reply |
→I've Returned Under A New Username: new section |
||
Line 121: | Line 121: | ||
[[User:Sbrianhicks|Sbrianhicks]] ([[User talk:Sbrianhicks|talk]]) 00:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC) |
[[User:Sbrianhicks|Sbrianhicks]] ([[User talk:Sbrianhicks|talk]]) 00:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC) |
||
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nonsuch_(album)&diff=prev&oldid=564835881 Nonsuch], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Mayor_of_Simpleton&diff=prev&oldid=564835539 The Mayor of Simpleton], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radioactive_(Imagine_Dragons_song)&diff=prev&oldid=564381706 Radioactive], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Night_Visions_(album)&diff=prev&oldid=564381409 Night Vision], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imagine_Dragons&diff=prev&oldid=564381250 Imagine Dragons], all ''just'' this month. Genres in info boxes tend towards generality, so a band that's considered alternative rock, indie rock, and math rock would often simply be labeled as "rock" in the infobox. In most cases, there are lengthy discussions on Talk pages so it's best to discuss genre changes there first. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar#top|talk]]) 01:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC) |
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nonsuch_(album)&diff=prev&oldid=564835881 Nonsuch], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Mayor_of_Simpleton&diff=prev&oldid=564835539 The Mayor of Simpleton], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radioactive_(Imagine_Dragons_song)&diff=prev&oldid=564381706 Radioactive], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Night_Visions_(album)&diff=prev&oldid=564381409 Night Vision], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imagine_Dragons&diff=prev&oldid=564381250 Imagine Dragons], all ''just'' this month. Genres in info boxes tend towards generality, so a band that's considered alternative rock, indie rock, and math rock would often simply be labeled as "rock" in the infobox. In most cases, there are lengthy discussions on Talk pages so it's best to discuss genre changes there first. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar#top|talk]]) 01:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC) |
||
== I've Returned Under A New Username == |
|||
Wyatt Riot, I'm Jayemd under a new username. |
Revision as of 18:24, 29 July 2013
Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:
- Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
- If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
- Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
- Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
- Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
- To initiate a new conversation on this page, please .
- You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).
If you're here to ask why I removed/reverted one of your edits or left a warning message on your talk page, may I first suggest reading Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (because the answer can most likely be found there). Many of the messages I leave are for the following reasons:
- Copyright infringement
- Lack of citations or references
- Lack of notability
- Spam or other improper external links
- Vandalism
You may also want to familiarize yourself with these specific guidelines:
- The Manual of Style, especially capitalization, different varieties of English, and naming conventions
- Guidelines for lists
- Guidelines for music articles
Otherwise, keep reading and feel free to leave me a message. Thank you!
DragonSpires Content
Hello, I've reverted some of your changes to the DragonSpires page. The reason for this is that the Java version of DragonSpires was not a "fan game" or "sequel", but was the actual game handed over to new developers by the creators for the purpose of furthering that same game. It is not a fan work or sequel, but the actual game itself reformatted. Please let this revision stand, since this is not personal but is based in the facts which are now stated clearly in the article. I have removed the sequel sections since you're correct on that account. However, neither of those were "fan" games, and as such I do not know where you came up with the "fan game" reasoning. There were none listed. 4.154.6.11 (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Alternately, please feel free to combine both sections into one DragonSpires article covering both incarnations. 4.154.6.11 (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Are there any references suggesting that the sequel is notable? Woodroar (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- As stated, it is not a sequel. 4.154.6.11 (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- So it's essentially a port with a different plot and artwork? (Not being facetious, just trying to narrow down what it is.) Do we have any references saying that it's notable? Woodroar (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- It seems odd that you're only asking now, to be completely honest (as you say, just trying to get at something) you should have looked into the notability or at least asked on the talk page before blanking the information. That's sort of a sidenote, though. Essentially the game was created with very slim playability, basically just a demo. Then the creators lost interest and, upon request, allowed others to assume control of the project. So there's a fluid change-over of staff who then moved the game into Java as opposed to its old language. It's a single game with a staff change and a change of format, after which it was developed much further over the course of years. More than one map, enemy creatures, and so on. For example, if World of Warcraft were given an all-new staff who changed the language it was coded in, would that make the original game in a new format "a sequel"? I'd be interested in re-writing the article, but I worry it'll be blanked again while I'm doing so, or my end result won't pass the test with anyone who looks for reasons to delete when it would be so much more beneficial to help embetter the article. 4.154.6.11 (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I forgot to address the "plot and artwork" bit. The first stage had no plot, not speaking figuratively - there was no plot. As things progressed, new artwork was needed because you can't add monsters and new lands without the artwork. Eventually, years later, the old art was replaced as well. It's more of a process than an abrupt change, when you look at it. 4.154.6.11 (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm asking about references because I looked for them when I originally deleted the content and couldn't find any. Rather, I should say that I only found the typical forums, SourceForge download pages, press releases, and advertising/game-referral sites, nothing that meets our requirements for references. To continue your example, if Blizzard did ask a team to continue work on World of Warcraft, we should still have a reference pointing towards that fact, and if we were going to write about the port we'd also need references on which to base that part of the article, as required by WP:V and WP:UNDUE and a number of other policies and guidelines. Hell, the article itself is based on a single, trivial reference, which doesn't even meet WP:N, our basic requirement for the article existing in the first place. If you can find references, I'd be glad to help, but I couldn't find them. Woodroar (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- It might just be me, but it seems like you're coming at this from an odd angle, arguing that everything mentioned about a game must have references. Can an article say "Mario jumps on enemies" without a reference? And so on. A game having a staff change doesn't smell like something legitimately in need of reference. In the end, DragonSpires is one game whose programming language and staff changed. If the Wired article is not enough for notability, then remove the entire article since it is all one game. This is a years-old article approved by your predecessors, with changes that are years-old and also approved. I don't see this shaping up to be anything other than part of a hobby - clearing out material because you can find a reason to. I'm not saying that to be mean or incite anything, it really seems to be what's going on since you took it down without mentioning it on the talk page before OR after doing so. Also, I don't see any mention about my comment on rewriting the article, you are simply continuing on the track of removing information. Please do not touch the DragonSpires page again without seeking concensus. Even if it doesn't go how I'd prefer, I'm still asking you to back up your actions with uninvested third parties based on our exchange here. 4.154.6.11 (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, if we're writing about it, it should be referenced. Now, pragmatically, not everything needs to be sourced, just enough for us to write a thorough article, and we can usually get that from "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which happens to be our notability policy. A minor aspect of gameplay is one thing, but a team of fans porting the game with the blessing of the creators is another thing entirely, and something that I feel needs to be referenced. Keep in mind that "material challenged or likely to be challenged" must have a reference, and if an editor removes unsourced material, the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". The age of the article or section means nothing, only that someone hasn't come along to clean it up. I could literally create an article today that violates WP:NOT and, unless someone notices via my contributions or list of new articles, it could remain indefinitely. Of course, I hope you understand that's no reason to keep an article.
- As requested, I've asked uninvolved editors to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#DragonSpires. You are certainly welcome to contribute to any discussion there as well. I would also ask that, if you do intend to continue working on the article, to keep WP:V and WP:BURDEN in mind and include references. Woodroar (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Since you think Wired, a major publication in the field at the time, is non-notable, it is clear that there is some sort of disconnect here. While waiting for reply, I decided to start rewriting the article and recently finished. I'll check back and see what the results are, but I'm not interested in taking part in the kerfuffle. Link all the standards you want, the spirit of the site and its usage remains that same. I get the feeling you'll continue finding more ancient, well accepted articles full of information to remove on technicalities from here. I've seen it before, where Wikipedia becomes a browser-based "search & destroy" game. Well, thanks for bringing this to others' attention, though I had originally asked you to ask others before editing or removing something, not just for you to go bring it before everyone immediately. I'll be bowing out of the conversation now, as I've spent enough time making my point(s). 4.154.6.11 (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think you're missing the point Woodroar is trying to make; while DragonSpires itself may have some level of notability, the port does not appear to. Moreover, one two-paragraph mention in a Wired news roundup column is not, under Wikipedia's guidelines, sufficient to justify a standalone article. The whole point of the notability criteria is that it is a "gut check" as to whether there are likely to be reliable sources for everything in the article. It is entirely possible that a great article can be written about the original DragonSpires and its continuations, but that it would count as "original research" and so cannot be hosted here because of the verifiability requirements. GreenReaper (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Since you think Wired, a major publication in the field at the time, is non-notable, it is clear that there is some sort of disconnect here. While waiting for reply, I decided to start rewriting the article and recently finished. I'll check back and see what the results are, but I'm not interested in taking part in the kerfuffle. Link all the standards you want, the spirit of the site and its usage remains that same. I get the feeling you'll continue finding more ancient, well accepted articles full of information to remove on technicalities from here. I've seen it before, where Wikipedia becomes a browser-based "search & destroy" game. Well, thanks for bringing this to others' attention, though I had originally asked you to ask others before editing or removing something, not just for you to go bring it before everyone immediately. I'll be bowing out of the conversation now, as I've spent enough time making my point(s). 4.154.6.11 (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- It might just be me, but it seems like you're coming at this from an odd angle, arguing that everything mentioned about a game must have references. Can an article say "Mario jumps on enemies" without a reference? And so on. A game having a staff change doesn't smell like something legitimately in need of reference. In the end, DragonSpires is one game whose programming language and staff changed. If the Wired article is not enough for notability, then remove the entire article since it is all one game. This is a years-old article approved by your predecessors, with changes that are years-old and also approved. I don't see this shaping up to be anything other than part of a hobby - clearing out material because you can find a reason to. I'm not saying that to be mean or incite anything, it really seems to be what's going on since you took it down without mentioning it on the talk page before OR after doing so. Also, I don't see any mention about my comment on rewriting the article, you are simply continuing on the track of removing information. Please do not touch the DragonSpires page again without seeking concensus. Even if it doesn't go how I'd prefer, I'm still asking you to back up your actions with uninvested third parties based on our exchange here. 4.154.6.11 (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm asking about references because I looked for them when I originally deleted the content and couldn't find any. Rather, I should say that I only found the typical forums, SourceForge download pages, press releases, and advertising/game-referral sites, nothing that meets our requirements for references. To continue your example, if Blizzard did ask a team to continue work on World of Warcraft, we should still have a reference pointing towards that fact, and if we were going to write about the port we'd also need references on which to base that part of the article, as required by WP:V and WP:UNDUE and a number of other policies and guidelines. Hell, the article itself is based on a single, trivial reference, which doesn't even meet WP:N, our basic requirement for the article existing in the first place. If you can find references, I'd be glad to help, but I couldn't find them. Woodroar (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- So it's essentially a port with a different plot and artwork? (Not being facetious, just trying to narrow down what it is.) Do we have any references saying that it's notable? Woodroar (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- As stated, it is not a sequel. 4.154.6.11 (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Are there any references suggesting that the sequel is notable? Woodroar (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
tb
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
Message added 01:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nemesis and the history channel
Hi!
We've had this conversation before :-)
But I've actually got all new and improved arguments.
- The Hist Channel docu lists exactly the same arguments as the Space.com article – how can it therefore be invalid...?
- It's a hypothesis, hence the argumentation is by definition not necessarily going to be by "respected sources".
- By extension, while THC might be "unreliable" for accepted stuff because it is a bit "out there", it cannot really be too "unreliable" about a hypothesis which is itself "out there"! That would mean that it would be wrong about a wrongness. Which I don't believe is altogether philosophically possible...
I suggest we rethink your decision to revert, Woodrar! BigSteve (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- We shouldn't be referencing unreliable sources, even if they're repeating or paraphrasing a reliable source. Look at it this way: if a high school newspaper or random blog simply reprinted articles from NASA, we would reference the article from NASA, not the newspaper or blog. If a particular claim needs to be bolstered by additional references, those references must likewise come from reliable sources. Also, keep in mind that "WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online" (WP:DEADLINK).
- We also shouldn't be referencing unreliable sources to explain or even prove the existence of a minority opinion. Our goal is to document "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" (WP:UNDUE). If reliable sources speak to the controversy, then we can include information about the controversy and reference those sources.
- As always, if you have any comments or questions or if you just plain think I'm wrong, feel free to reply! Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi again! On the dead link issue – you can see I left it in the original reference, and merely added a working link. I really don't see why you removed it once again. Clearly, if the NASA link wasn't working I would leave a "backup", transcribed version from the school newspaper as well as, not instead of – as I did with Space.com & the Astralian Broadcasting Corp...which is a reliable source! I know about the "not necessary to have working link" argument, but in no way am I contradicting that by adding a working link to the broken one!
- On the History Channel issue – again, why blanket ban it? If a source is considered "unreliable", then its veracity only needs be questioned if it somehow contradicts other stuff around it. But considering the fact that the documentary outlines and supports everything else in the article (which is well-balanced as a whole and its subject is clearly labelled as "hypothetical"), then I don't see how the documentary gives undue weight to anything, or how it can be considered to mislead the reader. BigSteve (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hello! I wanted to let you know that User:Kheider reverted you that time but for the same reasons. Forums and other user-generated content are not reliable sources, even if they are simply a sub-section of an otherwise reliable source, or if they mirror content from reliable sources. And while I can understand why you would want to link to back-up sources, it's simply not necessary. Adding unreliable sources to articles taints the reliability of the project itself, which is why WP:V is a core content policy rather than a guideline that we should follow. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi again – ok, I understand you on the first point, although I dont altogether agree, but let's say that I'll let that one slide...for now. (and sorry for the erroneous accusation!)
- On the "reliable sources" malarkey – I believe "reliable" depends on what the criteria for reliability are. For example, while mein kampf is unreliable in its analysis of Jewish life, it is reliable on the issue of hitle'rs mindset. And I believe that the Hist Chan source I used, in the context of the article it was used in, adheres to the WP:V statement that we should "Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." So, while the same source on the same topic might be unreliable if added to the WP article about the Solar System, I believe it is fair game in the article on Nemesis itself. BigSteve (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Godwin's law is true! :)
- But seriously, you're right that sources may be considered reliable in one context but not others, but WP:UNDUE still sets a high bar, which often excludes minority positions. (And justly so.) THC would probably have been considered a reliable source on, say, WWII back in its heyday. Now, we wouldn't consider it reliable on anything, save perhaps uncontroversial details about the channel itself. THC can make whatever bizarre statements it wants on its own programming, but it no longer has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" for (arguably) anything it does. If we allowed a source to be reliable solely for its own statements, then every pseudoscientist and conspiracy theorist and practitioner of alternative medicine would get a mention everywhere, and that's exactly why UNDUE exists. Imagine if we allowed "according to Kevin Trudeau, [controversial statement]" in every relevant article. The whole project would become a joke, an encyclopedia of advertisements. Woodroar (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- I know, as I was writing that I wanted to break the fourth wall and say "look, I'm not using the hitler card, but...", but then I stopped myself, cause I sort of was. Fact is, it's just too easy to use Hitler as an extreme example for stuff...
- Anyway, I don't completely agree with you on the reliability argument, but I do see where you're coming from. So I'll leave it for now, till I come up with some new arguments. Stay safe, and might speak again sometime :-) BigSteve (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- I hate to say it, but Hitler is kind of the ultimate example. Everybody knows about him, so it's easy to draw analogies. Except with holocaust deniers, but I try not to think about them. Take care, and feel free to continue the discussion whenever you'd like. Woodroar (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hello! I wanted to let you know that User:Kheider reverted you that time but for the same reasons. Forums and other user-generated content are not reliable sources, even if they are simply a sub-section of an otherwise reliable source, or if they mirror content from reliable sources. And while I can understand why you would want to link to back-up sources, it's simply not necessary. Adding unreliable sources to articles taints the reliability of the project itself, which is why WP:V is a core content policy rather than a guideline that we should follow. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2013
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2013
Previous issue | Index | Next issue
Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2013, the project has:
|
Content
|
I am a bit confused why you reverted the Eggman edit.
Is it cause written that part in the other article, yet?
TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- User pages, including subpages like your sandbox or temporary articles, are for minor details about yourself and for working on new articles. Articles in the mainspace—that is, actual articles that people are working on—should never link to user pages. In short, your user pages are not part of the encyclopedia and shouldn't be linked there.
- That being said, and as others have said at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Looking for a partner for an article, Nintendo Nightmare is unlikely to ever be an article. I'm sorry to put it so bluntly, but it basically violates WP:NOT in every way: it's unreferenced/original research, written too much like a game guide, the plot is too detailed for a video game article, contains unencyclopedic language, and so on. I would suggest reading Your First Article for more details about what kind of articles we want and how to write them.
- I hope this helps! If you have any questions, let me know. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
What does any of that have to do with reverting my edit. I could just as easily replace the link with a link to the actual game. Does that suffice? And please do not complain about my language. People revise things, and it is not like there is anything else to write about it. Besides, if I am quoting the games "summary", how is that original research? There is a way you could help however. Maybe if you played the game you could skim through and check for errors in my article. If you decide to, use my talk page and I will guide you through the basics so you can quickly get through it.
Also, if you do decide to, please don't change the article without asking. Not that I do not trust you. Its just that some things confuse people. I guess its just too complicated, and people don't care enough to try and understand.
TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- We don't link to userpages from articles. It doesn't matter if the link will become legitimate after a day or a year, we just don't do it. The rest of my comments are relevant because it's unlikely that Nintendo Nightmare will ever warrant an article. I don't need to play the game to search for reliable sources as required by our notability guidelines. In fact, I just looked for sources and found nothing. You're right that the game can generally serve as a source for the plot, but we still require additional sources for everything else, which should be the bulk of the article. Keep in mind that we're not here simply to repeat the plot or provide a walkthrough, but to provide details on the history and development of the game, concept and themes, summarize its reception by critics, and so on. Without sources to give us that information and meet our notability guidelines, we should not have an article on the subject. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
You are missing the point. I could just remove it, and make a link to the actual game instead? Thats not a userpage.
TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Do you mean an external link to the game's website? If so, that would not be appropriate, either. Woodroar (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I think you're missing the point, Unknown Ninja. Do not link to things that are not actual real Wikipedia articles yet. That's all you need to know. Please stop badgering users like this with your endless arguing. (Sorry to intrude Woodroar, this is just an issue that seems to be reoccurring elsewhere as well.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, I should be able to reask him if he missed the question.
TheUnknownNinjaNN2 (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- He answered your question and said no, you can't link to the actual game. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, you don't own an article either, so therefore you shouldn't be able to undo edits someone has done that therefore helps the article and the people reading the article. Get a life. Brian82027 (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- No, we edit by consensus, and the consensus says that the material should be removed. Consensus across the project also says that we don't write about anything we want or something as generic as (to paraphrase) "whatever helps readers". Woodroar (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Ride the Skies
Hello, you undid my genre edit on the Lightning Bolt album Ride the Skies, I think the genre edit would help, "noise rock" can mean many things, from bands like Pissed Jeans to technical metal like Dillinger Escape Plan. I edited the article to call them " experimental", as I think that would narrow down the type of noise rock they play, and allow the reader to have a clearer idea of the way the album would sound. Best wishes, Twufeethewondermoose— Preceding unsigned comment added by Twufeethewondermoose (talk • contribs) 20:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- There are probably dozens of genres and subgenres that the album (or any album) can be fit into. Lightning Bolt are primarily considered a noise rock band, so that's the most appropriate genre. Of course, if you can find reliable sources that suggest other sources, feel free to add them. Woodroar (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Genre Changes?
The only genre changes I recall making were to the articles for XTC albums. Someone had them listed simply as "rock," implying it was classic rock. XTC is widely considered an trailblazing alternative rock band, so I changed the genre for the albums.
Sbrianhicks (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nonsuch, The Mayor of Simpleton, Radioactive, Night Vision, Imagine Dragons, all just this month. Genres in info boxes tend towards generality, so a band that's considered alternative rock, indie rock, and math rock would often simply be labeled as "rock" in the infobox. In most cases, there are lengthy discussions on Talk pages so it's best to discuss genre changes there first. Woodroar (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I've Returned Under A New Username
Wyatt Riot, I'm Jayemd under a new username.