User talk:czar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:Czar)
Jump to: navigation, search
Emoji u1f419.svgVitam impendere vero.pngEmoji u1f486.svg
Space flower.jpg

Uniana sources in Korean[edit]

Hi CZAR, Have you tried Google search for Uniana's name in Korean? I even found reliable images unexpectedly. Just copy paste 유니아나 not just Google but other useful search engines, too. Parrothead1983 (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Parrothead1983, did you find anything in specific, like articles about the company itself? czar 18:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps these look like plenty. One of them dates back to last June.
Parrothead1983 (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with these sources—do they have a reputation for editorial quality? The first appears to be some sort of listing and the translation isn't very helpful on the second, but in both cases it is hard for me to discern what kind of editorial standards they have in place. (I did a quick search for their outlets on kowp and didn't find anything helpful.) czar 16:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


This is going back a few months, but I noticed you removed two sources I added to NHL 95 stating "unclear citations". Just wanted to know what the problem was so that I can avoid this in the future.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

(diff) @Martin IIIa, the "unclear" citations were the ones with the {{citation needed}} tags. Some of the GamePro material could be restored if it can be reconstructed with supporting text (e.g., it's not useful to know how one small feature works if we don't have an idea of how the general gameplay or series works). I'd avoid the video game trivia stuff like the score bug. Otherwise, I was just going for general cleanup, so feel free to restore the stuff you can cite (I know you're pretty good at that) czar 04:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation! I'll leave restoring the gameplay info to someone else, as I haven't actually played NHL 95; even if I were to get all the right sources it would be hard to write about the gameplay without knowing the context for it all. But this is good stuff for me to keep in mind.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Ask a question[edit]

In the article Monument Valley (video game) i have a small question that i want to ask you,thanks. Are there more information about the "sacred geometry" which seems important to the game?thanks again.--Suebear Gaua (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon in Madison[edit]


Hey Czar—I saw that you were listed as a Wikipedian in Madison. You are invited to the upcoming edit-a-thon:


RSVP on the event page if you plan to attend or have any suggestions. And if you want to be automatically contacted for future Madison-area events, be sure to add your name to the invite list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I see that you have created a resource page at User:Czar/♀. I have another source of names for you: The story of Wisconsin women by Kohler, Ruth Miriam De Young .1948 Wisconsin Centennial Committee on Wisconsin Women. The Madison public library has three copies of it (one on their shelves) at 977.5 K82. Here is a linkCat link. If that link does not work, then just search for Ruth Kohler from the LinkCat home page. I am planning on attending on the fifth. Nyth63 00:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@Nyth83, nice find! I'll take a look. I just requested a copy and there should be others around at MPL too. Looking forward to meeting you! czar 00:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Here is another good list: The First 150. I see that you have a Ruth Kohler on your list. I assume that you are referring to Ruth Miriam DeYoung Kohler. I have already started a page for here at User:Nyth83/Ruth DeYoung Kohler. I plan on fleshing that out and publishing it during the editathon. I have also started a page for User:Nyth83/Julilly Waller Kohler that I would like to finish. I have previously published bios for Marie Christine Kohler, Marie Kohler and Julilly House Kohler. I have my own resource page at Talk:Kohler family of Wisconsin with at least nine women connected to the Kohler family that I believe are notable enough to deserve wikipedia bios. I am looking forward to meeting you also. Nyth63 00:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


Errr, I don't know who added a delete tag to this but I assure you it wasn't me who did so. Please restore my template and let me know who did. Nate (chatter) 03:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, just noticed it was the talkpage, which is fine. Nate (chatter) 03:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Saturday February 6 in NYC: Black Life Matters Editathon[edit]

Saturday February 6 in NYC: Black Life Matters Editathon
Statue-of-liberty tysto.jpg

You are invited to join us and the AfroCROWD initiative at New York Public Library's Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture for our upcoming editathon, a part of the Black WikiHistory Month campaign.

12:00pm - 5:00 pm at NYPL Schomburg Center, 515 Malcolm X Boulevard (Lenox Avenue), by W 135th St

The Wikipedia training and editathon will take place in the Aaron Douglas Reading Room of the Jean Blackwell Hutson Research and Reference Division, with a reception following in the Langston Hughes lobby on the first floor of the building at 5:00pm.

We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

(Bonus upcoming event: WikiWednesday Salon @ Babycastles - Wednesday, February 17)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

She Has a Name (film)[edit]

Will you please move Draft:She Has a Name (film)She Has a Name (film) ? — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 03:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ done czar 04:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Fifty Shades Darker (film)[edit]

Hello czar! I need you to move or HISTMERGE of Draft:Fifty Shades Darker (film)Fifty Shades Darker (film) — And please keep the draft's content/data, which is better than article's. Production hasn't begun yet but it's confirmed by several sources for February 9 start. Filming start date is just a week ahead, so everyone will attempt to create article, and I think it's better to move the draft now. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 15:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 19:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Please stop making histmerges between two pages that have parallel histories. When you do this it makes the histories a nonsensical mess. Either delete fully and move over the top or text-merge. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Jenks24, this article did not have parallel histories. CA's draft predated the article created in mainspace so it was a clean disjoint—the only edit that had to be deleted was the redirect. Parallel histories implies that two different versions of the article were developed in parallel (such that a merge would mean that multiple consecutive diffs would make no sense)—I do not histmerge in those cases. czar 04:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that is not correct. They did have parallel histories because the edits by Josephlalrinhlua786 to the page in mainspace were made before further edits by Captain Assassin! to the draft. The effect of merging these two completely distinct pages that have never had the same timeline means that you make diffs that never happened, e.g. in this case implying that Josephlalrinhlua786 completely rewrote a 10k article down to 6k – this is obviously not what happened. Histmerging is about fixing pages that were cut-and-paste moved and have the same origin, not pages about the same topic that were developed completely separately. One timeline or the other needs to be picked but not both. Please have a read over Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves#A troublesome case and Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves#Parallel versions. Some particularly relevant parts are If the two pages have separate origins and simultaneous separate parallel histories [...] they should not be history-merged, as that would shuffle the parallel editing histories together in one list and make a mess. and If someone then page-history merges pages A and B using the method described above, the result will sequence the versions of A and B strictly by time, with the result that various versions of A will be interleaved between versions in the page history of page B (and/or vice-versa). Inspecting this merged history without means of distinguishing between the two overlapping progressions (since nothing in this history indicates which version belongs to which sequence) invites severe confusion. An example of this is here (sorry, I had to go looking for one because I've fixed Fifty Shades Darker (film)) – that diff never happened and it is a misrepresentation of the history to make it appear that it did. I'm sorry to be a pain about this, but fiddling with pages histories is one the of the most damaging things an admin can do if done incorrectly. Jenks24 (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm very familiar with the guideline so there's no need to be condescending about it. The section immediately preceding "Parallel histories" (the one that is the subject of the shortcut) defines the situation as when a histmerge would make swiss cheese of the revisions (like the WikiProject Emo examples where five different pages would be merged in). The section explicitly says to only merge when the pages are disjoint (i.e., not overlapping), which is fine when the histories are discontinuous. I don't know what you mean by "that diff never happened" but the Fifty Shades histmerge happened exactly as I described above: the draft had edits from 2015-02 to 2016-01, and the new article sitting at the target had edits from 2016-02, and the only overlap in their histories—which is to say the only edit preventing the clean disjoint—was the redirect edit sitting at the target. I'll call these the Captain Assassin (CA) draft and the Joseph edits for clarity. When I deleted that sole redirect edit, the two histories had a clean disjoint. This would let editors draw from both texts in future revisions (I know you don't like this—I'll return to that). Then you deleted the Joseph edits because CA continued what was once the draft now that the two were merged. Ostensibly this is because you don't like having two diffs in the article that do not appear continuous with the rest, which is not to say that they were parallel histories, but it's as if someone started a new version of the article atop where the old one stood, which happens all the time. The part that you missed by deleting the new (Joseph) content from the article is that CA's post-histmerge expansion uses the text from the Joseph edits you deleted, so it actually creates an attribution problem (compare on "no solid plans to make a sequel"). One way of handling this, ostensibly, would be to move the Joseph edits to another page and selectively merging from that (marking attribution, etc.) but that bring me to my main point: Are you implying that CA's draft should have been moved over the article that assumed that the draft didn't exist? Let's say CA didn't catch the new article as fast and it developed a bit, would you say that it's best to selectively merge in from what was once the draft so as to keep the history "continuous"? The histmerge I performed is what I consider the equivalent of a rewrite, and I see it all the time through normal editing—a new editor completely wipes out a page and dumps a new draft as if the previous history does not exist. I think we might agree that the previous history can be useful in these cases, but it isn't necessarily relevant (especially if the dumped draft does not use any elements from its predecessor). Either way, such a dump works the same way as the texts merged at a disjoint—it has a single edit that jumps to a new version of the article, but it isn't a "parallel history" because it does not make swiss cheese of the edit history (and to be precise, I mean merged edits that successively jump between different states of the article instead of serving as a clean disjoint, which I am contending is perfectly fine, normal, and preferable to segregating the alternative page history somewhere else, especially when that history is then re-used in the combined article). czar 12:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Apologies for the tone in my previous comment here. It was rude and just made it harder for us to come to any sort of agreement. Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to make a full response to the actual meat of the issue, but I thought it was important I apologise for coming off as condescending as soon as possible. I will hopefully be able to make make a detailed response in the next day. Jenks24 (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Not sure if u remember but there was quite a while ago a discussuion on the talk page to Meridian 59 if a current open source group (called "The Open Meridian Project") should be mentioned in the article. I also requested some comments on the portals page which I am not able to find right now and I think to remember that you were one of the people who commented back then. As far I remember it was said, that as long as this group is not mentioned by a reliable source it should not be mentioned in the article of the game. Now there is one article on which is mentioning this group (as far I know the only article which mentions them by name) [1]. I know that according to this list Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources is currently considered as an unrealiable source and if I look at this disussion [2] I doubt that this will change for now. But I still would like to ask you for your opinion on this. Kind regards Seader (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Seader, I don't recall having discussed this before, but what you described sounds right—we only mention such tangential side projects when they are covered in some depth by a reliable, secondary source, which would affirm the concept's importance by virtue of its existence. In this case, would not count as a reliable source and I didn't see anything by the name of OMP in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. czar 01:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok thx for the quick answer. Kind regards Seader (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Ghost in the Shell (2017 film)[edit]

Hello czar! Thanks for previous help, and please do me another favor. Please move or HISTMERGE Draft:Ghost in the Shell (2017 film)Ghost in the Shell (2017 film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 03:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 04:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Publisher field for citeweb[edit]

Hey there! Why do you consider the publisher field for citewebs "redundant"? Was there some sort of consensus that it wasn't needed for thoroughness? I'm asking because if I can justify leaving it out in the future, I'll be more than happy. :)  · Salvidrim! ·  23:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

They've never been needed—I used to defend both fields for thoroughness, but the publishers change over time so it's sometimes not right or just downright unimportant when each publication has its own wikilink. The links should make the affiliated publisher, if important, sufficiently clear. Not sure if there has been a formal consensus somewhere—it's just a perennial suggestion at vg FACs, but the only obligation is that articles be consistent. czar 00:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah[edit]

I meant to comment previously, but I've been very busy with off-wiki work recently and it keeps going by the wayside. I really liked your thoughtful answers to the interview questions. In particular I was intrigued by your answer to Question #11 where you said "I'd love to work on an off-site reference supplement to the project where we could compile primary sources for stuff like obscure reviews and release dates—things outside Wikipedia's scope but still worthwhile for the medium's historic preservation." This is a very cool idea and if you ever get involved in something like this, please give me a ping. I'd be interested in the exact same thing. -Thibbs (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge Rinoa[edit]

Could you do the honors? You seem more familiar with what might be valuable to merge, I just want to do a GA nomination :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Since the character list is featured, it might be best from someone in WPSE to do the merge, though I can help with the summarizing, of course. I opened a thread at Talk:Characters_of_Final_Fantasy_VIII#Proposed_merge_with_Rinoa_Heartilly czar 20:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Pro gaming template[edit]

Can I get the Template:Pro gaming achievements undefeated, I was unaware that it was up,for AFD. I'll try to integrate it into some other articles so it isn't unused lie it was.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Prisencolin, here's what I recommend: I reopened the deletion request since it just closed—you should give your input for why it shouldn't be deleted. Apart from the template's underuse, there's also the argument that a regular wikitable performs the same function. Anyway, TfD is the place to work it out. czar 21:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


I have no idea what happened there, but it was definitely an accident. — Earwig talk 01:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Brianna Hildebrand[edit]

Hello czar! How about moving Draft:Brianna Hildebrand to the mainspace as filming releases on Feb 12 (this weekend)? Actress has gotten so much coverage on the internet in the past few months, so it would be no harm to move it now. Thoughts? --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 18:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, the coverage still looks weak to me but I don't know the source reliability well enough to find additional refs. Most of what I could find pertains more to Deadpool than to the actress in specific. I can move the article into mainspace but it is liable for an AfD challenge. Alternatively you can let it go through AfC review (it's already submitted) and see what one of the reviewers say. czar 02:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 02:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Moving a draft to the mainspace[edit]

Hey czar! Just wanted to see if you could move a draft for me in a few days. The draft, Draft:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 needs to move to the mainspace at Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 on February 11 (we have sources confirming this is the start of filming per WP:NFF). Just wanted to get ahead of the game and see if you would be able to do this whenever you are editing on February 11, instead of using the db-move template and waiting for an admin to get to it. Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93, of course—just give me a ping and I'll take a look. NFF asks that the source confirm that principal photo has indeed started, so you'll need a source/tweet/etc. to confirm on the 11th. This said, I don't have any question that the article isn't ready for mainspace, so I'm fine with moving it whenever the drafters are ready. czar 02:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Really appreciate it. I'll comment here again on the 10th as a friendly reminder. Just FWIW, the source for shooting staring on the 11th is straight from James Gunn's Facebook comments, and I'm hopeful that we'll get one again from him or someone for sure confirming. But myself and the drafters are ready to go come the 11th, with us working on making any changes throughout the day on whatever is released. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

RE: Lego Racers[edit]

Hey Czar, I noticed that you placed a "citation needed" tag next to the PC release date in the Lego Racers (video game) article. I'm just wondering a few things:

  • Are you asking that only the PC release date is cited, or all of the release dates?
  • Other good articles based on video games do not have their release dates cited, such as the The Last of Us and Q*bert. I seem to recall having a discussion with someone at WP:VG who told me that citing release dates was not completely necessary, although that was a while ago. Are they necessary?

Thanks, BlookerG talk 10:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @BlookerG, all of the release dates need a citation, though usually just one tag is enough to indicate that (without making a mess). Yes, all release dates are easily challenged and require a source (this goes for film and other media as well), though the ref need not be in the infobox itself. Like the lede paragraph, if the release date is covered in the Development section's prose, the lede/infobox doesn't need to repeat the ref. (See how the dates are sourced in The_Last_of_Us#Development, Q*bert#Ports.) That said, Lego Racers doesn't source its release dates even once, hence the citation needed tag. czar 14:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Fifty Shades Freed (film)[edit]

Hello! Please move Draft:Fifty Shades Freed (film)Fifty Shades Freed (film) as production also begins on this film along with Fifty Shades Darker (film). They are filming back to back, actually. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 16:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 17:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)