User talk:czar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wiktor Michajlowitsch Wassnezow 004.jpg


I saw the AFD result of Cocoron and thought I'd try to go hunting for sources. Since the game was only released in Japan I went ahead and asked the Japanese Wikipedia for help: ja:Wikipedia:Help_for_Non-Japanese_Speakers#Japanese_video_game_magazines_with_coverage_of_Famicom_Disk_System_game_Cocoron_.28.E3.82.B3.E3.82.B3.E3.83.AD.E3.83.B3.29.3F. If you want I can ask the English WikiProject Japan and/or WikiProject Video games for help too.

I found one scan of a magazine article talking about a potential sequel for the game that never happened: - I would like to see if there's anything else.

I wish these articles from the early 1990s were more accessible online :( WhisperToMe (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

A valiant attempt. (What is that link?) I've tried posting to jawp's WPVG before and haven't had any luck. It's easier to reach out to the fan communities, who tend to have scans of specific articles. In my experience, Japanese language games without English coverage are nearly impossible for us to source. I have not seen a single site or database that provides digitizations of Japanese print reviews. Even trying to track down a print Famitsu review is a chore (and few places actually provide such scans for interlibrary loan). I have a project on the backburner to make a database to index old game mags and credits—all the current indices are scattershot and unreliable. As for accessibility, the games community actually has much better scanning and archiving efforts than the communities of other consumer periodicals. (Think about finding old longform articles from old fashion magazines...) What would really help is some sort of Japanese-language equivalent to WP:VG/RS so we at least can figure out what databases and sites to search. – czar 22:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I put the text of the link in Google Translate and it seems to list magazines that wrote about the game. If people can hunt down copies of the articles it could be great. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, [1] doesn't give the citation for specific issues to hunt down—it just lists a bunch of publications – czar 03:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
If those publications have websites it's possible they may have published an "index" of articles for each issue. I'm hoping with such a document somebody can track down which one has the Cocoron content. I've seen similar indexes for some anime and manga related magazines WhisperToMe (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sierra Vista Mall[edit]

The version I made is significantly different from all other drafts, so unilaterally redirecting it is not a wise move. WP:OUTCOMES dictates that malls are generally notable, and that this level of coverage is sufficient for asserting notability. If you want, I would suggest AFD, since this version is significantly different from any prior version. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It's BRD—my redirect is as unilateral as your undoing the original redirect. I said in my edit summary that the sources added were all local. Do you have non-local coverage? (Also "outcomes" is an essay—it doesn't "dictate" anything, nevertheless that local coverage is sufficient, yadda yadda) – czar 00:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The NRDGA source already in the article is non-local, and while I haven't found much else in the way of non-local coverage yet, I still think that the silent precedent that malls are most often notable, and the difference in content from all other revisions, warrant something other than just reversion to a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that's the contention editors have with citing "outcomes" even if it's somehow true that malls are often kept, it should be based on having significant coverage (meeting the GNG) and not on the circular logic that malls are kept. So there isn't a silent precedent. Moreover, the article went through AfD twice, which should be enough to keep the verdict barring some heroic new cache of sources. I think it's more than fair to ask that the draft remain a draft until there is consensus that it has sig cov. – czar 00:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
It still doesn't seem right to me to just redirect something that has a decent amount of sources, even if they aren't of the best quality. For that reason, I think this article needs a few more outside voices yet again, since consensus can change. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't disagree—all I asked was that you kept the status quo (redirect, with new version on a draft page) until you develop that new consensus. The discussion happens all the same, but it's a matter of BRD (keep the status quo until there is a discussion otherwise). – czar 01:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any need to draft it. Where do you suggest I get further consensus? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
(I know you didn't see a need to draft it, which is why you overwrote the redirect. The burden is on the adding editor to justify the new content, so when you said I unilaterally reversed your redirect, the actual BRD framing is that you unilaterally reversed an AfD consensus. But as you said, consensus can change.) I'd draft it at Draft:Sierra Vista Mall. I'd keep looking for national sources. I'd notify the Sierra Vista Mall talk page, WP Cali, any other wikiprojects, but I don't think it needs to go to AfD. If there was any cited indication of larger regional importance, I wouldn't even contest it. Alternatively, perhaps preferably, you could just expand the mall's section in the parent article. It's a stretch to argue for independent notability given the local extent of the sources. – czar 01:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Question about TechRaptor[edit]

Hey Czar, Hopefully I'm doing this right - not too well versed in communicating on Wikipedia!

I had a few questions about my site, TechRaptor. In the thread about our reliability you cited credentials and requirements for credentials as a reason we are unreliable. May I ask how we can display such credentials, what credentials you're looking for, and why proper credentials are required? The main reason I ask is because I'm not always looking for credentials when it comes to a new hire. What I look for is writing skill, grammar, and an ability to be as objective as possible in both the news and reviews submitted. My reasoning is that most people who want to get into Tech/Gaming journalism may not have the credentials, which reduces the chance to find and read some of the great writers I have the pleasure to work with on my site. In a lot of cases as well, many of my staff have journalism degrees or full english degrees. Personally, I have a degree in Game Dev.

I'd love to chat to figure out what we need to do to become reliable in Wikipedia's eyes, so if you want to contact me directly outside of here (I'll mark this as watched), you can do so at or @TheRealRutledge on Twitter.

I look forward to your response!! TheRealRutledge (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi @TheRealRutledge, WP's stance on what makes a source reliable is available at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. It's not so much a checklist to be remedied but an organization's reputation. This could include being recognized by mainstream sources as reputable, having reports that are widely trusted and referenced by other journalists (not just scoops but reliable reporting), having a staff with prior editorial experience (or staff members independently regarded as experts), having an editorial policy for fact-checking and editorial oversight, etc. – czar 13:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Huh. Never expected something like this to happen. GamerPro64 17:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Di Bonaventura Pictures[edit]

Hello C! Please move Draft:Di Bonaventura Pictures to Di Bonaventura Pictures - Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 15:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

✓ done, though the sourcing is skimpy and I suggest that you bulk it up – czar 18:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)