Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

I replied to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of James Bond films/archive1. The Transhumanist 12:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

User:SchroCat resigned from Wikipedia last September. Though he is still mentioned as a delegate at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/archiving. The Transhumanist 12:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for finishing the job of adding alt text. I've had that article open as a tab for ages now, intending to do some more of the job, but failing to get around to it. I didn't realise how much of an effort was going to be required when I commented on the alt text issue. Nevertheless, I would hold up List of parrots as a prime example of what Wikipedia's best lists should be. Thank you as well for all the work you do in shepherding the Featured List process; I'm only sorry that doesn't get said often enough. --RexxS (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS: Thanks for your thanks! I just hated seeing that nomination continue to stall way over the usual time when it was exactly the kind of list that I wish more people would work on, and double-hated to make the nominator do so much more work when I was ready to promote it myself. On the subject of alt text, though- back when I became a delegate the FLC process had stopped requiring alt text (though it kept the other access requirements), and if I'm remembering correctly it's because no one could agree on how detailed the text should be or what was important for it to say. It's been a while, though; is there now a consensus on alt text? If there's an easy guideline to point to, FLC can start requiring it again- it seems like The Running Man (delegate), at least, would like us to, and I don't think its an onerous burden on (most) nominations in exchange for giving information to a subset of readers currently missing it. --PresN 19:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. For alt text, the overall guidance is at Wikipedia:Alternative text for images and the MOS requirements are at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Images. I have to say that the latter makes it clear that to comply with the Manual of Style, an image has to have an alt attribute. Now, as you rightly point out, writing good alt text is somewhat an art form, rather than a science, so it's hard to give definitive guidance on what to write in any situation. I do think though, that encouraging editors to read WP:ALT and try to write alt text, rather than making it a hurdle that has to jumped over in order to gain promotion, is more likely to be productive in the long run. So maybe it's best left to a delegate's discretion? That's why delegates get paid the big bucks! Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Pres, this type of disruption that's happening right now is getting ridiculous. Is there any way to make him stop with these posts? Like warn him about his behavior? GamerPro64 05:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, Pres. I took it to the Incident's noticeboard. GamerPro64 05:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I want to renominate List of accolades received by Star Wars: The Force Awakens for FLC nomination, I have gone through first two paragraphs many times but couldn't figure out what to omit, since it is the third highest-grossing film of all time, all that box-office records are mentioned are enough and equally necessary. In the first paragraph, story arch and cast are stated, so it is very hard for me to look over those details. Previously User: Cowlibob suggested all those details, and then you and User:Nergaal suggested that details are bloated and should focus on awards. I don't know which one to follow because all the details are not overly written, these were the least information I could add to the paragraph. Please let me know what do you suggest? Nauriya (Rendezvous) 15:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nauriya: I did not review this list; I just had two procedural comments at the end. I think you meant The Rambling Man? --PresN 12:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi PresN,

I'm completely new when it comes to WP:FLC, and hence, my naivety may speak for itself... but: why was my nomination of List of tallest buildings in Melbourne archived and not promoted -- despite receiving at least 1 support for promotion (no opposes)? Might I add, as the nominator, I have responded to every query or concern raised re the article, hence, it was still active.

Why should this nomination be penalised because nobody else wishes to review it over those who already have? Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@MelbourneStar: Yeah, it's my least favorite thing about FLC. FLC follows the FAC model- promotion requires multiple editors giving support after a substantive review, not just one (no matter who that one is, or how in-depth their review is). Unfortunately, sometimes nominations just don't get enough attention for that, even after several months. And if we let nominations hang around forever, we end up with a long queue, but no more reviews in total than before- which means that we get 50+ nominations with 1 support each, the oldest 6 months+, and nothing ever gets promoted. As a result, just like FAC, if a nomination has been open for a long time (it used to be 2 months, but I've relaxed that starting this past Fall) without enough supports or ongoing discussion, then we close the nomination to clear out the bottom of the queue. It's really unfortunate, and incredibly frustrating, both as a nominator (it's happened to me before on perfectly good lists) and as a reviewer or delegate. The only bright spot is that if you renominate the list, you can ask the prior supporters to return and give their support again easily.

This is not a problem that is easily fixable, and the root cause is that we're not getting enough reviews- if there are 40 nominations, and each gets 3 "completed" reviews (for example, 3 is not a magic number), then that's 120 reviews total if all of the lists are promotable- and today we're getting more like 100 at most. The only way around this is for people to review more- for every nominator to review at least 3 other nominations for each one of yours that gets put up even if those lists aren't in subject areas you're familiar with, to review even more than that to make up for shortfalls, to ask on wikiproject talk pages for people to drop in a nominate, etc. Without those 120 reviews, something isn't going to get promoted, and the list(s) that isn't may not deserve it. --PresN 02:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, and whilst this certainly is a disappointing situation – I very much appreciate the explanation. I'll reconsider re-nominating it, including the participants whom already took part in the now archived discussion – otherwise, it may just be a case of being dead in the water. Again, thank you very much for the explanation. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, PresN. I'm just posting to let you know that Nebula Award for Best Script – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for February 17. 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) 23:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

		The Articles-Created-Are-Not-Necessarily-Good-Articles Medal of Merit
		Well I, for one, appreciate your good articles czar 04:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for today's "classic" Wolfenstein 3D, "... burst on to the scene with frenetic action and never-before-seen levels of blood and violence", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello PresN. Would you be willing to quickly glance over this article that I've been working on recently and let me know of any improvements that I can make to it? I did request reassessment through the article's talk page, but the person kinda just changed its quality rating without providing any additional input. Since you've reassessed pages I've worked on in the past, I was hoping you'd be able to help me out one more time (I plan to submit it to GAN, and it is the last article I need to work on before I can finally nominate it for GT). Thank you! Wani (talk) 09:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Wani: Done. --PresN 16:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Remember the first FA I nominated? Now I'm working on the character's series, D.Gray-man, to make it FA. The peer review is at Wikipedia:Peer review/D.Gray-man/archive1. Protodrake checked it but there are appears to be not an issue. Could you take a look? Regards and good luck with your work.Tintor2 (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Since List of Naruto episodes (seasons 1–2) and List of Naruto episodes (seasons 3–4) was split into List of Naruto episodes (season 1) and List of Naruto episodes (season 2), shouldn't they keep the FL status since both of the former list that was split were FLs? -- MCMLXXXIX 00:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@1989: Consensus at the FLRC 6 years ago seems to be no, that the FL list was redirected to the main season list for not being very good, and then afterwards some content was spun back out into the season 1 and season 2 lists but that those two lists don't just automatically inherit the former status without review. Really, I don't think we have or likely will have a blanket rule for what do do when an FL gets split, because it's going to be very dependent on the context of the split, the time since the last review, and frankly the quality of the former and new lists. --PresN 02:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Many of my contributions have been kinda tarnished over the years due to lack of active fans/users (and updated standards), but not Final Fantasy. Great job. I just read the FF Featured Topic and smiled.

FF7 appears to be next! —Deckiller (t-c-l) 10:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Deckiller: Yep, there's still not a lot of us, but the Square Enix project is still ridiculously high-quality, even compared to the notably high-quality video game project as a whole. Looking forward to filling in the FF7 FA-gap! --PresN 15:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't usually work on video game lists so I was wondering if you'd be able to give me some feedback on one that I've been working on recently User:The1337gamer/sandbox/valve games. I think it's a substantial improvement over the current mainspace List of Valve Corporation video games, which has remained unsourced for a long time. I've based my draft on List of Looking Glass Studios video games. I'm not finished with it yet, but I had a couple of questions. Does it have Featured List potential? Are the sources I've used adequate? Is it okay to have some broad release dates? I'm unable to track down the exact day of release for a number of the games. Should cancelled games be included? My concern with including them is that many of Valve's cancelled projects have never been formally announced and have been largely leaked years later with no official planned release or cancellation dates. Any suggestions or guidance would be helpful. Thanks. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@The1337gamer: Hooray, someone else working on a VG list! My thoughts:

• Yes, this has FL potential. You've got some solid work with a good example to follow, so no worries there.
• Sources: yes, actually, you've dodged the pitfall of relying on a non-reliable database (like Gamespot's game pages), so good job there; sourcing is the hardest part by far for these types of lists.
• Broad dates: yeah, that's fine, if you can't do better than the month then that's what you got. The video game industry is pretty terrible at recording the exact dates for things, especially outside of the US- I've never been able to source Australian dates reliably at all, for example, and those sources would at least be in English.
• Oh, yeah: Ricochet's Steam page ([1]) says November 1, 2000, so there you go.
• I'd like to see an expanded lead before you take it to FLC- the LGS list is a good example.
• Yeah, cancelled games are a bit of a grey area- I'd say include any cancelled game that got an announcement or had articles written about them during development, either in their own table or within the main table. Games that only came to light after cancellation should get maybe a bulleted list, or if it's short enough and you have a "cancelled games" section then just a few lines in a header paragraph for the section: "In addition to the games which were formally announced or leaked to the gaming press during development and later cancelled, several projects have been started by Valve and ended with no notice of their existence made prior to their cancellation. These include X project, begun and abandoned in 2002; Y project, ..."
• I notice that you're skipping the EU/JP release dates for a lot of these games... that's where the pain sets in. I'm not going to pretend that it will be pleasant to find sources for those. There is another way, though, but you need to pick one and stick with it: Unlike the lists I tend to have, Valve is an American company, that has made games either primarily for an American audience with the rest of the world as an afterthought, or as a worldwide release with dates near to each other. So... you could just change "release date(s)" to "release date" and only include the first date (usually NA) in the left column for all of the games, and state in the notes if it got released in specific countries if it matters (like the Asia-specific games). It's not what I would do, but I might be a masochist when it comes to these lists, and I don't have a lot of good advice for finding out exactly when Half-Life 2: Episode One got released in Japan. The IGN game pages usually help a lot for that if you go down that route. If you do, and it starts getting difficult, just take solace in the fact that at least you're looking for relatively recent dates for major games; I've been slamming my head into a wall trying to find dates for minor Japan-only SNES releases for [[List of Enix games] for months now.
• If you have any other questions don't hesitate to ask; I really would like to see more VG featured lists from other editors, and I'm always willing to help out both as someone whose done a lot of them and as one of the FLC coordinators. You've got a really solid list going on so far, and I'm encouraged and optimistic about it's chances. --PresN 03:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• On Ricochet's Steam page date, I deliberately did not cite that because I know that some of the dates for games released prior to Steam's launch are inaccurate. E.g. The Counter-Strike and Half-Life store pages use dates that I know are incorrect and contradict other sources that were published during those years. However, as of yet I have not found an alternate release date for Ricochet in sources.
• On the lack regional dates, this is largely due to nearly all of the games since Counter-Strike: Source having launched first through Steam, so they are worldwide launches. The exceptions are the Asian exclusive arcade and CS Online games which were limited to Asian territories and already have the regional tags. So I don't think that it is much of a problem for the post-Steam games, I'll add WW templates later to clarify that. Regional dates for the pre-Steam games however has been difficult to track down. A number of them released first as free mods over the internet. Some never got retail releases as far as I know. And some might have been limited to specific regions. I'll take a look some old PC mags and some other useful sources I noted down when I have some free time at the weekend. I'll try to make some improvements and get back to you. Thanks for the feedback. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• @PresN: "I've been slamming my head into a wall trying to find dates for minor Japan-only SNES releases" - Famitsu has a good database over Japanese video game releases. Just type (or copy+paste) the Japanese title into the search box on their main page and press enter, click the ゲームタイトル ("game title") tab, and locate the entry for the game you're looking for.--IDV^talk 19:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Hello again. I've made some improvements and it is a bit more complete since last time. I was wondering what you think of this now: User:The1337gamer/sandbox/valve games and where I could keep improving it to get FL-status. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• @The1337gamer: I think you're basically good to go, there. I'd like to see some more dates in the cancelled video game section- even just the date that the information was leaked, if you don't have any dates for when the game(s) were in development/cancelled. Other than that, though, I think you should copy it over, and nominate. --PresN 23:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, and archive your sources, as VG sources are prone to link rot- there's a recent thread at WT:VG about a site that will run the archive bot automatically for you. --PresN 23:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi PresN! I haven't been active for a long time now since the disruptive edits seemed to have died down a little. I was pretty disappointed when I noticed there had been new disruptive edits to the Hiroyuki Ito article recently, but didn't find the time to revert these myself at that time. So, thanks for taking care of that. What's more interesting, though, I stumbled across a wall of tweets by...that particular individual (important parts bolded):

Judging from how long the disruptive edits have continued, this lends credence to severe mental health issues being the cause for all this. Maybe it's hard to understand that Wikipedia does not really make a distinction between the personas someone is contributing under as long as it's the same set of fingers typing? This is by no means an excuse for long-term shenanigans but I think it would explain a lot. Frankly, if the above is true, then his disruptive edits will probably *never* stop (as in lifelong). So Wikipedia is looking forward to a happy 70 years (give or take) of reverting and blocking his sockpuppets. In that case, it might at least be wise not to provoke him. Basically, I'll continue reverting, describing the contributor as a sockpuppet of the G-Zay account in a matter-of-factly fashion and avoiding provocative statements that could be taken as opening an argument.Xiomicronpi (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Xiomicronpi: "it's a risk I have to take in order to keep tweeting and supporting #FFXII". Sigh. Yeah, his issues go well beyond self-diagnosed DID. I think your plan is the way forward. In the meantime, though, I'm going to semiprotect the Hiroyuki Ito article indefinitely. --PresN 20:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Only tangentially related, but long-term abuse is actually a very interesting topic if one blends out the general annoy factor for a moment. At least some of it (such as this particular case) is definitely within fake news territory. It would be interesting to perform scientific research on long-term abusers, on what agenda they have, how vulnerable Wikipedia is to "sneaky" misinformation, and how the public's perception can be skewed by this. I know of at least one instance where misinformation posted on Wikipedia made it into a reliable print magazine without any prior fact checking. Personally, I feel that allowing everyone to contribute is both Wikipedia's greatest asset and its biggest liability. Also, yes, I am a very boring person. :p Heh.Xiomicronpi (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@PresN: As G-Zay, I have to ask, how did you come to the conclusion "his issues go well beyond self-diagnosed DID"? All he said is that he wants to keep supporting FFXII by tweeting about it. Nothing in that statement indicates any form of mental illness, yet alone one more severe than DID. If making daily tweets about FFXII (which he hasn't done consistently since May 2016) is a more severe mental illness than DID, then that also means you have a more severe mental illness than DID. How do I come to this conclusion? Simple. You spend your days on the internet editing hundreds of different Wikipedia pages and see absolutely nothing wrong with dedicating your life to such a pathetic lifestyle. The time you spend editing all these pages could be used to do something much more worthwhile, not just for yourself, but for humanity in general. But no, you've instead decided to dedicate this time to editing pages to Wikipedia articles. These same articles are not even viewed as legitimate and reliable enough to be used as sources in college dissertations and other highly important documents. What a waste of a life. On the contrary, Azure Sky (my other half) has not made consistent daily tweets about FFXII since May 2006, almost a year ago. Even as of typing this, his last tweet was on 6 February 2017, over a month ago. He changed his lifestyle in September 2016 by drastically reducing how much time he spends on the internet, instead using that same time to go out and do things that can directly have a positive influence on other people with a mental illness. Therefore, if we go by your reasoning, it's actually you that has issues that go well beyond self-diagnosed DID, not him.

This leads me to my next point: don't attack and place undue hate on my other half. This is not the first time I've noticed you doing this, so I've decided to come out and tell you this directly. See this as a warning. You clearly have the inability to be impartial and have sound reasoning. Your feelings of dislike towards me (which are warranted, I admit) is something you've also decided to place on my other half, despite him never having edited a Wikipedia page. This shows a clear lack of knowledge on both how DID works and how it should be dealt with. If you have anger towards G-Zay (myself) then it should be directed at me and me alone. Leave my other half out of it. Me and Azure Sky (the person running that Twitter) are not the same personality. Therefore, they should both be viewed as different people. Either understand this or just shut the fuck up already! Also, for the record, his DID is not self-diagnosed. I won't say any more than that, as it's his personal life, but a Wikipedia editor should know better than to make presumptions about someone with no evidence to back it up. Matter of fact, you're even an admin, for fuck sake! Take your head out of your ass and start thinking more clearly. Bottom line is this: If you're going to keep undeservedly placing hate on Azure Sky and attacking him with lines like "his issues go well beyond self-diagnosed DID", I'll keep coming back and editing pages. Stop hating him and blaming him for my actions and maybe, just maybe, I'll stop coming back. I believe it's a fair trade.

Lastly, I can see @Xiomicronpi: is still obsessed with me. Considering I'm quite an online attention whore, I'm flattered he still gives me attention. However, my other half does not seek any form of attention online. He's far more reserved than I am, which explains why he's only found on Twitter and nowhere else. Considering he has nothing to do with any of my actions, I'd appreciate if you left him out of all this. Vice+Virtue (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll break my own rules a bit and respond once. Everyone has hobbies that they may be very into. Playing video games, or writing about them, is a hobby. "Supporting" a single 11-year-old video game, made as a commercial product by a large corporation, to the point of libeling employees of that corporation who you self-perceive as hurting that product by working on other products for that company is beyond a hobby- it's an unhealthy obsession.

And no. Neither I nor anyone else on Wikipedia is going to treat your different personas as different editors- they use the same accounts and edit the same things, and act in the same way, and to an outside observer appear to be the same person. And regardless, it doesn't matter- the "G-Zay" persona is not banned. The physical person who ran an account under that name once, who happens to have multiple personalities, is banned, regardless of their present mental state. Azure Sky does not get a pass, because he's not banned- <insert your legal name here> is banned. Promises that "maybe" one of your personas will stop being disruptive if we unban you is not a persuasive argument to unban the whole person. --PresN 15:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I had to remove the recent comment by Vice and virtue because not only is it basically a provocative statement, but also that all of G-Zay's edits will be reverted immune to 3RR per WP:BANNED. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Are FL candidates held up longer if comments like this are made? MCMLXXXIX 17:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@1989: It's entirely subjective and up to the closer. Personally, I read that as a partial review that is unlikely to end in a !vote or the reviewer returning, so while I'd like to see their comments addressed by the nominator I'd have to weigh for myself if they were valid and adequately addressed since I'm unlikely to have the reviewer's opinion. Nominations are not generally held open longer for reviewers that have indicated they are unlikely to return; frankly they run long enough already. --PresN 17:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

What if it's by a coordinator? 1989 09:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

How many supports does a featured candidate need in order to pass, or is it just more than that? MCMLXXXIX 18:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@1989: It's more than just that. There's no listed criteria, but it's multiple substantive reviews with all concerns addressed to the reviewers' comfort, and no outstanding opposes or concerns, as subjectively determined by the closer. It usually works out to at least 3 solid reviews that end in a support, but it can be higher if the reviews aren't substantive enough or if there's a lot of ongoing discussion, or if the closing nom has issues with the list themselves. And even once a nomination reaches enough support and gets a source review, closing is not an automatic process so a nomination can wait longer for a closer to have the time to look through the list/nomination. --PresN 18:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

In your opinion and/or in general, how long does episode summaries have to be to qualify for FL? MCMLXXXIX 14:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@1989: I don't have a guideline. Long enough to explain the episode (not just tease the setup), but not so long as to be overdetailed. --PresN 00:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Could you give feedback on this page I've been constructing? What do you think I need to do in order for it to be FL quality? MCMLXXXIX 19:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• May I have permission to make a FL nomination on this? My other request has sufficient support. MCMLXXXIX 17:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@1989: As to the media list- I have one major problem with it, which is that it jumps into the super-collections and doesn't discuss the regular chapters/volumes at all. This is easily remedied by a short section at the top of Manga (expanding on the see-also already there) that has something like "Each of the 700 chapters of the Naruto manga were released individually in X magazines between dates A and B; for a detailed list of them see X and Y. They were then collected into # volumes of 7-10 chapters each, released by blah between dates C and D. For a detailed list of these volumes, see Z." Other than that, I just skimmed it, but it looked alright beyond the missing release information I assume you're still working on. Though, it is a bit long, so I think merging the video games list in may have been a mistake, and you may be better off with a short summary paragraph or table in the Media list and leave the video game list on its own.

As to the second nomination- your current one is the second from the top and only 5 days old; despite its supports, I'd rather wait until its 2 weeks old to add a second. --PresN 15:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey PresN, I would like to nominate Wildflower (The Avalanches album) for FAC, but it's my first FAC and I'm not sure what I'm doing. I think the page looks pretty good. I wrote the majority of it myself, but I'm not sure if there are any key things I'm missing or pre-cautions I should make before nominating it. Could you give me some advice? Thanks TarkusAB 01:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@TarkusAB: Well, I'm usually in video games and lists, not music, but I can give you more general advice:

• It never hurts to get a copyedit, even if you've already had one; a lot of the FAC comments will be about the grammar/writing and the more problems there are the more likely the nomination will stall.
• I don't mind quote boxes. Some people really, really do. Be prepared to defend it.
• If this was a video game article, I'd look askance at having a reception table with 10 reviews, given that not all of them are used in the reception section itself. I don't know if the music project also recommends 7-8 reviews in the table or not, but the VG project does. I also have no idea how music album article reception sections are generally done, but the one here seems short.
• Check the minor things before nominating-

• Are all of your in-line citations in order? ([3][8], not [8][3])
• Are you putting the quote marks inside/outside of the punctuation marks correctly every time? (outside only if quoting a full sentence)
• Are your internal links only redirecting if you meant them to?
• Do you have duplicate links? (I saw at least Jennifer Herrema and Danny Brown linked twice in 2 sections, didn't look further)
• Do you have alt text on all the images? (alt text should stand as a text replacement for the image, not a text description of the image)

• Your citations need fixing- I see mixed publisher styles (Pitchfork Media/pitchfork.com), mixed date styles (27 June 2006. Retrieved 2007-06-16), whatever the heck is going on with ref 5 (""Triple J interview with Darren Seltmann" (Interview). Interview with Triple J. Triple J."), you sometimes have just the work and sometimes have work + publisher, actually there's a lot of problems with work/publisher here. Don't cite things to the url- cite them to the name of the site (Herald Sun, not heraldsun.com, etc.). Link either only the first instance of a work/publisher or every work/publisher (what I do), not just most of them.
• This will be your first FAC, yeah? My final advice- FAC can be a bit trying sometimes. Nothing can happen for a week and then someone will drop by with a 40-point list of problems, and while it's sitting there no one else may drop by to do any other reviews. It can be a lot of work, but whenever someone gives you a review try to get to it promptly, and if you disagree with a concern state so honestly and calmly. Other than that, good luck! --PresN 03:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the advice, looks like the page will need some work. Now I see what kind of pieces to look out for and how critically people will analyze it. I'm not too familiar with WP:Album's rules either, this is the only music article I've worked on. I mostly hang around WP:VG too so I'll make sure to keep you in mind if I ever choose to take a video game to FAC. Thanks again, I really appreciate it! TarkusAB 03:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13

Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

• A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
• AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
• Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
• The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news

• A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
• Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
• A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

---

Hey PresN, I closed Hi-5 discography a while back and it still hasn't been processed. Did I do something wrong or is the bot misbehaving? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Hmm, the only thing I can see is that the talk page template is at {{Featured list candidates}} instead of {{featured list candidates}}- most issues seem to be caused by problems with the list's talk page, generally a bad link to the nomination. I changed it; if it doesn't go through today, I'll ping the bot operator. --PresN 12:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Happening again with List of songs recorded by Oh Land.... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

IMO, I think the bot processes faster when an signature is added after you place the archive or promote tag, because Giants2008 closed both of my FL nominations with his signature at the end, and they closed after an hour. MCMLXXXIX 12:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give it a go and see what happens. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Nope, if the bot doesn't see a signature it just checks the page history. I've added a new section to WP:FLCI, #Troubleshooting bot issues; in this case, the problem is that you used the word "successful" in the {{FLCClosed}} template, but the only valid word for passing nominations is "promoted". I've changed it for you; it should close today. --PresN 12:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:

• Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
• Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
• 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
• Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. 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 equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested in this new bot task, which automatically patrols redirected pages and removes invalid class parameters from the WikiProject banner. czar 18:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Czar: That'll be useful, though it's a shame it won't do importance as well, since the VG project blanks that- guess that isn't a universal practice. --PresN 18:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I might be mistaken but I think the template ignores the importance if the class is auto-set to Redirect, no? czar 18:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Czar: Nope: right now Talk:NBA_2K18 is Redirect (explicitly)/Low; when I change it to no-class, it stays in Redirect/Low. The only template magic is that Redirect/nothing gets set to Redirect/NA-importance. --PresN 18:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hm. I hope that should be an easy fix. Brought it up here: Template talk:WPBannerMeta#Let automatic categorization ignore the Importance parameter czar 18:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I recently nominated D.Gray-man to FA in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/D.Gray-man/archive1. While it has some supports, a fellow user made an oppose about how am I using the first volume of the series in the article. I tried fixing some parts but I'm a still little a bit confused about it. Could you join to nomination's discussion to see if the article can or not become a FA? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you think the FAR needs more supports before being promoted? The image and source reviews were made though.Tintor2 (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose withdrawn. You were right and I was wrong. If you ever need anyone to clean up refs, do copy editing, etc etc, I will gladly do so if I am not busy in real life.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gran Trak 10 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 Indrian -- Indrian (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The article Gran Trak 10 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Gran Trak 10 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Indrian -- Indrian (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The article Gran Trak 10 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gran Trak 10 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Indrian -- Indrian (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Pres. Just saw this on USGamer about The Ten Most Important Early Computer and Video Games which I thought would help with any of the articles you did. Also, I saw Gran Trak 10 being GA now. I've been trying to find sources for Nürburgring 1 since its one of the first first-person racing games. By any chance have you found any information about it? GamerPro64 21:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@GamerPro64: I'm like 80% sure that article is based mainly on my wikipedia articles and the videogamehistorian book research notes blog (though to be fair, that's the best/most complete source for most of these games). Still, it's a good alternate source. Anyways, as to Nurburgring, all I've seen is what I caught in passing for Gran Trak, which is [2], [3], and a few other references on that blog; [4], and some flyers. --21:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not entirely sure about using Blogspot posts. Though Keith Smith does sound familiar. Meanwhile I just have info from Jalopnik and a passing mention of it from GameSpot. GamerPro64 21:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@GamerPro64, since it's German, I'd ask for help with sources at dewp. It's mentioned at de:Night Driver, which has some primary source leads. czar 22:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there a place to do to ask for help on the German Wikipedia? GamerPro64 15:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Just came here to ask the same question. How much of this is lifted directly from your paraphrasing vs. your sources? czar 22:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Czar: So, the biggest tell is the games that he used- it's not that they're wrong, it's that the vast majority of sources about the time period mention, like, 3 of them at most. To build the whole list independently would require a lot more research than that an article of that level would really be worth. In fact, there's exactly two that mention all of them: the They Create Worlds blog... and early history of video games. And conveniently enough, most of the images are either from that blog or are used in "my" wikipedia articles. The other big tell is the use of The Sumer Game at the end- that one's really only on Wikipedia as far as collated sources goes, and the bit about the "Sumerian Game" predecessor is an obscure bit of trivia that isn't really on the internet anywhere... except in Hamurabi. The article isn't a straight rip off of Wikipedia (he mentions details that I paraphrased away from in my sources), but I'm pretty sure that wiki article was the starting point/outline, and then he branched out from there into mainly the sources I cited. --PresN 23:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I had a hunch. I've seen WP repackaged as reporter "research" a few times but haven't been keeping close track of examples. On one hand, I'm glad that the articles and bibliography have more visibility, but there's also an element of dishonesty or intellectual plagiarism when the work of compiling/interpreting/grouping sources is passed off as a journalist's own research... (I wrote a response) czar 16:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Remember the FAC? It has about four and supports, and passed both image and source reviews. However, a fellow user has been addressing some prose issues. I kept trying to fix through my tablet since muy computer broke last but the user now appears to be busy. Do you it will pass? By the way, another fellow user suggested two tfas but are necessary? Nevertheless, good luck with your work.Tintor2 (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2: The nomination isn't that old, there's still plenty of time for Mike to finish the review and for you to address the points; the coordinators aren't likely to cut it off in the middle. I don't know what you mean by two tfas. --PresN 19:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, is there a specific reason why Template:WPVG icon direct has a full protection, when normally nowadays one uses template protection for this? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Because it's a subtemplate of several dozen templates, shown in >100,000 places, and should never be changed without a discussion at WT:VG first? What did you want to change? If you just think it should be lesser-protected... sure? I'm not too bothered about whatever byzantine rules there are for the protection levels of templates that will probably never be changed. --PresN 18:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been going through all fully protected templates to check which ones can be lowered to template protection. There are no specific "rules" as to which amount of transclusions merits which kind of protection. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

OverClocked Remix, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GamerPro64 23:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Its been a month since I started the GAN for this article. Are you going to continue working on it or can I close the review? GamerPro64 04:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@GamerPro64: I'm still working on this, sorry. --PresN 15:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't revert my edits without giving me any notice. In fact don't revert edits re irrelevant material just because you have a hard-on for video games. Thanks! El cid, el campeador (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@El cid, el campeador: I didn't revert your edits. I added a completely different sentence, as I stated in the edit summary, which was "giving you notice". Since the article has a section on video games, a discussion of how video game fog of war is unrealistic is completely relevant. --PresN 10:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll review Homeworld if you review Resident Evil 5? The coordinator says my nomination only needs one more review which focuses on FAC criteria 1b and 1c. Let me know if you're interested. Freikorp (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Freikorp: Sounds good to me! --PresN 18:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks :). As your nomination is only a couple weeks old and mine is at the bottom of the 'older nominations' list I won't begin reviewing yours until my review is closed if that's OK with you. Freikorp (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I've finished replying to your concerns at my nomination. Once the nomination is closed, would you prefer me to a review on content or sources at yours? I'd be happy to do either. I'm not so good at reviewing on prose so won't offer to do that. Freikorp (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Freikorp: Content, please. I'll re-review your article shortly. --PresN 18:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
• The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
• An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
• After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

• After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
• Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

---

Excellent work at this FLRC, there are no dead links and the info is up to date in that list, yet you reviewed and said "no work done in 20+ days". Good job, director!--Cheetah (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Crzycheetah: ...are we looking at the same list? The one that has a big tag on the top, stops at 2009 with no indication that that was the final year of the award, has unsortable tables, gives no indication of the importance of the award, has mis-used "work" parameters in the ref section, has a couple reviewers at the FLRC saying "nowhere near" and "requires a near total overhaul", no objection to that from you or anyone else, and hasn't had an edit by a person since September?

If so... then yes, I closed it with "no work done in 20+ days". Because no work was done in 20+ days, and it needs a lot of work. If you thought it needed no work, you should have taken the tag off the page and commented to that effect on the FLRC sometime in the last 3 weeks. I'm sorry if you didn't realize it was going on, but you haven't even edited the list in the last 10 years, so there would have been no way to know that you were interested in it. --PresN 10:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you're looking at the different list. Golden Eagle Award for Best Foreign Language Film (Russia) is the one I am talking about. My guess is that you reviewed List of films that received the Golden Film and commented on the Golden Eagle Award for Best Foreign Language Film (Russia).--Cheetah (talk) 06:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Crzycheetah: No. You seem to be confused. Both Golden Eagle and Golden Film were up at FLRC. In your above comment, you linked the Golden Film FLRC, and then I talked about the Golden Film list. So, now you're saying that you meant the Golden Eagle FLRC and list instead? Ok, lets look at that one; the FLRC is at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Golden Eagle Award for Best Foreign Language Film (Russia)/archive1. Looking at the list itself (Golden Eagle Award for Best Foreign Language Film (Russia)), I see a tag at the top that it's 4 years out of date; it seems that you went through on the 10th and added the winners, but a few weeks later its still missing the nominations and sources for the countries. There's some issues in the lead that I would detail at a formal review, which Cowlibob also mentioned. There shouldn't be refs in the country column when there's a dedicated ref column, but that's minor. Looks like 23 of the dead links got fixed by the archive bot, which means that no human has verified that the archive links actually are correct. You're right that saying "no work has been done" was erroneous- you did do a good chunk of work. That said ,after a month at FLRC the list was still a ways from the level it needed to be, and some link fixes on the 10th, another edit on the 24th, and most importantly no comment on the FLRC that you were planning on shepherding the list back up to featured quality didn't leave me with the impression that someone was planning on acting as the list's champion at FLRC. It seems that I was wrong? If so, please leave a comment to that effect on the FLRC, and I'll reopen it. --PresN 11:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! Seriously...--Cheetah (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Expanse and House of Tomorrow. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Hope you're well. I think there might be an error in the closure of this FLC perhaps due to a missing signature. The bot hasn't closed it for a week. Cowlibob (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: Yep, just fixed it- the talk page template has "Nightcrawler (film)" in the archive1 link instead of just "Nightcrawler", which redirects to the live page, but the bot is super-finnicky about that. Should get caught in the next round, as will the one where TRM used the wrong "magic word" in the closing template. Thanks for letting me know, though! --PresN 21:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Must ... do ... better .... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey PresN. This has more than sufficient support to be passed but it would be good if you and/or Giants2008 could cast your eyes over it before closing the nom, just for independence as I'm obviously recused from anything other than editing the list itself! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Will do, doing a closing pass right now. --PresN 21:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the Wolfenstein 3D article has been scheduled as today's featured article for May 5, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 5, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello! You're invited to express your views at the relevant discussion thread. Jotamide (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

A user has just copyedited the GA Yu Kanda. Do you think it's ready to become feature article candidate? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

A fellow user, Lois Lane vs Mary Jane, brought up a point about adding quotes from the character's creation. Should I do that? Seems like a lot of undue weight. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2: I think you should get them to clarify what exactly they want. Do they want you to post a translation of all the Japanese comments you are citing in the 25 "D.Gray-man manga volume" citations? Or a subset of that? And how much text are we talking about here that would need a translation? --PresN 17:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm quite confused, I think the user refers to the creation info since it's exclusively Japanese. The character doesn't appear in that volume.Tintor2 (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

A bit offtopic by a fellow reader made a peer review as he/she aims to make Yuri on Ice FA. Is there a rule in the manual to wikilink every citation? Can't find it.Tintor2 (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2: There's no "rule", which is normal for citations; there's basically three schools of thought, though- a) do no wikilinks, 2) wikilink the first instance of an article (as in, if you link a publisher in citation 1, you don't link it for any higher numbered citation), or 3) wikilink every citation. I personally go for option 3, as it's annoying to keep track of which citation is being used first as the numbering is dynamic, but while option 3 is used by the majority it's not by any means universal. Overall, the only real rule is to pick a standard, whatever it is, and then be consistent with it. --PresN 04:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey PresN, I'd love to hear your opinion on the current state of the reception section on Fallout 4: Far Harbor. It's currently at FAC, if you'd like to leave any comments. Thanks! Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
• Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

• Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

---

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited World Fantasy Award—Short Fiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steven King. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dungeon Siege 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 TheSandDoctor -- TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

New response --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The article Dungeon Siege you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dungeon Siege for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheSandDoctor -- TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I did not realize that you had been on Wikipedia for 10+ years and were an administrator. Well done! How long have you been an administrator for? Also, thanks for the links regarding the conventions and please see my response as I edited it shortly after you responded (which I did not notice that you had at the time). Do you have any other articles you have nominated for GA? I would happily take a look at them, although I do specialize somewhat in Video game related GA reviews (at the moment, will probably branch out). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Yeah, I've been around... a long time, I guess; it doesn't feel that way, but I guess this hobby has kept my interest. According to my user page, since apparently my recollection of dates is faulty, I've been an admin since late 2010, and have been helping to run the Featured list process since 2015, both of which sound more important than they are. I don't currently have anything else up for GA at the moment- I had a bunch up in the fall, but I'm in a bit of a lull at the moment. It's good to see new faces around getting into the serious article writing/reviewing processes, and no worries about the date thing- there's a million style rules out there, you just pick them up over time and it's not a big deal to run afoul of one or another. Since you said you're focusing on video games right now, if you haven't seen it already you should check out the video games wikiproject and its associated talk page- it's one of the most active projects on en.wiki, and it's not only where other video game editors hang out and hash out project-wide consensuses for how video game articles should be structured, it's a great resource for finding help, interesting things to work on, and inspiration. I see that you have video game walkthrough up at GAN, and it looks like it's maybe your first GAN you've written? At least in the VG space? Personally, I'd recommend asking at WT:VG if someone could give you a really thorough review of the article; I've found that having someone do a deep dive of even what seems like a well-written article is the best way to improve in writing/editing, and the editors there are usually pretty receptive to requests like that. Anyways, belated welcome to Wikipedia, regardless! --PresN 02:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and I am aware of the project (I will see if I can find a userbox to put on my userpage). Talking of user pages, I apparently missed yours even though I was on it to click the link to your talk page, I guess I should look around a bit before asking haha. video game walkthrough is indeed my first GAN (in any space). I did not know about that (your mention of posting at WT:VG for a thorough review) and I shall list it there. Do you think it has any chance of succeeding? Do you see any improvements that could be made? If so please let me know. I am open to any help that I can get. Thanks for the belated welcome and compliments. I try to help out wherever I can (be that AFC, new page patrol, counter vandalism, etc). Thanks again for your time and I look forward to your response. -TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I have retracted my GAN of video game walkthrough for the time being. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The article has been reassessed at C class and some major formatting improvements have been done. Any suggestions to improve it (if you wish of course) would be more than welcome. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be into (more or less) retro video game articles, do you think you could possibly help me with a couple of video game articles I have started? Austin Powers: Oh, Behave!, Hollywood Pinball, Rats! & (non actual 'game') Video game walkthrough. Thanks for your time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

This feature list statistics section is perfect JakobSteenberg (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. I've been having about whether or not I could upload the images from Rurouni Kenshin's marketing as seen in a Japanese train station as noted here. I don't know whether or not it is possible as I don't understand how free images can be get. Also, it could be used in the titular character's article, Himura Kenshin. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2: I'm not an expert, and certainly not for Japan, but my understanding is that they would not be free-use, because even though it's a photo of a physical object it's really just a photo of a copyrighted image; that it was printed and then photographed doesn't change that. --PresN 23:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for assessing this page. I was inspired to write it after reading a blog post of someone finding one while going through a closed video arcades storage area to salvage what the could before the area was redeveloped. I'll be adding the infobox probably some time tomorrow. I just have to sort out the flyer image and go through the operating manual again.

Graham1973 (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I've created a low-rez version of the arcade flyer for LeMans, but I'm unsure of what Fair use category to put it in. Can you help me with advice on that please.

Graham1973 (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Graham1973: No idea what the upload wizard settings are, but just enter something or other and then edit the image description page to use the templates that File:Space Race (video game) poster.jpg does. --PresN 02:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice I will get round to it soon. Graham1973 (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, PresN. I'm just posting to let you know that World Fantasy Award—Long Fiction – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for June 2. 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) 22:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hellow

I'm translating the Spacewar! page into French, and i think you mainly participated to the page.

One point is disturbing me : "Somebody had built some little pattern-generating programs which made interesting patterns like a kaleidoscope.[...]" => "Somebody" is linked to Marvin Minsky Wikipedia page. But I can't find this on the reference given : rolling stone interview. I still didn't read all the references in the Spacewar! page, i will do this later. But do you have a reference for this ?

Second point that suprise's me : at Wikipedia in French, a fallacious link as [[Marvin Minsky|Somebody]] are not allowed, reader awaits to find a "Somebody" page... Well, sorry for this last report, if rules between the two projects are different.

otho... Seeing all the great works you've did on the video game history, I tried to do the same for Wikipedia in French. I translated many of the pages you written. Each time i tried to go further as our good articles ask a bit more than yours here... but well it's a detail... If I could help, Le Monde.fr made 3 articles about the cathoray-tube amusement devise (linked at the bottom of our page) with some nice informations that lead me to add this (mainly "rediscovery adventitious of patent" and part of "limited impact" [5].

Reading all this reference led me to meet informations and write pages about Turochamp, the Nimatron, Programme d'échecs de Dietrich Prinz, Programme de dames de Christopher Strachey, Genèse des jeux de simulation. Well, if this could help someone in any way, it could be a good thing.... I saw some times ago at the video game wikiproject talk page that you could write severals pages from games in the 70'... good thing !

Well, best regards from France. --Archimëa (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Archimëa: That's really cool that you're translating my articles into the French wikipedia, and I'll definitely check out the French-language sources you've found (and the articles- I don't think we even have one on Turochamp). I'm not sure that the difference between our two language versions is due to differing Good Article standards, but likely more style differences in how detailed to be, either between wikis or between editors- I tend to be fairly terse, especially in summarizing people's reactions, and tend to elide historiography details altogether, which I notice you went into some detail about in e.g. your Cathode Ray Tube article. Maybe I should go back and add them in!

Looks like I got the information about Minsky from ref 2, the Creative Computing article ([6]), specifically: "Bouncing Ball was successfully converted to PDP-1 use, but HAX, for some reason, was not. But no one really missed it, because we had a brand-new toy invented by Professor Marvin Minsky. The program displayed three dots which proceeded to "interact," weaving various patterns on the scope face. As with HAX, the initializing constants were set in the console switches. Among the patterns were geometric displays, Lissajous-like figures, and "fireworks." Minsky's program title was something like "Tri-Pos: Three-Position Display," but from the beginning we never called it anything but The Minskytron ("tron" was the In suffix of the early 1960s.)" You're right that it's not in the Rolling Stone source; I'll add it. You're also right that "surprise" links are generally frowned upon at en.wiki just like at fr.wiki; I'll fix that too!

Yes, I started a project to work on early-1970s games, which occasionally I put some time into- I've gotten 6 articles from near the start of {{1970s Atari arcade games}}, as I had some good sources for them (the Good Articles listed there, minus Asteroids). I kind of stalled out when the sources stopped going into so much detail- I've been meaning to go back and either write about early 1970's computer games or the more famous arcade games, but haven't really started on either yet.

Best regards from New Orleans! --PresN 16:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the update!

Yes I saw you rather stopped.

On our own, we have got a lot to do on this period! A contributor did this [7], but the sources are not 100% used. Finding good sources are a problem. I also saw the same problem, a lot a books say the same few things without going further.

Thank you for all. I'm really grateful for the time you took to help me. --Archimëa (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello PresN. I come back here beacause i spotted 2 problems. I Try to translate the Magnavox Odyssey article into french, where i think two things are problematics :

• In " Development" - 2nd sentence. As far as i know, or every articles i read about this console confirm that Bear, himself stated in his biography that he add the idea for the console in 1951. This fact is verified nowhere else but in his biography, no document, no text, anybody than him can confirm, neither Loral. I know a lot of websites says "He had the idea in 1951", but it's "according to him". I did'nt read all the reliable references about this, but the one i lookt at say clearly "according to him". I think it is realy problematic
• " Development" - last part : I think the is a misunderstanding here. The Magnavox engineers copied the brown box cirtuitery and only removed few components that could not do the job with spurious radiation. They did not AT ALL "re-engineered the internals" completly, only few things. ICs that Bear talks about, saying that they could have been added, are not the original digital circuitry with discret components from the prototype, that are too exepensive. he says that the BBox use digital circuitry with discret component and ICs was too expensive to be added. Then, Magnavox buy to late the licence that they only abble to copy the bBox. That's what i've read from the Baer's interview the reference given [8] (google translation sorry) : The negotiations between Sanders and Magnavox began at the end of 1969, and lasted for a very long time until 1971, which prevented the developers of Magnavox from evolving the components of the system. However, if ICs are too expensive when creating the brown box, these considerations were no longer short-lived in 1971 and Magnavox did not have time to modify the internal components of the machine before the launch of the brown box. production. Engineers copy the architecture of the brown box, designed from digital circuits with discrete components, but remove the components that might interfere with its authorization concerning parasitic radiation.

Regards from France --Archimëa (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Archimëa:

• Yes, the sources I read stated that Baer "had the idea" in 1951, as in a general concept was in his head, but that he discarded the concept as unworkable without writing up any formal or semi-formal document like the one he made when the idea came to him again in 1966. There is no proof (or possible proof) other than his word that he had the idea in 1951, so it's really a matter of phrasing how much emphasis you want to place on "according to Baer, he had the idea in 1951". While the point is part of Baer's mythology as the "father of video games", there's also no one (to my knowledge) claiming that he never had such an idea that early. (Unlike, say, Nolan Bushnell, whose statements like that have been noted as getting grander over time.) It also wasn't really a novel idea; the inventors of the Cathode-ray tube amusement device in 1947, for example, explicitly wanted to hook it up to a TV, even if it wasn't quite the same thing as a "box that played games". A TV was really the only visual screen that vast, vast majority of people ever saw, so it was the default thing to connect to if you wanted to display something under a person's control. Regardless, I've added a "Baer claims" to the Magnavox article.

  I hesitated to answer you this - sorry for my poor poor poor english.

  We have at least one or more reliable source in french that says Bear might be a cheater. what for me he is.

  The cathoray tube AD have been discovered a the begining of the 2000s, and this information only surfaced in 2005, that's a part of what i told you the last time. So Baer could not know the cathoray tube AD. more, the game should only have existed as a patent, no prototype have been found. The journalist from the reference i gave you last time called on phone the man Goldsmith showed a cathoray tube, but it unsure if he saw the prototype or a simple cathoray tube, ou saw it runing. Try a google translation, the 3 articles about the CTAD are really good. And when the CTAD was found ? when Baer tried to proove that HE is the father of VG. he found a patent older than his one !

  it's only my opinion, but i think he lied. The first real VG is tennis for two, with enough interact on screen. But OXO and Strachey draughts programm are the first programs on electronic screen in 1952 -- and then Bear claims he add the idea in 1951. JUUUSSST before ! really ??? yeees oh my godness ! He decided to say 1951 to everyone only to be before this two games... And for me, it's the same idea (a box that play games and something on tv), beacause he only add it in 1966 ! yeees ! my to cents.

  Well, he keeps to be the father of VG (what a great man), or at least father of video game console.--Archimëa (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Archimëa: Yeah, I'm not personally very taken with Baer's personal mythology as the "father of video games". The idea to display a game on a television set wasn't the first, and since he didn't do it in 1951 it wasn't more than an coincidence that he was the one 15 years later to make a console. So, the central conceit is therefore his 1973 patent for how the Odyssey displayed dots on the television screen and moved them... except that Spacewar! came out in 1962, 4 years before Baer even had the written idea for the console. Even if Baer didn't know about Spacewar! et. al., the idea of moving dots on the screen that could run into each other just... wasn't novel. His contribution was using a standard television set (and cheap console) instead of an expensive computer monitor/mainframe, and that's certainly a big contribution, but it's not exactly inventing video games out of whole cloth. Speaking as someone with an electrical engineering degree, displaying things on a television instead of a monitor, even at the time, was certainly a neat trick but not a groundbreaking revelation.

  Hellow, sorry i was not notified for your answer :(.

  For sure, for sure. The great thing was to let the VG enter every home on a standard TV set. --Archimëa (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Honestly, what you call the "first video game" just depends on what you define that to mean- Bertie the Brain was the first game that was a computer, OXO was the first game using a screen instead of lightbulbs, Tennis for Two was the first one that philosophically was for entertainment... For me, though, I go with Spacewar. Because while it didn't innovate in a technical sense, the games before were gimmicks, toys, minor bits of interest. Spacewar, though, was a fully fledged video game with graphics and movement and actual gameplay and demonstrated, at least to a few lucky people, that you could use computer technology to make something really special and creative and new that could never be done on anything before, not just replicate board games as a programming exercise. --PresN 01:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

  That's a point of view. This was my two cents. On our french wikipedia pages, we kept this open-minded aspect, saying that it depends on what is called a video game. Hopfully, i translated the pages you written and ours inherit from yours. Thanks for this. --Archimëa (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, the stated changes that Maganavox made are: removed the color components (expensive to meet FCC requirements and color TVs weren't common anyway), changed the game selection method (game cards instead of a dial), and minor changes that are standard when moving from a prototype to a large-run production machine. They kept the vast majority of the design- it worked, and Baer's team weren't a garage group with no idea of how to design a proper machine for production. They did not change to or really investigate ICs; as the article states, they didn't have time to completely redesign to use ICs just because the price had dropped between 1969 and 1971. I'm not sure what to call that engineering work other than "re-engineering", though I've modified the sentence to say they re-engineered "some" of the internals, as most of it was left alone. --PresN 16:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Indrian to this discussion, as he knows a lot about the area and may have something to add. --PresN 16:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I saw you added "some" and i think it's more close to reality. Ok, it was only to help.

When tranlating, i felt it was missing a date precision ("The internal circuitry had been designed with discrete components rather"), but it is more clear with "some" + "re-engineered". Before your add "some" i didn't understand well if Maganvox added "The internal circuitry".... with "some" we understand that is the initial developpment team. --Archimëa (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to make a request to recreate the article "Fester Mudd: Curse of the Gold". I have done a draft in my sandbox and you can be assured it does not infringe copyright this time. A few more citations and information will need to be added, but otherwise I made a good start. Feel free to inspect my work and let me know if it's worth putting in the article. Deltasim (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Deltasim: That looks fine, though I'd prefer if you'd go ahead and add more content to it, like a reception section and a plot summary, as it's pretty minimal right now. But you can go ahead and re-create the article, the page isn't locked or anything. --PresN 13:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi PresN, just to let you know that the last-gasp comments from Cassianto have now been addressed. I thought it better to re-open the nom since it it hadn't been archived. Hope you don't mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thanks! No worries, it was the right thing to do. --PresN 12:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, PresN. I'm just posting to let you know that List of DS:Style products – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for June 12. 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) 02:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I was directed to your Nebula Award for Best Novel article for an example of how to format a list that implements rowspans so that sorting works properly, but it's a little over my head. I'm having trouble getting List of unanimous college football All-Americans to sort properly. Some help would be appreciated. Thanks, Lizard (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: Turns out it was much, much easier to fix than I thought it would be- the very last year you had a rowpan of 14 with only 13 items, and apparently that breaks the sorting but not the way it looks. (shrug). While I was looking at it, I added in colscopes and rowscopes (WP:DTAB), which makes the table compatible with browsers meant for the visually impaired (or just odd browsers). As I said in the edit summary, for reasons I've never understood this changes the formatting in the first column to match the formatting of the header row; it's fixable but the code is messy to do it so I didn't. @Giants2008: pinging you as a courtesy to let you know how the problem was fixed- turns out the rowspan number really matters. --PresN 15:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

So that explains why sorting worked fine on the half-completed draft version. Such a simple error threw it into chaos. Thanks a bunch, I knew I could count on a fellow Louisianan. Lizard (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: Hah, you're welcome (though I'm a more recent transplant, 2 years or so). --PresN 16:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't the rowscope be on the Player column instead of the Season column, since that's the main subject of the list? Lizard (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The scope attribute in HTML is reserved to table header cells ("!" and "!!"), which themselves are reserved (in good HTML) for the first and last rows and columns (and I only comment on last for the rare "repeated" row/column). You can move the players to the far left and change those cells to headers if you think that's a good idea, but that might be more work than you desire. Accessibility guidelines also request/require that all cells spanning multiple rows and columns should be toward the top/left of the table, to keep it "simple", so the change is both desirable and undesirable--most persons who want it to be accessible will tend toward the undesirable interpretation. --Izno (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: what Izno said- while the list is about the players, the actual table is set up to be a list of players for each year, so year is the left-most column and also the header for each row. --PresN 16:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah I see. I suppose I could have set it up in alphabetical order with players on the first column, but the sources also list players year-by-year, so figuring that out would have taken forever. Not to mention I think how it is currently is the better format anyway. Lizard (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of the Nebula list, I'd like to be able to sort on winners versus nominated. Maybe add a column for that? :D --Izno (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
• Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
• An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

• Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

---

You promoted this on May 24, but you still haven't listed it on WP:FL. Bluesphere 06:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bluesphere: I did; Media: Career histories: Actors/filmmakers (as Gibson is significant for both his acting and directing/producing careers). --PresN 11:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The Fine Young Capitalists, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The existing text there implies Homeworld 1 Classic scales like in Homeworld 2, which is not true. In fact, the section of text is very misleading about the scaler, so it is very appropriate to state that the scaling of enemy ships is minimal and that it focuses more on resources.

Forum posts are the only way to get information on the technical details of Homeworld I'm afraid, so the policy is irrelevant. The person I linked is a well known modder in the community. The post is not "random", like you claim, or are forum posts from game developers not accepted either?

As for the reference debacle, I don't know why you felt a need to attack me for not adding a reference properly. I hate the necessity to put a template in, so I quickly added a reference since I was busy and expected a more respectable editor to update it when they saw it, or if not, I would update it myself when I wasn't busyu. That's called collaboration and I don't appreciate being accused of "not finishing my thoughts" for just adding a reference, like you specifically asked me to provide. --CitroenLover (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• @CitroenLover: I've adjusted the text to say that "the difficulty of each mission is adjusted to a small extent" based on the player's fleet size. I searched pretty hard for a reliable source that states that HW1 scaled primarily using resource adjustments rather than fleet sizing, and found nothing. It is true that the scaling is small in comparison to HW2, so I noted that much, but if no reliable sources discuss exactly how the level scaling works (and the Blackbird Interactive source I just added actually explicitly says it was fleet scaling, so that means even the developers of HW:Deserts of Kharak didn't know/care), then it's a minor detail that doesn't need elaboration.

• On the contrary, if forum posts by amateur modders are the only way to get technical details about the game, then we are out of luck. Wikipedia uses reliable sources, and we don't just throw that out because it's difficult to get the exact information you want. If it was the developers posting on an official forum (so that we could verify that it was the developers, not just someone claiming to be) then it would fly- though only for verifying the information was reliable, not that it was important. In this case, while I'm sure the poster was correct in their interpretation of the source code, that doesn't make their forum posts a reliable source. They'd need to at the minimum write them up in an article for a publication that has a standard of fact-checking and editorial oversight- which while unlikely, is not a ridiculous requirement, I added a citation to an article from a modder of the PC version of Final Fantasy XIII a little while back from PC Gamer.

• I apologize for getting snippy about the reference. It really bothers me when someone half-adds something and blows off the rest of the work with "someone else will fix this"- other than minor typo fixes and a copyedit from the recent FAC review, I'm the only one to be editing this article in the last 6 months. There's not a mythical horde of editors just waiting to fix your half-added citation, so it felt like you were really saying "my time is too valuable to spend another minute finishing this reference, so you do it." That's no excuse for me to be rude to you, though, so sorry. On the flip side, you don't get martyr points for providing a non-reliable reference "that I asked you to provide" - it's kind of the expectation that if you're not working on a mess of an article that you provide a real, reliable source to back up your changes. Yes, it's frustrating- there's a lot of "true" information that can't be cited to a good enough source. But WP:VERIFY is one of the pillars that Wikipedia is based on, and part of that is using reliable sources, no matter how useful the unreliable ones are sometimes. --PresN 15:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

That's fine, but I think there should at least be a section on the page for the music, in which the composers can be mentioned. I didn't see a lot regarding the music for the game, and I know the DOS version's music was a large and influential soundtrack which I think would deserve its own space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doommaster1994 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)