User talk:GamerPro64

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to my talk page. If you're planning on addressing me, call me by GamerPro or Gamer.


Also, keeping these for personal use: Wikipedia:Good topics/count, Wikipedia:Featured topics/count, Category:Unassessed Featured topics articles

Gamer's Cold Storage, changes to Video Games WikiProject, For the template

List of commercial failures in video gaming[edit]

So I was reading your WP:VG interview and decided to submit one of the articles you mentioned to reddit. It caused quite the traffic increase. JACOPLANE • 2011-04-7 21:17

Mega Man Powered Up[edit]

Here are some sources that may or may not be in the article right now. I'm on a Wikibreak so I won't be able to put them to prose.

  • [1]
  • [2]
  • [3]
  • [4] - PSM Magazine, Play Magazine, Game Informer, Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine, PSM2 Magazine UK, games(™), Official PlayStation 2 Magazine UK
  • [5]
  • [6]
  • [7]
  • [8]
  • [9]
  • [10]

re: List of retired Pacific hurricanes[edit]

Hey there! Sorry I missed your earlier post. Yea, Manuel should be part of the GT. It was officially retired on April 11, so I guess the three month rule would go from then? I informed User:Yellow Evan of this conversation, as he may have further thoughts (since I know he was one of the main editors to the article). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep! I don't wanna lose a topic, so I'm glad we still have some time. Thanks for reminding us. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I am aware of the 3 months rule, and in the process of finishing it up. It's not that far off from GA status anyways. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Definitely, I'll review some. I'm currently at work (eek), but when I get home tonight I will :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Starved Vietnamese man[edit]

Starved Vietnamese man, 1966.JPEG
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Starved Vietnamese man, 1966.JPEG, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 03:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • So pipe dreams do come true. ;) (My pipe dream was to take FP quality pictures... it took a fairly large investment [paid for by a lucrative translating gig] but it came true too). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh yes. I'm pretty happy with myself getting that Tiff to make this all happen. Mainly due to how much I like the image in the first place. Pretty good stuff to have this be the first Featured work here. Now I wait for Anachronox's turn. GamerPro64 05:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I'll take another look; you seem to have replied to most of my comments. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
        • I would like to also mention that I talked with Zeality about helping with the ones that I can't address seeing how he has done most of the ground work. He said he'd look at it today but he also mentioned apartment hunting and other stuff. GamerPro64 05:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 18 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 25 June 2014[edit]

FTC question[edit]

  • Roughly how much overlap is allowed? Say, if we had a Roekiah filmography topic, and a Kartolo filmography topic (only difference would be the main article and Berdjoang being included in Kartolo's filmography), or (a less extreme example) a Films written by Saeroen topic and a Films produced by Union Films topic (overlap of four articles), would they all have a chance for FTC? (Union Films is only two articles short; Saeroen is a little further back but still in good shape) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    • First, I recommend going to Wikipedia talk:Featured topic questions to hear some other opinions on the matter. But what I'm thinking is that a topic for Saeroen could work since it seems that he's made more films outside of Union Films. A topic on Union Films can work as well. But the issue on the two topics involving the separate actresses. Now that's puzzling for me. I would argue that they could be part of the Union films article itself though that could raise a concern on if they should belong in the topic. That's just me though. GamerPro64 02:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
      • One actor, one actress (husband and wife, actually), both mostly active with Tan's Film though they also did work with two other studios. Each made one film without the other, although Roekiah's is likely not notable enough for an article (all I'm finding is proof of existence) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Union and Saeroen would look like this — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

What's your opinion on Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Para-skiing classification/archive1? The nom's been up for almost 2 months, and the last comment was over a month ago. It doesn't seem like it's going anywhere, so should it be closed for lack of activity? And are two supports enough to promote Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Australia at the 2014 Winter Paralympics/archive1?-- 07:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Seeing that there was a discussion at least, you can close it for lack of activity and mention that it can always be nominated again. As for the Paralympics topic, yeah you can promote it. I've promoted topics that only had two supports before. GamerPro64 15:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


Congrats on your big article man! How does it feel like to be in the big league now? URDNEXT (talk)

Eh. It feels the same. I've been on this site for nearly six years with lots of changes go by. But hey, this is the year I now have work be considered Featured content. Works for me. Besides, I'm a delegate for Featured Topics so I think that I have been an established editor on the site for a while now. GamerPro64 19:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


Thanks; and great work getting that thing featured. Zeality is a hero of mine (who else could keep working on The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest over three years and five FAC noms?), and it's really good to see his masterpiece get the star. Honestly, I considered Anachronox probably the best video game article of all time when he first wrote it. Flight Unlimited was my shot at rivaling it. And yeah, I've been meaning to update my History section. I'll most likely get to it after I've finished User:JimmyBlackwing/Sourcing video game articles, my pet project right now.

As an aside, has the possibility of an "Ion Storm video games" topic ever crossed your mind? It would be really ambitious, given the vast number of sources available for games like Deus Ex and Daikatana. However, there would only be seven articles in it, and one of them is already featured. An Ion Storm topic was always a dream of mine, but I knew I couldn't write it and the Looking Glass topic at the same time. If anyone ever went for it, I'd be there in a heartbeat to do the research, like I did for Anachronox. Food for thought, I guess. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm in if you are czar  11:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Responded on Jimmy's talk page on the idea. But yeah. Having the three of us working on this project might work out. GamerPro64 14:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
It sounds great to me. If we're all agreed on Deus Ex, I'll start compiling sources on the article's talk page later today. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@Czar: What do you think of doing Deus Ex? GamerPro64 18:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy to start anywhere. (Also I imagine you'll find Invisible War sources while searching for the original, if you want to pull those en route.) czar  21:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Will do. Pretty excited to see this get off the ground. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a ton, everyone. I got sidelined again the last week with more new job logistics (I'm moving cities tomorrow), so I was criminally kept from helping more. Couldn't believe the news when I finally checked in today. It's been a while since I've had something as a TFA request, so I don't know how long this article's going to have to "age" before we can get a successful TFA nomination... ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 22:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Considering how Bencherlite's been running the page recently, I doubt you'd get refused. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Hooray for low standards! But seriously, I had the idea of just having it show up on the main page unless it can be up for an anniversary. Whatever works I guess. GamerPro64 00:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Whoa whoa whoa, I never said low standards! He's just taking a much more democratic approach than the previous TFA director. Anniversaries are nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
        • All right I get it. I wasn't serious about the low standards comment. I just don't want to slap the article on the main page immediately. There are other video game related articles that were featured first so why not have them under the spotlight first? GamerPro64 00:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Agree, an anniversary would be nice. 15th anniversary is 2 years away ;) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014[edit]

Re: Featured Topics and the Signpost[edit]

Bit of a blast from the past there; I remember writing that almost 6 years ago. I used to be much more involved in Featured Topics back then (2006-2008), so you can see my signature all over the talk page archives- I was the one who pushed the minimum featured percentage up to 25% back in late 2008, and was heavily involved in the creation of the GT process around then. I was still around a year later when we bumped it to 50%, but kinda faded away since (besides nominating my own topics). Glad to see it still going strong, largely thanks to you! --PresN 00:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it had a storied past- first just "a bunch of 'good' articles", then "everything B+", then "everything GA+" (with some quibbling about A-class), then "20% FA/FL", then 25%, then 1/3 after GT became a thing, then 1/2. At the time I thought we'd keep going (to "more than 50%", next) but instead the rules just froze 3, almost 4 years ago and we've just been adjusting standards for what should be in certain types of topics since. The thing that strikes me is that nowadays it's such a "done" thing, with mentions in the Signpost, used in the Wikicup, etc., and I can't remember the last time I saw someone disparage it, when in 2006 it was almost deleted for being a useless contest, and a bunch of people hated that it was putting on airs by calling itself "Featured" topics. Although, I do recall back in 2006 there was still a strong movement to keep the GA process from being official- I guess that got solved the same way as FTopics, by raising standards everywhere. Hard to believe it's been almost 8 years. --PresN 01:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to crash your convo, but I just noticed you talking about Featured Topics, and I too cannot believe it has been 8 years since I joined Wikipedia. Hard to believe Featured Topics were not always required to have 50% Featured. Guess they stopped to keep the featured topics from only being lists! You think maybe 60% would be a good stepping stone? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Currently I think 50% works out pretty well right now. But you can suggest upping the percentile to 60% and see if you can get a conversation going. GamerPro64 16:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


Question for you: when you inquired into that image we put through FPC a couple weeks ago, did the archives administration reply to you quickly? Considering how there's a film on "The Monuments Men" out right now, this would likely draw some attention. I'd like to work from a TIFF if possible though. Otherwise I'll just work from this version. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Oh yeah, and if possible could you tell me what address you emailed? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Well according to my emails I got a reply on the same day I sent it to them. I think I waited a few hours for a response from them. Also, the email address is "". Also, I watched Monuments Men a couple months ago. Wasn't as bad as critics said. GamerPro64 15:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I'll contact them immediately. At the very least we need to get rid of that huge stain in the upper left corner. I think it Monuments Men would be an interesting film to watch, though I don't think it's screening here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2014[edit]