Jump to content

User talk:czar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Czar (talk | contribs) at 21:05, 24 July 2016 (→Encyclopedia article request: heads up). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


I am obsessed by the plain facts:
writing them literally down
is all the poetry I can.

Know that I esteem my editorial independence. Even as

I reject payment to edit or advocate on anyone's behalf.


Declarations



    TWL Questia check-in

    Hello!

    You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

    • Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
    • When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
    • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
    • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

    Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

    Thanks! 20:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

    2 requests

    Please protect Enfield Poltergeist and revoke talk page access for user:176.92.139.62. 2602:306:3357:BA0:D123:DF0:F8CF:38DC (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I protected the page since there was IP-hopping vandalism. Let me know if it continues when the protection expires czar 03:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please revoke talk page access for user:176.92.139.62. 2602:306:3357:BA0:D123:DF0:F8CF:38DC (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    KK beat me to it czar 03:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Reception sections

    Hello again. In the peer review for Fallout 4: Far Harbor you mentioned how the reception section was a bit muddled/disjointed. How should I rewrite it, could you provide some examples of good, well-written reception sections? Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I added a few ideas at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fallout 4: Far Harbor/archive1 so the discussion can stay in the same place. Blast Corps#Reception is an article I wrote that recently became featured—it does a decent job of telling the story of the game's reception with a semblance of order, if you're interested. The gameplay paragraph is the weakest because it tries to do too much, but the rest is good. czar 15:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry to bother...

    Just wanted to make sure you saw my most recent ping, to move Draft:Spider-Man: Homecoming to the main space today. Thanks again for all the help. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Favre1fan93, yep, was just waiting for "tomorrow" (though it's always better to just ping exactly when you need it)—✓ done czar 16:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh sorry. It is "tomorrow" (6/20) for me. Always forget others may not be on my timezone. So here's the "exactly when I need it" request. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome back, man. I didn't know you were back until now. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    God Particle (film)

    Hello again! Please move Draft:God Particle (film) → God Particle (film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    ✓ done czar 17:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    More on OpenCritic

    Still trying to figure out the benchmark for "authority" vs "not."

    Arstechnica used us as a source today: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/06/what-can-we-learn-from-mighty-no-9s-troubled-launch/

    We have significantly more Twitter engagement for Tokyo Mirage Sessions FE than Metacritic. (Metacritic tweets, OpenCritic tweets).

    Also, please let me know if these messages are invasive or not helpful. I'm a very weak engineer and thus my job with the OpenCritic team is mostly interfacing and spreading our accomplishments. I really respect you and your coeditors opinions on OpenCritic - the feedback has been invaluable even if we haven't produced action on each point. MattEnth (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @MattEnth, if I were to search for the standard video game industry review aggregator, all relevant hits are about Metacritic, with some press about OpenCritic as a new alternative—that's what would need to change. This is to say that, barring some sort of open access activism that Wikipedia occasionally does, we follow rather than lead the narrative of the sources. As a tertiary source, the sea change needs to happen in the secondary sources (the reliable ones) before we adopt then adopt their new standard as our standard. So the moment to call our attention will be when multiple reliable sources write either in passing or in feature about OpenCritic as a standard. (Links like those in Ars may be progress towards such a sea change, but I'll note that Ars also linked to Metacritic and to all sorts of other sites without implying endorsement or authority.)
    Two other quick design thoughts while we're here: (1) It would be hard to use the "mighty"/"strong"/"fair"/"weak" designations in a sentence. E.g., "The game received 'mighty' reviews, according to video game review aggregator OpenCritic" or "Video game review aggregator OpenCritic characterized the game's critical response as 'mighty/strong'" (doesn't mean much). But "Video game aggregator OpenCritic wrote that four percent critics recommended this game." That's useful. That it was among the aggregator's lowest scored (bottom 10%) games? Useful. Also, again, I think you have a big opportunity in providing some descriptive statistics on the score spread. By the way, about a decade ago, at least in New York State, the fire code changed so the gels in the EXIT emergency signs went from the color red to the color green. Even though red may be associated with passion, it is also our universal sign for "no" or "stop". So to display your scale with "mighty" in red and "weak" appears to be a design error—it should be the other way around. (2) In my opinion, there's way too much going on in the header image between the transparent background and tons of stuff on top of it. czar 17:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Another thought: Discrete categories betray the idea of ratings being a spectrum. It isn't like 74 is "fair" while 75 is "strong"—simple averages are susceptible to outliers and other sorts of gaming, especially when you're planning to add amateur scores in the mix (give me pause but that's another story). But with statistics, you can make the "rating" more robust. What does 74 or fair say when you could have, "middling reviews from journalists, with few extreme outliers, and exceptional praise from amateur reviewers" etc. And then what about the outliers? Do they share a preference based on platform/nationality/genre/experience? My understanding of the criticism of Metacritic was (1) the unknown weighting given to various outlet scores, and in my opinion the bigger criticism, (2) that a score should not define whether people buy a game or not. The Rotten Tomatoes "percent recommended" metric solves a bit of the latter, or at least makes it palatable, but the descriptive stats that explain how the data ranges would be even better towards solving open criticism. czar 00:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Twilight Zone

    An editor has blanked every episode summary of The Twilight Zone (2002 series). I reverted one and asked that he discuss it on the ep's talk page, but he has not. Here is the link to his redirect. Should one editor take it upon himself to blank all of these articles, simply because he feels they are not notable? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=It%27s_Still_a_Good_Life&redirect=no — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Rhosis (talk • contribs) 13:50, 25 June 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

    @Sir Rhosis, where did you ask DTG to discuss the edit? I see your revert and edit summary, but I don't see a talk page message in your edit history. One editor can unilaterally redirect episodes they feel are non-notable (Wikipedia:Be bold), but that said, they should also desist if anyone has any issue with that (Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle) so it can go to discussion. Reverting back and forth (edit warring) doesn't get much of anywhere otherwise. And WP:ALLPLOT isn't a mandate, though I suggest having sources if you're looking to keep the article—otherwise the discussion will likely die at Articles for Deletion on its current sourcing
    I think you're referring to DTG's few dozen redirects of what was once in Template:Twilight Zone 2002 episodes (restored above). It pushes the edge of Wikipedia:Be bold to redirect several dozen articles wholesale, but in their defense, every one of these articles appears to be plot summary with no rationale or sources for needing a separate episode article (which is to say that anything that needs to be said about the subject based on its sourcing can be covered in the main series article). That said, there could still be a few that had sources that were redirected, but someone would need to contest those redirects. I recommend having that discussion at Talk:The Twilight Zone (2002 TV series). czar 19:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for looking into this. When I reverted his redirect I commented something to the effect of "Why was this done without a discussion beforehand" or words to that effect. Sir Rhosis (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you

    The Creationist's Barnstar
    Thank you for creating articles about Paul Avrich's books. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

    The Empire City (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
    added a link pointing to Epic novel
    The Modern School Movement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
    added a link pointing to Art Journal

    It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Would you do me a favor?

    There doesn't seem to be a Zotero translator for HighBeam Research (https://www.highbeam.com). If it's not much trouble, would you file a request for that for me? It's used by a number of Wikipedia editors. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Whatamidoing (WMF), ✓ done https://github.com/zotero/translators/issues/1088 I might be able to do it myself, but other projects to squash first czar 17:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I now get to take "figure out how to request something on Github" off my list, and User:Fluffernutter might get to use HighBeam links in VisualEditor someday.  :-) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Whatamidoing (WMF), I took a quick look at it, and the Embedded Metadata (EM) translator appears to be doing a decent job:
    "Paul Goodman's complicated world". Chicago Sun-Times. January 6, 2012.
    Silverman, Jacob (October 19, 2011). "Free Radical.(Paul Goodman)(Brief biography)". Tablet Magazine.
    The rest of the formatting stuff, like that parentheses mishmash, is on HB's side, not Zotero's. (EM is the default when there is no custom translator.) And then, on Citoid's end, libraryCatalog = "www.highbeam.com" could be converted to |via=[[HighBeam Research]]. Do you have examples of metadata that EM misses? czar 19:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The example I was given is this: https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-23197647.html It gives me the title, the date, and nothing else. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What I mean is that a translator exists (EM) but it isn't active in Citoid if you're not able to produce citations like I just did. The solution for now is to use Zotero with that HighBeam page and then export the citation—that's the only way to get the EM translator. I started a thread at mw:Topic:T6oy6qtqfh6rce76 to find out why EM isn't active in Citoid. czar 23:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    highbeam

    Traveling now but will check in a day or three. About zoster pls ask ocaasi or nikkimaria. Thanks  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Lingzhi, no rush but thanks for the heads up czar 21:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Books (general discussion)

    We had some disagreements about some merges I proposed, so I'd like to see to what extent we agree (talking now about non-literary authors)

    For a really famous person in a field, where this is generally acknowledged, (eg Darwin, Kant, Marx) I think we can and should list all their major books, ns make separate articles about those that are particularly noteworthy where there are more than routine sources.
    For the leading famous person in a field, we should make separate articles for the principal most quoted books, which will usually be rather few.
    For a clearly notable but not famous person, we should only make an article for a book if it is is so important it will be widely known to those who may not even know specifically of the author.

    I can see varying this down a step towards greater inclusivity, but I do not se the point of making a separate article for every book where it would be theoretically justified. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @DGG, I'm planning to write articles about each of these books, and I only started articles because I found a preponderance of sources to justify an article. At least now with the sources out in the open—the bibliographic work being half the battle for pre-Internet books—someone could feasibly take an interest in one of the topics. I usually need little convincing that a topic can be sufficiently covered in its parent and only split out if necessary, but in the case of reception for separate, independent works, I don't think it makes sense to merge these sources back to the author. As for Paul Avrich not being a "really famous person in a field"... Avrich is the foremost historian of anarchism. The only reason I can find so many sources for his books is because his books were widely reviewed and well regarded. I have plenty of sources for other authors' lesser known books, but I don't bother making articles unless I know there is sufficient sourcing worth the while. czar 05:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He's as important to anarchism as darwin is to biology? that's thelevel I think necessary. I do not see the usefulness-- The nature of the reception of an individual book will depend primarily on his ideas, though of course they will get individual reviews as a matter of course, so elaborate content could be written. If a person wants to find out about one book, they would certainly be interested in finding out about the others, even if they hadn't known about them in advance. DGG ( talk ) 08:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he's as important to the history-of-anarchism as Darwin is to biology. I'm sympathetic to your point of view and I have my own thoughts on our inadequately low notability threshold, but as for the proposal (1) at first blush, it treats media unevenly—it's not like we're going to look at albums, games, etc. under the same light of "usefulness", and (2) even still, these articles will have better sourcing than the vast majority of the book articles we keep at AfD. The interest is curious, given the lax standards throughout the encyclopedia. (3) There's also a bit of systemic bias. An American Anarchist: The Life of Voltairine de Cleyre was published in 1978. It's significantly harder to find sources from that era than it is to search for a book from the last twenty years. If anything, I think we should be encouraging more unearthing of print sources, which are otherwise dead to the Internet (and so on to popular history). I'd see a reader being interested in this individual book, for example, separate from their interest in the rest of Avrich's work. czar 21:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The Lego Ninjago Movie

    Hello czar! Please do the histmerge of Draft:The Lego Ninjago Movie → The Lego Ninjago Movie — Then I'll be doing a major expansion to mainspace article. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 06:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I histmerged the even earlier draft at Ninjago (film) and moved your draftspace draft to its location, in case you wanted those edits preserved. (The draftspace draft had conflicting edit histories.) czar 06:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, man. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 07:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The collapsible lists IP user

    This user is still making controversial edits, such as removing reliably sourced release dates and replacing them with other, unsourced ones, and changing date formats from DMY to MDY. They don't seem to be understanding of the importance of citing sources or following consensus, which is troubling.--IDVtalk 18:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sergecross73: In case Czar isn't active right now.... Looks like this may be our repeat date vandal you've had to repeatedly block on other IPs, Serge. Same style, uses a leading 0 for single digit dates, or changing the day to "31". -- ferret (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for two weeks. Hopefully they'll let up, but Serge, if you have more experience with LTA cases, I'll let you take the lead if it gets to that czar 18:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll gladly help if need be, but my "experience" is really just me continually blocking IP/block evaders for months on end because I or my (talk page stalker)s notice them across our watchlists. Its really just persistence, not a particular skill set, that I have, haha. Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    You are just a control freak. You should do more important stuff like making new wiki pages. That person wont stop! Ever. It needs to be done this way and they are too many things that you or anyone else that thinks like you can correct. just look at the Wii games. Now stop harassing and blocking people. The change has already been okayed and just please get a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissWooof (talk • contribs) 21:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    It (2017 film)

    Hello! Another favor, please do a histmerge of Draft:It (2017 film) → It (2017 film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 17:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 17:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Guild of Copy Editors July 2016 News

    Guild of Copy Editors July 2016 News

    Hello everyone, and welcome to the July 2016 GOCE newsletter.

    June Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 12 through 18 June; the themes were video games and Asian geography. Of the 18 editors who signed up, 11 removed 47 articles from the backlog. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part.

    Coordinator elections: The second tranche of Guild coordinators for 2016, who will serve a six-month term until 23:59 UTC on 31 December, have been elected. Jonesey95 remains as your drama-free Lead Coordinator, and Corinne and Tdslk are your new assistant coordinators. For her long service to the Guild, Miniapolis has been enrolled in the GOCE Hall of Fame. Thanks to everyone who voted in the election; our next scheduled one occurs in December 2016. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are eligible; self-nominations are welcome and encouraged.

    July Drive: Our month-long July Copy Editing Backlog Elimination Drive is now underway. Our aim is to remove articles tagged for copy-edit in April, May and June 2015, and to complete all requests on the GOCE Requests page from June 2016. The drive ends at 23:59 on 31 July 2016 (UTC).

    Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdlsk.

    >>> Sign up for the July Drive! <<<

    MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Day 6

    Hi Czar! You seem like the person to ask, can you move Draft:Day 6 (film) to Day 6 (film) now that filming has started? Thanks. NathanielTheBold (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @NathanielTheBold, ✓ done czar 01:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sikarwar

    Hi, Czar, thank you for closing the AfD and deleting the talk page. Is the article in the process of being deleted too or did it not work? Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Boleyn, thanks for the note—must have had a script error. Fixed now czar 17:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion at Talk:Viva Piñata (video game)/GA1

    You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Viva Piñata (video game)/GA1. Jaguar, the co-nom for the article, is on a Wikibreak (and requested to be blocked) so it's up to you to fix the issues. Thanks. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

    Ah, thanks for the note. I'll take a look czar 17:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your scan, sir: [1]. It's from page 90, the executive editor and associate editor for reviews in this issue are Ryan Scott and Nick Suttner respectively, the ISSN is 1058-918X, and feel free to ask for any other details about this specific ref that I may have forgotten. -Thibbs (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thibbs, it looks like it's attributed to "Anthony"—do you have a last name for him? czar 19:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, it's Anthony Gallegos. -Thibbs (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Anarchyte/Monaco

    Hi, could you please move User:Anarchyte/Monaco to Monaco: What's Yours Is Mine and do a histmerge? I will continue to work on it in mainspace. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Anarchyte, ✓ done czar 09:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Your GA nomination of Viva Piñata (video game)

    The article Viva Piñata (video game) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Viva Piñata (video game) 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 Anarchyte -- Anarchyte (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ready Player One (film) and other

    Hello Czar! Please, can you do a HISTMERGE of Draft:Ready Player One (film) → Ready Player One (film)..? And please move Draft:Frozen 2 → Frozen 2. — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 17:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Captain Assassin!, it turned out better to preserve the edit histories in now redirected pages but in any event, ✓ done czar 00:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Czar, this is one of yours ... how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 23:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dank, I think you might mean Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 22, 2016, and if so, looks good—thanks! czar 00:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, yes, great. - Dank (push to talk) 00:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: was it the first 2D side-scrolling game for the Nintendo 64, or the first side-scrolling (platform) game for the Nintendo 64? - Dank (push to talk) 15:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dank, according to IGN, yes, and IGN is the foremost video game review website. See the first sentence of
    Casamassina, Matt (October 1, 1997). "Mischief Makers". IGN. Archived from the original on May 5, 2014. Retrieved May 5, 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) czar 17:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Was there a 3D side-scrolling game that predated it? - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "3D" and "side-scrolling" are generally incompatible because the "side" in side-scrolling indicates a side view, or 2D. Yoshi's Story, similar to Mischief Makers, is a "2½D" side-scroller in that it uses images that appear to be 3D, though the game plays as a side-scroller. But that came later in 1997. I went through the list of Nintendo 64 games, which is what I assumed you wanted if IGN wasn't enough for the claim, and the only other platformers were 3D platformers, not 2D: Super Mario 64 (preceded MM in 1996), Doraemon: Nobita to Mittsu no Seireiseki (preceded in March 1997), Chameleon Twist (followed MM in Nov 1997), and maybe Bomberman 64 (more of an action-adventure than a platformer, still not 2D, Sept 1997). Of course, this is original research, but it still confirms IGN's claim. czar 17:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay thanks. I wasn't challenging the accuracy; I was trying to figure out if I could combine two sentences to avoid repetition. If I understand you right, I can, and I have. - Dank (push to talk) 18:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Your changes are good. My last edit made it tighter but also too short; we need another 100 to 150 characters, if you'd like to add another sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 18:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The sentence you added looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Precious again, your MM, "another cult classic"

    --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    That was a poor exercise of judgment on your part

    See Talk:Frozen 2. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I fulfilled a technical request. If you have an issue with it meeting WP:NFF, take it up with the editors and handle it accordingly. It's not on me (or my "judgment") to arbitrate the content dispute over what counts as production (which I'd consider an arcane conversation to begin with—there are obviously enough sources on this topic to satisfy the general notability guideline). czar 18:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Laziness is no excuse for incompetence. If you aren't able or willing to put the effort (it only takes about 10 minutes of sustained concentration) into understanding how film production works in order to adequately comprehend the notability guideline for films, then don't get involved with moving film articles around. It's that kind of attitude that is driving competent editors away from the encyclopedia. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coolcaesar:, why don't you just AFD it instead of harassing people. clpo13(talk) 23:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    cc, you obviously care about the encyclopedia, but I'm afraid you're going about it the wrong way by condescending to get your point across czar 05:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Czar I think we should come to an agreement

    Nu-disco is not disco house. For one thing, it has differing artists and requirements. I believe even if DH were being re-branded as nu-disco, disco house ought to still have its own page for the multiple decades it wasn't called nu-disco. However, that isn't the case when considering our conflicting edits. We are not there yet, and I would rather work together than get into an edit war. I know people like to think nothing existed before they were born, but disco and house are from the same root, and disco house has always been around, whereas nu-disco is just that—new. It's like calling one of the original metal genres (hair, glam, death, whatever) "nu-metal". I have seen this happen before. Metalheads are far more fanatical (read: crazybrains), but it doesn't change the fact that Faith No More isn't nu-metal. The thing about genres is everyone is so over-protective. Still, Dimitri From Paris isn't going to be nu-disco in this life, because he's not new or disco. He is disco house. His beats aren't new. The whole "nu" prefix is, imo, indicating something contemporary and fresh. With house this is tricky, as house and disco are so intricately linked and their timelines basically follow one another. It's difficult to sub-classify disco into house because house is a subset of disco. So to put disco house in an even more obscure (yes, OBSCURE) subset is kind of not doing any genre justice. Anyway, disco house, house, and disco were and are above "nu-disco", just like they ought to be. Electro house, glitch house, tech house, etc do not belong alongside disco or disco house. Disco house should have its own page. Although google search counts for almost nothing, there's few cites that nu-disco is disco house, or that disco house is a subset of nu-disco, because, as I said, we aren't there yet: https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=nu-disco%2C%20%22disco%20house%22&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B7 I would really like to work together on this, though, because I respect your knowledge of electronic music. What say you? Ongepotchket (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    It helps to link to the page/edit in question—otherwise I'm lost. I think you're talking about the page history of disco house, yes? but I've barely had any interaction with the article... In any event, the good news is that this is really easy to resolve—better than reasoning through what does/doesn't compose a genre, you should cite the reliable, secondary sources that show "disco house" as being closer to "house music" than to "nu-house" (which redirects to nu-disco). I don't have a horse in this race, though, apart from the consensus that disco house should not have its own page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disco house (2nd nomination). Please don't recreate the article unless you have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Otherwise it'd be an article full of primary source and untrusted material. Feel free to write a section on the genre within one of the parent articles. czar 00:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree the old disco house page was inadequate due to lacking sources. But to recreate it with reliable non-primary sources wouldn't be impossible, and it is not as if the nu-disco page doesn't suffer from the same failings. It seems adding information with adequate citations would have been better than deleting it. Unfortunately, nomination for deletion came to a consensus to redirect it to house music, so that is what I've done. Thanks for the prompt reply. Ongepotchket (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Perfect Dark Archives

    Hi Czar, I think you unintentionally messed up the Perfect Dark archive pages; now we have Talk:Perfect Dark/Archive1 and Talk:Perfect Dark/Archive 1, and only the first one appears in the archives box of Talk:Perfect Dark. I think the best way to fix this issue is to move the "Talk:Perfect Dark/Archive 1" page to "Talk:Perfect Dark/Archive2" and then update the archives box. Can you please do that? Thanks in advance. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Niwi3, thanks for the heads up—fixed czar 17:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for supporting our editathons
    Thank you for contributing to our June 2016 editathons
    There were over 350 articles on Women in Entertainment,
    55 on Jewish Women's History and 50 on Women in LGBTQ

    Our next event: Women in Halls of Fame

    --Ipigott (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    (To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

    Blocked IP user's move requests

    Hi Czar,

    Perhaps you've already noticed the many move requests. The IP addresses have been blocked, and since most of these have no chance of being moved (D3 Publisher → D3Publisher, Video game genre → Game genre, Prinny 2: Dawn of Operation Panties, Dood! → Prinny2), I was wondering if there is some sort of precedent for this situation; do we have to debate every single issue, or is there a way to deal with this en masse? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Why "no chance"? Prinny 2 (per WP:SUBTITLE) and D3Publisher (per their own English-language website) would actually be moves I'd support. I've supported other RMs started by the IP. I don't think they're systematically frivolous or disruptive (except by their quantity, maybe). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Concerning D3, that sounds like WP:MOSTM to me, and IGN, Gematsu and Siliconera write D3 Publisher. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, I won't disagree on this one. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SUBTITLE

    But forget what I asked before, since Salvidrim brought it up, is there a way to establish a project-wide consensus on WP:SUBTITLE and how that relates to WP:VG/MOS? Because we keep running into the same issues time and time again. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The last two broad discussions I recall on this topic were for Dragon Quest (here) and King's Quest (here), and both of them resulted in consensus to apply WP:SUBTITLE and use subtitle-less article titles whenever it doesn't hamper disambiguation. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What I would like to see is a project-wide discussion about WP:SUBTITLE, for several reasons. 1) it still is part of WP:BOOKS, but video game articles are just supposed to follow suit? 2) WP:CONSISTENCY says we should try to be consistent in articles titles. King's Quest lost its subtitles, Dragon Quest did not. 3) Our content is based upon what WP:VG/RSes say, and also the titles, (like in the case of D3Publisher/D3 Publisher). But how many reliable sources use MGS4 instead of Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots? I don't mean to get into a discussion with you two, I want to try and establish a consensus for once. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I misread the DQ discussion. I suspect most sources call it Metal Gear Solid 4 and not Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots. I also think that applying WP:SUBTITLE, a book-related guideline, to WP:VG "as is" is not a good idea and that we should discuss and codify our own way of dealing with subtitles into NCVG. I wish I had more time to invest into formulating a well-thought-out RfC. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've lost track of these discussions myself but two quick points on the whole books/subtitles thing. (1) The subtitles guideline is really just an application of the concision section of the Wikipedia:Article titles (policy). In fact, it uses an album's subtitle as the example. (2) "WP:SUBTITLES" is only housed in the books naming conventions because there's no other place for it to go. I'm unclear the point of a WPVG RfC: To decide against using the spirit of that guideline on grounds of jurisdiction? To make a statement somewhere that adds specific language to how video game subtitles should be handled differently those from the rest of the encyclopedia?
    But more to the point, I think it's easy to get hung up on what constitutes a subtitle instead of how the title is used. Here's an example that gives me pause: Uncharted 2: Among Thieves and Uncharted 2 are both common names and I think one can even make the argument that the "subtitle" there is—more common than not—used as part of its title (I haven't checked the sources in depth, though). Past the common name, we should look to the naming criteria: which of the two is more recognizable (the name most people will call it), natural (reflecting what it's usually called), precise (unambiguously identified), concise (not longer than necessary to identify), and consistent (with patterns of other similar article titles). The shorter version, indeed, for all but maybe the last one (consistency), but that is more of a reason to make the rest of the titles consistent with the naming criteria than to defy the rest of the naming criteria for consistency.
    As it were, I happened to see the IP's proposed moves last night and thought they were fairly innocuous at first brush, but we can close most of them now that the IP is blocked. In the case of "Prinny 2" for example, I can't see the case in which the long subtitle is deemed to better meet the aforementioned naming criteria than the simple "Prinny 2". So would I need to write out the points of the naming criteria each time, like I did above? Or does it suffice to quote from the subtitles guideline, even if it is, as you say, technically within the books naming conventions? czar 17:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it might be worth clarifying "Subtitles and pre-titles are allowed if deemed appropriate but are not necessary and pre-titles should be replaced once an official title has been announced." (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games)#Games#2) along these lines, even if it's just a reference to the precedence of the subtitles section with respect to the concision part of the titling policy. czar 19:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my whole point, we can't be both consistent and concise. The King's Quest series do not have subtitles, the Dragon Quest series do. We don't have to follow WP:MOSTM, but we should try to use the WP:COMMONNAME. So why shouldn't we call The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time just Ocarina of Time? We keep running into this issue, and I would like to try and find a well-established consensus for once. Should I try to go by RfC? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Eventually, yes, but let's workshop a little first. What are some other inconsistent examples? MGS4? Chime in, talk page stalkers czar 07:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Watching. :^) --Izno (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Here are a couple I could come up with:

    Also, what about video games that are based upon another franchise, in which the subtitle is the actual core name of the title? If we need to be concise and use the common name, I'm sure that websites and magazines just use the subtitle.

    soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Nice list. Do you have any ideas for what you would propose as a solution? I don't see a path to a blanket rule that would apply to all of the above. I could see some going either way. We could talk through a few as examples if it would be helpful. czar 11:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Some comments:
    1. In the general case across Wikipedia, we prefer natural disambiguation (by using a subtitle) vice using a parenthetic disambiguation. Alpha Centauri, Minotaur, Halo: Combat Evolved are such cases.
    2. With AC4, in video games, it's quite normal for followon games/expansions to be released, or notable DLC to be released, which take on the AC4 moniker, so pre-disambiguation makes sense here. We're avoiding a future pagemove by simply leaving the article at the full name.
    3. Something like Blood Stone, it occurs to me, might be ambiguous with many of these terms, which have a longer-lived notability. This is another reason we should have subtitles.
    4. Including series names helps with identification. For users familiar only with the broad series, adding a Halo to Combat Evolved helps to land the user in the place he's expecting to be reviewing.
    Something else is poking around my head, but that's a start. --Izno (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Word vomit

    how often is the subtitle actually used/invoked

    almost never Kameo Hatoful Boyfriend Eternal Darkness (more than almost never but still closer to this category)

    often, but not as much as the main title E.V.O.: Search for Eden(?)

    often, as much as the main title AC4: Black Flag (this is actually a great example—it's not like the other series games are just "Rogue" or "Syndicate" as they need the AC prefix, but AC4 is more often known as AC BF than AC4) Prince of Persia 2: The Shadow and the Flame(??) Ocarina of Time Blood Stone (rarely used without main title)

    often, more so than the main title (these are rare cases, more the exception than the rule) Yoshi's Island Skyrim?

    used as natural disambig Halo: Combat Evolved Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

    Help me place Dragon Quest entries Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War Halo 5: Guardians Minotaur: The Labyrinths of Crete (I agree that Metal Gear: Ghost Babel should be MGS (GBC) based on its usage in Eng-lang sources)

    I started to type out my thoughts for myself, but I'm just going to dump them here raw/rough in case they might be useful: The more I think about the "consistency" issue, the more I can only see it resolved series by series. I don't know enough about the DQ series... while I'd doubt it offhand, I don't know whether each title in the series puts as much weight on their Roman numerals as on their subtitles. I'd recommend a series-level discussion for that. The same for Tomb Raider—I know that those subtitles are not invoked nearly as often as their ordinal numbers. Also sometimes the name just is where it happens to be (e.g., Sega Genesis). I could see the Morrowind discussion falling either way, though my hunch is that the subtitle-only solution is a better fit based on how I've seen it used in sources. The main theme is to drop the subtitle (concision) unless the sources somehow mention it often enough to give it as much weight as the main title (recognizability: such that it would be weird to drop it—case in point, AC4 Black Flag). And then there are exceptions based on common name (Yoshi's Island, Enter the Dominatrix, most DLCs with their own articles, possibly Morrowind series). And when the subtitle is used as natural disambiguation (Minotaur, Monaco), it's usually more of a case-by-case basis on what would be least confusing for readers. Without sources that say otherwise, I wouldn't object to keeping the subtitles in those cases. Hopefully some part of that compartmentalization can be helpful czar 12:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi @Izno:, thanks for joining the discussion. I don't fully understand what you said about AC4; could you elaborate?
    I was trying to pointing out that the guidelines WP:CONSISTENCY, WP:SUBTITLE, WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME can be contradictory.
    • WP:CONSISTENCY: "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles."
    The guideline says we should try to be consistent in the titles of articles. We're talking about the titles of video games, and they're clearly not consistent. Some articles have a subtitle, some do not.
    • WP:SUBTITLE: "Usually, a Wikipedia article on a book (or other medium, such as a movie, TV special or video game) does not include its subtitle in the Wikipedia page name, per WP:CONCISE. The only exception to that is short article titles, for disambiguation purposes."
    Okay, so what is a "short" article title? Is Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem, with two words more than Eternal Darkness, too long for a title? The guideline is based upon WP:CONCISE.
    • WP:CONCISE: "The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area."
    This is very ambiguously phrased; "to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area"? So we should keep titles as short as possible, so that people familiar with video games can easily identify what's it about? Isn't Wikipedia written for a large audience? And how would shortening the title actually help someone not familiar with video games?
    • WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources"
    If we should use the common name, why not use GTA V as the title? Or Skyrim, instead of The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Fire Emblem: New Mystery of the Emblem: Heroes of Light and Shadow got me thinking: what do we mean when we're talking about a subtitle? Subtitle (titling) says "In books and other works, a subtitle is an explanatory or alternate title". Of course, we can't use Wikipedia for Wikipedia, dictionary.cambridge.org: "a word, phrase, or sentence that is used as the second part of a book title and is printed under the main title at the front of the book"; Merriam-Webster: "a title that comes after the main title of a book and that often gives more information about the contents of the book". Dictionary.com: "a secondary or subordinate title of a literary work, usually of explanatory character". First, these definitions all talk about books. Second, usually subtitles provide a bit more about the content of the book. I guess the subtitles of books traditionally provided a bit information on its contents. But aren't video game titles just stylized so that they sound intriguing, or "cool"? I mean, that there is a sanity meter in Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem can't be understood from the title. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 22:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That FE is a great example—it's not known as just "New Mystery of the Emblem" or "Heroes of Light and Shadow" as it's always used with "Fire Emblem" and the vast majority of the sources don't even use Heroes of Light and Shadow. "Fire Emblem: New Mystery of the Emblem" would appear to be sufficient as far as the AT criteria goes. The same way, "Sanity's Requiem" is not prominently used in the sources because "Eternal Darkness" sufficiently references the game without the need for more info. At first brush, most of the Dragon Quest titles work the same way. I haven't checked whether the IP is correct that some titles have multiple subtitles, but from the ones I checked, DQ + the Roman numeral appears to be sufficient for identifying the article and in line with how the sources discuss the title. [Edit: A caveat to this would be if it is primarily known in Europe by the subtitle and not by the Roman numeral, which would be a case for keeping both.] To add another example, the "Redemption" in Vampire: The Masquerade – Redemption functions more as part of the title than as a subtitle. Based on the sourcing, that would be an example in which it's known by its full name. czar 23:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Another example: Civilization (series) vs. Sid Meier's Civilization (MobyGames, Time, IGN). Why would a dash mean it is part of the title, but a colon means a subtitle? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 23:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Sid Meier's" could make sense as a disambiguator, depending on the sources, but a simple romp through the video game reliable sources custom Google search has "Civilization 6/VI" as more popular than the full title. That's more in line with Wikipedia using the common name rather than the official name. If somehow "Civilization 6" was in conflict with some other civilization on WP, it would be a discussion of whether to parenthetical or naturally disambiguate. Re: the dash in cases like Civilization: Beyond Earth - Rising Tide, I'm rarely seeing "Rising Tide" used without C:BE or just BE either near or next to it, versus other expansions that are often cited without the need for a prefix. I imagine that has mostly to do with how well the subtitle can stand on its own. ("Redemption" in the Vampire: The Masquerade example is technically a subtitle—I meant that one part of its title can't stand without the other.) czar 23:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my point, if RS'es drop Sid Meier's, and we do too, why not drop The Elder Scrolls V from Skyrim? Or Grand Theft Auto from Chinatown Wars? Here are some more:

    soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 23:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Offhand (more thought would go into the actual discussion), I do think we should drop The Elder Scrolls V from Skyrim. But I noted in my "word vomit" above that I think those sorts of cases are rare. Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars isn't known by just "Chinatown Wars", so I would need to be convinced. Similarly, Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance is not known in any source as just "Metal Gear Rising". It goes back to your example of why Grand Theft Auto V isn't just GTA V and I'd say the answer is that it prioritizes concision over recognizability. DmC: Devil May Cry would be unrecognizable as just "DmC" as would "GTA V" (I'm sure we have a policy on abbreviations somewhere too). Sources never appear to use "Mirror of Fate" without Castlevania: LoS attached. I'd be inclined to move for "Metroid Prime 2" and even "Halo 5" unless there is a remarkable exception on the basis of it being known by its subtitle as much as by its primary title. I could go on with the rest if you'd like, but I think they're individual cases. Is Barkley Shut Up and Jam! known as just "Barkley" in the sources? If not, it wouldn't make a good article title. What do you think? czar 01:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe something like WP:TONE? IGN, MobyGames and GameRankings write Barkley: Shut Up And Jam!, with a colon.
    I still don't see the connection between a book subtitle, and a video game subtitle. When is a subtitle a subtitle? Because two of the examples at WP:SUBTITLE aren't clear either. A History of Western Philosophy vs. A History of Western Philosophy and Its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day cuts off from "and", while On the Origin of Species vs. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life) isn't cut off from On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, but on On the Origin of Species. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you'll find a hard cut-off for when a subtitle is a subtitle. The intent is to use a form of the title that balances the naming criteria (specifically concision and recognizability) and sources tend to do that weeding for us. (Also re: Barkley, I'd be curious what the print magazines used but at least I don't see the game listed as just "Barkley" anywhere.) Back to the point, I don't think anyone was ever advocating the subtitle guideline as a reason to lop off everything after every colon—it's really meant, again, as a shortcut for WP:CONCISE and the related parts of the naming criteria. Does that make sense and do you agree? If not, what can we do to clarify? In any event, I think it would be smart to add some of the better examples above to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games) as reference points (e.g., when parts of the title are decorative or necessary) czar 08:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, it doesn't make sense to me, because WP:CONCISE says "The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area". So we should be concise in the titles of video game articles, for people familiar with video games. But isn't Wikipedia written for a large audience? Besides, we might be familiar with video games, but I can't automatically tell if it is an article about a video game by its title alone. Still, WP:CONCISE is what WP:SUBTITLE is based upon, but as we've established, there is no clear way of identifying if it is a subtitle. Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem is four words long, why would Sanity's Requiem be a subtitle? And if would to remove Black Flag from Assassin's Creed IV, how would that help "identifying" the subject? Then there's WP:COMMONNAME again, but if we would follow that guideline, there's an issue with WP:CONSISTENCY.
    A paragraph (or section even!) on when or when not to use a subtitle sounds amazing right about now. Still, what it say, I don't really know. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be reading too much into that "familiar with the subject area" bit—the examples are Rhode Island and a long Fiona Apple title and they both don't require any extensive knowledge. I'd read "familiar" as "passing familiarity" or probably not think about it at all? Perhaps you'll want to take your subtitles questions to the policy's talk page. I said this already but I don't think the point is to drop "WP:SUBTITLE" on a move discussion because the title has a colon—it's supposed to be a shortcut for saying that the full title has extraneous text for purposes of identifying its article (not particularly recognizable or concise). I can't tell if you're expecting a guideline with a hard edge/recommendation for a case like AC4 Black Flag but if you are, I don't think it's happening/possible/necessary. As it stands, I'd read the current naming criteria as preferring the shorter title unless there is a reason for adding "Black Flag"—and that's always going to be a case by case basis czar 09:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Trying to understand your interpretation of WP:CIVILITY

    I'm trying to understand, in good faith, your interpretation of WP:CIVILITY.

    There were three major aspects to my response at Talk:Frozen 2. First, I merely pointed out that the other editor was essentially saying that it's okay to publish rumors from unreliable sources, and therefore the editor was advocating the publication of information in violation of Wikipedia's core content policies. Second, I pointed out that editors who do not conform to those policies tend to be banned. Third, I pointed out that the other editor again appears to not understand how film production works.

    If you are saying that my response was incivil because of the second and third aspects above, I have just refreshed my memory on WP:CIVILITY for the first time in seven months and I concede the point. I apologize for the second and third aspects, because after thinking them through, I see now that the second aspect was too intimidating and the third aspect was too personal. I will try harder to avoid such inappropriate remarks in commenting on others' edits in the future.

    But if you are saying that my response was incivil because of the first aspect, then at some point we need to have this conversation on the talk page for WP:CIVILITY (and a lot of other places). Because if you're taking that position, then I am genuinely puzzled as to how the core content policies can or should be enforced against any editor, since by your reasoning it would be not civil to merely point out how their edits violate such policies. That is, are you implicitly taking the position that editors should have carte blanche as to article content as long as they are nice to each other? --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps that's a topical breakdown of your actions, but "tone" pervades the whole thing. Your comments were prima facie hostile, bossy, and rude, and based on the multiple complaints on your talk page, this is a repeat occurrence. I don't see how any of that even needs explanation. Every day thousands of editors manage to discuss WP content without making character judgments or setting up straw men (of course I am not advocating carte blanche for article content... where would you even get that impression?) I suggest taking some time to cool off. czar 05:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I am really confused, because that was my first impression of your response. For now, I'll accept your recommendation to cool off, but when I have the time (in a few weeks or so), I think we do need to discuss the larger issue further at the talk page for WP:CIVILITY as to whether there is a consensus as to whether the civility guideline equates to carte blanche insofar as it would not be civil to point out that another editor's edits are a potential violation of the core content policies. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone sees it that way so I wouldn't expect a lively conversation. You're welcome to express that something is wrong but you're not welcome to degrade other peaceable editors in getting that point across. That is basic justice. czar 02:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Coolcaesar (talk · contribs), I'm happy to see that you've responded to Czar in a (relatively) cool manner. I respect the work you do but your talk page is littered with people asking you to improve your tone. I think I said something similar at some point. You've never seemed to really respond to these complaints. I fully endorse Czar's efforts. II | (t - c) 04:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This Month in GLAM: June 2016



    Headlines
    Read this edition in full • Single-page

    To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

    User:162.89.0.47

    FYI this IP editor's account is MissWooof (talk · contribs). I just received a talk message from them [2], and they are now continuing to make infobox changes. They also left you a message on their talk page: User talk:MissWooof --The1337gamer (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    (talk page stalker) On User talk:MissWooof, MissWooof posted a personal attacks towards you. See this permalink. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Video game images and OTRS

    Good day to you!

    If you ever have any tickets at OTRS waiting for processing regarding video games, just ping me and I'll get them fast-tracked. :) (t) Josve05a (c) 05:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Josve05a, thanks! I actually have a few open tickets right now: Flinthook, Manifold Garden, and Tacoma. Their OTRS tickets are linked in each. Let me know if there's anything I can do to make their processing easier. I appreciate your help czar 21:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing you could do, is that if they agree to both cc-by-sa and GFDL, to use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|gfdl|author=NAME}} so all licenses are licensed. (t) Josve05a (c) 21:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Flinthook  Done. Will look at the others tomorrow. (t) Josve05a (c) 22:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Tacoma also  Done. Manifold Garden however had a way too big zipped file for my low-memory/low-internet connection to download at this time. (t) Josve05a (c) 15:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ali Kazmi

    Hello! Please take a look at Draft:Ali Kazmi and move it to mainspace. It looks pretty well for now instead of one or two sources, which will be replaced eventually. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 13:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 16:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your contribution to the TED speakers challenge!

    Any suggestions for improvement are welcome on the talkpage here: m:Talk:TED conferences/TED speakers challenge/Lessons learned. Please send me by anonymous email or facebook message your address so TED can send you your 6th runner-up prize. Jane (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Untitled Colin Warner project

    Hello czar! Can you please do a HISTMERGE of Draft:Untitled Colin Warner biopic → Untitled Colin Warner project ? Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 08:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Captain Assassin!, ✓ done—needs some merging between the two versions though czar 08:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The Age of Shadows (film)

    Hello again. Please move Draft:The Age of Shadows (film) → The Age of Shadows (film) — The film was not reported during filming, but it's trailer has been released, means filming's done. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 05:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 06:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Encyclopedia article request

    Hello czar, here I concluded that you might be able to supply individual articles from the Encyclopedia of the Arctic, edited by Mark Nuttall. May I ask you for the article Melville Bay, Vol. II, pp. 1274 - 1276. Please send by E-Mail attachment to Ratzer.Wikipedia<at>gmail.com. Thank you, and greeetings from the de-WP,--Ratzer (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ratzer, an update—I requested this encyclopedia from elsewhere in the state, but they didn't let me request the volume so I'll either (1) get all three volumes and be fine, or (2) have the request canceled. Just a heads up. czar 21:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Dionne Warwick – A House Is Not a Home (song).jpg

    Can you undo the closure at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 June 5? You commented and then closed the discussion. If not, can you say no prejudice to replacing it boldly with another image? --George Ho (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I could undo it but if it's to say that there is no prejudice in changing the image, that's implied and why I left the comment (in lieu of putting it in the closure statement) czar 21:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Czar&oldid=731358895"