Puella Magi Madoka Magica, probably looking good for GA. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to recent expansion of the article, I'm thinking of nominating the article for Good Article class. What do you think? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

First off, thanks for the barnstar; I really appreciate it! As for GA status, I would like to ask for you to hold off for now. I'm still in the midst of heavily expanding the article's production section and still have a ton more sources to sift through. If you would like to help, I also think the reception section could use some expanding, particularly the 'Awards and accolades'. I will also need to add a section to the lead talking about the reception, and then copywrite the prose of the article. Feel free to help me along the way! I hope to nominate the article for GA status when I am finished with these tasks in the coming several weeks. Cheers, Artichoker^[talk] 23:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It's been a few days, and already the article is looking better than ever. Should I nominate it for GA now, or just for a peer review? Outside feedback could also be helpful in improving the article; in fact, the article has the potential for FA class. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to ask you to hold off on that for now. I will nominate the article for GA when I believe it is ready, and after I have finished making the improvements to the article. As I said before, I still have a few more sources to utilize for the production section, and then I also would like to further expand the reception section. That along with a major copyedit for the article are the main goals before I nominate the article for GA. But I agree with you that there could be potential for featured status in the future. Although I think some more pictures would need to be added, and admittedly, I am not too experienced with uploading images to Wikipedia. Artichoker^[talk] 19:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

List of Pokémon (1–51)

As you can see, the section as you've left it is pretty clearly broken. I don't know what's causing it. I do know that my edit fixed it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, you are correct. I had already reverted my original edit and am now investigating as to why the template is breaking for Zubat. Do you have any ideas as to why this could be happening? Artichoker^[talk] 20:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I ended up fixing it. It turned out to be a stray apostrophe at the end of the paragraph that messed everything up! Cheers, Artichoker^[talk] 20:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your edits on Madoka (seems your activity has slowed down lately though, if you don't mind, I'll put the article for a peer review once you finish your contributions). Anyway, I noticed that user New Age Retro Hippie has been merging a number of articles on different Pokémon into the different lists of Pokémon. I'm curious as to where this was discussed, as I can't find any such discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon. Could you link to the relevant discussion? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my activity has slowed down somewhat during these last few days because I am preparing to move to a new place and start a new job. However, I have a local draft of additional content that I am planning to add soon, after I am finished working on it. Don't worry, I still have plenty of contributions planned for the article to get it up to GA status in the upcoming weeks :) However, you are free to put it up for a peer review whenever you would like.

Regarding the the merging of some of the individual Pokémon articles, I am not aware of any discussion that happened. However, I am not necessarily opposed to his actions, and think he was simply acting boldly. Of course, if you disagree with any of these merges, I'd definitely recommend you contact him as well as initiate discussion on the article talk pages and/or the wikiproject talk page. I would also participate in these discussions so that we could reach a consensus. Artichoker^[talk] 17:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, it also appears that discussion is taking place at User talk:Tezero#Pokémon. Artichoker^[talk] 17:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and it's only going to grow. It looks like a notability discussion regarding a few Sonic characters is turning into something much larger – which I'm unhappy about on all counts but is the case. Tezero (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I have been lurking on those Sonic discussions and must say that the points about notability regarding significant and dedicated coverage are very interesting and somewhat compelling. However, I am unsure myself whether there is enough independent coverage of these subjects to constitute adequate notability. Artichoker^[talk] 21:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Puella Magi Madoka Magica/archive2

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Peer review/Puella Magi Madoka Magica/archive2. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48

Apologies

I got mixed up and added it in without double-checking. --occono (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It takes two to tango

I've contested your additions to the article. Do not give me a templated warning over this matter because you are as much in the wrong as I am for constantly acting without consensus.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I was simply following WP:BRD. For example, my first restoration of the content was due to what I thought was the end of the dispute after you admitted you had no policy arguments supporting your opinion. I then discussed further and restored the information with an additional, independent source. You however, have continually reverted three times without any concrete discussion besides what appears to be your own opinion on what policy "should" be, but not what it actually is. Artichoker^[talk] 00:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No, you were edit warring because I reverted your bold addition and began a discussion. Just because you do not accept my arguments does not mean you get to restore the content. And I've since pointed out that the video game project guidelines exclude everything you have been using as a source. Not to mention one discussion at AFD does not constitute acceptance as a reliable source.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Have you read our internal guidelines that you continue to talk about? As I show here, this particularly GameSpot source completely complies as a reliable source under our WikiProject. Also, I am very puzzled at your remark about SlashGear. I very clearly linked you to the editorial page of SlashGear which demonstrates that it has editorial oversight and is a reliable source. Artichoker^[talk] 00:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

So long as either of them cite Serebii or the "leaks" neither are reliable sources under these circumstances. This information will be made officially public in two days. There is no reason Wikipedia has to report on it when the sourcing is questionable as I have been saying.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You continue to say they can't be reliable because of "Serebii" or "leaks". But where is your policy-based argument to support their disinclusion? Once again, my edits are in-line with WP:V, but your statements seem to continue to be a matter of your own opinion on which sources are reliable and which ones aren't. Once again, I am looking for actual Wikipedia policy on the merits of your arguments. Not just an opinion that "because it's a leak, we can't include it." Why not? As long as the source is reliable and the information is verifiable, why can't we include it? Artichoker^[talk] 00:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)