User talk:IceWelder

Eurovision Song Contest 2020

Hi IceWelder, even though Netflix is a video on demand service it is still a broadcaster for the United States and should be listed with the other broadcasters. In the United States Netflix is actually a bigger broadcaster than ESC's previous home on Logo TV. Just because one broadcaster is linear and the other is streaming/on demand shouldn't make a difference as other non-participating countries have delayed broadcasts of Eurovision in the past. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 22:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Alucard 16, unlike Logo TV, Netflix will not broadcast the show live under the signed agreement, so there is not going to be any commentary unless they add it in post. This latter part is highly unlikely, though, and unless we certainly know that there will be such commentary (we don't), there should be no speculative "TBA". Same with the 2019 contest; if there is no commentary, why list it under commentators in the first place? We do not have a "No commentary" for the YouTube live show either. IceWelder [✉] 22:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Other non-participating countries with a delayed broadcast and no commentators are listed in that section. Omni Television for Canada in 2019 is the most recent example of this. It seems in recent years that section is being used to list any country airing the contest even if they don't have commentators. However you can't just say we can't list a country there if there was no commentator since Israel (a participating country) had no commentators under the IBA but does now under IPBC. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 22:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

If a broadcaster does not have a commentator, it should not be listed in the commentators section as it would be completely redundant. It should not matter whether the country participated or not. For Netflix specifically, I'd also like to point that at least the 2019 contest is not exclusive to the US (I was watching it just recently). It is techinically also not a broadcaster; it has no scheduled broadcasts at all and is on-demans only, just like the Eurovision YouTube channel. Other on-demand services aren't listed anywhere either. IceWelder [✉] 22:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe as a solution the section could be re-titled to "Broadcasters, commentators and spokespersons" to remove any concerns. I'm unaware of any other country being able to watch ESC 2019 via Netflix as all the sources just specify the United States including the one from the official Eurovision website. I get what your saying but having one section with one sentence about the Netflix release in the United States gives it undue weight. Excluding it completely would also be wrong. Simply including the United States with Netflix as the broadcaster with a note of some-kind would be a better solution which doesn't give undue weight to a single non-participating country. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 23:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Your solution sounds feasible for broadcasters that have not had any commentary. However, I still firmly believe that Netflix (or any other VOD service that already has it, reallt) is different in that it has no live commentary because it is not live and will probably never be. One could argue that the VOD release section could be included in the broadcasters' section, but I'm not sure in how far this should differ from the much related "official DVD" release. Maybe this discussion needs a wider scope and consensus from more parties in the WikiProject. IceWelder [✉] 10:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Your probably right about the need for a wider discussion but the United States/Netflix situation is unique one. Canada and United States are still geo-blocked from the YouTube live streams so if someone doesn't pick up local rights to Eurovision those countries can't watch the contest. Even this year's allocation draw live stream was geo-blocked. If it wasn't for Netflix picking up the on-demand streaming rights for the United States for both 2019 and 2020 then there would be no way US viewers could watch at all. This is why Netflix should be listed as a broadcaster for the United States. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 20:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, why you fixed form of infobox in all contest pages? For example, in 1995 we have countries that return and withdrawn. But your correction is fair only for 2020 edition. So, because of you, we have wrong information about other contests. Again, 1995... Return (after at least 1 year of not-participating): Belgium, Denmark, Israel, Slovenia, Turkey. "Non-return": Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Switzerland. Hmmm, where is Luxembourg? They "non-return" too, where is Morocco, Monaco?! In all contests (exclude 2020) we need "withdrawn" countries because they participated last year, but decided to WITHDRAW from this year. Think about it! Georgii Kalnitzky_{❯❯❯ chat?} 15:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC+4)

How did any of the seven non-returning countries you list withdraw in 1995? They were relegated and never signed up to participate that year. Withdrawing requires something to actively withdraw from (you can look this up in any dictionary), and Eurovision participation is not perpetual. This has been discussed, and consensus was to change to "Non-returning". Also, if, by your definition, "non-returning" is not limited to just the previous year, then "returning" isn't either and would need to list all countries that participated, as they returned in 1995 after also participating 1994. IceWelder [✉] 11:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand I won't change this. That discussion is so silly. So, solution is given by yourself. Than you have to correct all contest pages. In 1995 and other "return" write all participated countries. And in your "non-return" all non-participated countries. And don't forget add 2005 Lebanon, Tunisia 1977 as withdrawn entries! Bye. Georgii Kalnitzky_{❯❯❯ chat?} 16:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC+4)

Not sure whether you actually checked the discussion, since I didn't present the solution, just implemented it. Also not sure why we should add Lebanon for 2005 and Tunisia for 1977 since it longer says "withdrawn", just "non-returning", and neither of the two countries competed in the respectively previous contest. We should have added them if it still said withdrawn, as well as Montenegro 2011 and others, but the concept of "withdrawing" was always misrepresented on Eurovision articles. IceWelder [✉] 12:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, then "refused" more better than "non-returned". Georgii Kalnitzky_{❯❯❯ chat?} 16:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC+4)

"Non-returning" is a catch-all phrase for the countries that withdrew (ex. Montenegro 2011, Ukraine 2019), that were relegated (ex. Lithuania 1995), that chose not to participate voluntarily (ex. Turkey 2013), that did not qualify from a pre-round (ex. German 1996), or that were disqualified (ex. Romania 2016). "Refused" or "withdrew" would only cover one of these, even if "withdrawn" was incorrectly used for all of them in the past. IceWelder [✉] 12:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The Witness

Hi! I see you mention my old account name (AdrianGamer) in your user page, but I don't recall working on The Witness. I am not even a minor contributor and I never have the article watchlisted. I don't think I really deserve that credit. I am sure there are other co-contributors, but I am definitely not one of them. Maybe you should give that credit to someone else instead😂? OceanHok (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

OceanHok, you're right, although I could swear to have seen your name somewhere when listing this credit. I changed it to other people significantly contributing to the article around the time of the article's GA-becoming. To be fair, though, you have been such a valuable VG member for so long I wouldn't have had any problem giving you some free exposure. Cheers. IceWelder [✉] 18:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Template

What do you mean "not in the template"? How can we add Forbes to the template? --RenewableMan^MESSAGE 10:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

YenilenebilirAdam, you only added Forbes to the documentation of the template, meaning that it will appear on the page of the template but is not be a functional parameter within the template. Adding a new reviewer requires consensus on the template's talk page. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 11:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --RenewableMan^MESSAGE 11:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Entertainment Software Publishing

Hi there, can you inspect the Entertainment Software Publishing article please? It's grammatically informal and only has one citation, thank you. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eurovision Song Contest 2020, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big Five (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 11:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Gambitious Digital Entertainment.svg

Thank you for uploading File:Gambitious Digital Entertainment.svg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Just saying Hello!

Hey there Lordtobi, or as I should call you now: IceWelder!

I noticed you've changed your username, and I like it!

I'm trying hard to get back into video games again, so you might see me frequent those pages if I can.

This is Harry, signing off! Luigitehplumber (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Eurovision 2021

Removing an entire page for Eurovision 2021 is ridiculous when you know full well the contest is back next year as normal. The page is valid as it clearly states that the location of the event is still being considered. It's the same scenario as what happens after a country wins and initial talks haven't yet started. There's no need for the page to be blanked. DaleYorks (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The page is a clear-cut case for WP:TOOSOON and always has been since it was created. It should not have been created before the 2020 edition took place. Now that the 2020 one has has been cancelled, however, the 2021 edition will not be a contest "as usual": It is not known whether new entries will be selected or whether the 2020 ones can take part; it is not known which country will host it (they are in discussion with Rotterdam, but that does not mean anything at this point) since there will have been no 2020 winning country; etc. IceWelder [✉] 14:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Hi, not sure if it was a mistake of yours (or me missing something), but I re-added Spain and the Netherlands.[1] --Semsurî (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Friendly reminder

Hi IceWelder, I saw the recent activity over at {{Infobox song contest}} and I left a friendly message over at Aris Odi's talk page advising the editor of the recent consensus that lead to the change, how to open a new discussion if they feel the change is incorrect and advising them of editing policies such as the three-revert rule. If the issue continues to escalate and all other methods fail please seek out full protection for the infobox. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 10:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Report moved to ANI

Hi IceWelder,

to allow discussion and further comments, and to prevent automatic removal at WP:AIV, I have moved the report to WP:ANI#JanaMelitzana reported by IceWelder.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Period in or out of quotation mark

Regarding this, are you sure that is correct? Per MOS:LQUOTE, it says, "Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material." The source in question says, "could spark fresh interest in an industry that has struggled to win over hardcore gamers." with a period in the original source. If this is not a situation in which the period would go inside the quotation mark, then I don't understand the difference between the two scenarios. Useight (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Useight, the statement that is important here is keep them inside the quotation marks if they apply only to the quoted material and outside if they apply to the whole sentence. Regard, in particular, the second example:

• Marlin needed, he said, "to find Nemo".
• Marlin said: "I need to find Nemo."

The original quote is "I need to find Nemo." In the first scenario, however, the terminal punctuation does not apply to the entire preceding sentence, just to a three-word part-sentence, wherefore the punctuation is found outside the quote marks. On Half-Life: Alyx, the concept is the same:

• A wrote that B could "C".

C is not a full sentence, therefore its punctuation should not terminate the preceding sentence. Our article on logical quotations also contains some more examples. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 22:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so if the Half-Life Alyx article had quoted the entire sentence, then the period would go inside the quotation mark, right? Useight (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. It should then look like this:

Kevin Webb of Business Insider wrote: "Though the virtual reality business isn't exactly new, Half-Life: Alyx could spark fresh interest in an industry that has struggled to win over hardcore gamers."

As the latter part of the quote could form a full sentence on its own, the first part might be optional. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 22:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

To ensure I'm fixing things instead of screwing things up, I think I've got it, but to be clear, a change like this is correct, right? Useight (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Useight, exactly. IceWelder [✉] 07:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

New on the Eurovision 2021 page

Hello, I'm new to the Eurovision 2021 page, Can I help you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rap57 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rap57, everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, on any page they wish, as long as their edits are within the scope of the project and follow Wikipedia's editing guidelines. Since you're new to the site, I suggest you check out the WP:Five pillars and our WP:Tutorial first, which will introduce to some important basics. If are already aware of a very specific change that needs to be made, you can always ask other editors (such as myself) for help/guidance. As such, if you have any questions, you are welcome to leave them here. When editing on talk pages, also keep in mind to sign your comments using ~~~~ added to the end of your message. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 13:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, IceWelder. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.MICKEYSTAMATIOU (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I have "not once contributed" to Bayonetta? and other issues

Hi,

I attempted to nominate the above named article for GA, but you rolled back the edit, justifying it with "new editor who has not once contributed to the article request peer review and GA at the same time". Firstly, this, this, this and this beg to differ. Secondly, nobody had responded to my PR request for days. Thirdly, I felt that the article met all the GA criteria. I'm genuinely curious to see what I did wrong. MiasmaEternal^TALK 23:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi MiasmaEternal, sorry for the confusion. What I meant to say is "not significantly contributed", rather than incorrectly attributing no contribution at all. You did perform minor edits to the article, but the reason I wanted to mention this is because most GA reviews are initiated by the primary editors of an article, so that they receive their due credit. Looking at the history of the article, however, I fail to identify one or multiple "main" editors, so this was an error on my part.

I became aware of the situation on Bayonetta's talk page after you asked for a GA review on Team Fortress 2's talk page as well, even though that article would instantly fail such a review. Another editor swiftly removed the GAN for this reason. I noticed that you placed both a peer review as well as a GA review request on the talk page for Bayonetta; these generally stand in conflict and shouldn't be placed side-by-side (but may have been exchanged instead). You noted that your peer review request went unanswered for multiple days, but be aware that (since the vast majority of Wikipedia editors are here voluntarily) such reviews can take a long time to be answered.

It was not clear to me whether you had yet become fully aware of Wikipedia's guidelines on the topic, also given that your account is relatively young (this is merely an observation, not inherently a problem). Hence, and given the similar revert on the talk page for Team Fortress 2, I also reverted the changes to Bayonetta's talk page.

Should you think that you have grasped our GA-relevant guidelines, and I therefore made a mistake in reverting your changes, you are free to re-instantiate a review tag, although only one (peer review or GAN) should be listed. One advice I would already give for either undertaking is reworking the reception section: The "Press reception" (generally called "Critical reception" in other articles, but this is minor) appears to mostly be a quote farm, and should instead focus on the specific elements of the game that reviewers in general liked/disliked, with quotes only serving in the role of an accent for particularly praised/panned elements.

Sorry, again, should my edits have caused an inconvenience. Regards and happy editing, IceWelder [✉] 08:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Jackbox games

Oops you're right. I'm thinking of the edit I did on the Jackbox Party Pack on the same idea (and thought this was that article and was using the RS I had used there). My bad :P --Masem (t) 15:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

On company types in Nordic company infoboxes

Here's a thing about company types in Nordic company infoboxes: Many infoboxes of major Nordic companies lists their type of incorporation in the "type" parts (such as "Publicly traded Aktiebolag" or "Julkinen osakeyhtiö", see Ericsson or Kone for examples) so maybe the types of incorporation should be removed as well from those infoboxes of major Nordic companies...? (Since you often removed the type of incorporation from Nordic game devs such as Embracer Group or Remedy Entertainment per the docs) Gibranalnn (talk) 08:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Gibranalnn, exactly, these should be removed and replaced with just "Public". "Type", here, refers to type of ownership rather than type of legal entity. This is noted in the template's docs. The template does not currently cover type of entity, such a change would need to gain consensus first in a discussion on the template's talk page. IceWelder [✉] 09:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Serious Sam Double D Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Serious Sam Double D Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Serious Sam Double D XXL Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Serious Sam Double D XXL Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Serious Sam The Random Encounter logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Serious Sam The Random Encounter logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

About the EA move

That was an accident. I was trying to make EA (game company) redirect to the main article but I did something else I didn't want to. TheDiaperPinez37 (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

TheDiaperPinez37, thanks for the heads-up. Indeed, you moved the entire article to "EA (game company)" rather than creating a redirect from it. Yet, now that the page has been moved back, there is a proper redirect in place, so it worked out in the end. Don't fret, this happens to the best of us. If you have any questions, related to this or not, feel free to ask here. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 22:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Serious Sam The Random Encounter.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Serious Sam The Random Encounter.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Ntx61 (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Response to your question about image scaling

I have read your question, which you have actually retracted. Anyway, I used cubic algorithm to resize the image. Oh, and if DatBot would resize this, I guess that would be at 277 by 359 pixels, instead of the more correct 277 by 360 pixels; the source code for the image reduction task that was done by Theo's Little Bot truncated fractions of pixels in vertical resolution (after truncating horizontal resolution per WP:IMAGERES), and DatBot's code was based on that. Dividing 277 pixels by the image's aspect ratio results in approx. 359.95 pixels, 0.95 of which is truncated by the bot when resizing. I hope that helps. Ntx61 (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Ntx61, thanks for the info. I retracted my message as I wasn't sure whether I came off as rude asking you to redo work you had already done just because I didn't like the result. I don't know (rather will see) whether that one missing pixel strip will be a problem. For now, I have restored the original (too large) image, hoping that DatBot's scaling method produces a slightly crisper picture than the cubic interpolation did. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 16:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I have attempted to resize the image again, using another application. The image quality has improved compared to my previous attempts, although not as crisp as the JPEG version. I am reserving this until DatBot uploads its own in about 7 hours; let me know if DatBot's resizing method helps (otherwise I might upload my own). Ntx61 (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:DMA Design logo 1994.svg

Thank you for uploading File:DMA Design logo 1994.svg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Serious Sam: Kamikaze Attack!

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Serious Sam: Kamikaze Attack! 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 Cognissonance -- Cognissonance (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Serious Sam: Kamikaze Attack!

The article Serious Sam: Kamikaze Attack! you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Serious Sam: Kamikaze Attack! 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 Cognissonance -- Cognissonance (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

amBX

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AmBX in which you might be interested in. Otr500 (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Infobox software website bug

Hello! I noticed there is a bug with the Wikidata parser code on Template:Infobox software for the website property (official website (P856)). I was going to notify Codename Lisa who originally implemented this in 2015, but she is blocked. Since this template is protected and you have worked on it, could you please take a look? Please look at Node.js for an example of the problem. I have also asked CyberSkull to look at this issue. --Alex Rosenberg (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)