User talk:Izno

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

Wikiproject notification of the source review RfC[edit]

Thanks for doing that -- wish I'd thought of that myself. The 30-day close is still four days away, but if we're seeing steady input from the projects we might ask the closer to delay a little. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Yeah, I left that note a week ago that we should do that but I didn't get around to it until today. 30 days isn't the required end date (per WP:RFC), it's just the standard end. --Izno (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

About your comment at Talk:Sabrina Carpenter discography[edit]

Hi there. Don't you think adding 11,000 bytes of markup (even if it is collapsed) to an already long discussion about something not directly related to improving the article whose talk page it is is a bit much? Don't you think it'd be better suited at the talk page for the Jennifer Lawrence awards and nominations article? Ss112 21:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ss112: No, it is not a bit much. I am making a point with each of those tables that is relevant to the discussion because IJBall mentioned that page as a good example. I wanted to point out where it wasn't great how that other page was done because I'd like the SCD discussion to get us to a "better" place rather than just an "okay" place. It would be entirely out of context to propose that out of the blue at the talk page for the JLaw awards. Your suggestion would likely cause a WP:MULTI violation to boot. Bringing up the size of the change doesn't help your case here because it's mostly irrelevant. You can trivially see where the boxed content ends and begins in the wikitext, and it's not like you wouldn't get the point simply from reviewing the tables in full instead of presuming for some reason that I had decided to add 11k worth of prose... which would be entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. --Izno (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for reverting my mistake on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Esports. I honestly have no idea how I managed to delete other people's comments. I'll try harder to make sure that doesn't happen again. Derek M (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Derek M: It usually occurs when you start an edit based off an old version of the page. Why that doesn't trigger an edit conflict, we may never know. It's no biggie here. --Izno (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Character infobox[edit]

Hey, regarding the infobox. I was actually working on researching the topic even before the template was nominated so I've got some insight into the differences between the different character type infoboxes. To be honest, they all are about 90% the same. Even those that seem to be different are using the "free" parameters to add in the ones that miss from their infobox but are present in other ones (see Template:Infobox Buffyverse character), and when one infobox does not give the parameters that an editor needs, they just use a different one (see Barry Allen (Arrowverse) vs Flash (Barry Allen)) or just create an infobox that suits their needs (see Template:Infobox Tolkien character vs Template:Infobox Tolkien character (2)). To add to that, you have scenarios where a character can be both a video game character and from another media in the same article. Then after all this, you need to take into account maintenance and updates. Since there are so many different infoboxes, some wrappers of others, and some separate entities, they all require separate fixes. Also, parameters such as the video |motionactor= can be useful for other uses while other parameters could also be useful to video games. --Gonnym (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I'm not worried about what infobox VG character does that infobox character does not. I am worried about what infobox VG character does not that infobox character does. Basically, Template:Infobox character allows for a whole bunch of garbage WP:WAF-failing parameters. Our infoboxes should be succinct and they should be primarily about the out-of-universe aspects. Template:Infobox character fails on the second account which causes it to fail on the first. --Izno (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but I disagree with the method. First, how I read it, the MoS you linked does not really disallow in-universe material, especially when that material is verifiable with good sources. Second, I really believe that even if it did, the MoS is out-of-touch with what the community actually does as FA articles have in-universe elements in the infobox. So my point at that discussion was that even if you are right, deciding that a single infobox will not allow parameters that other infoboxes that deal with the same subjects (so not WP:OSE) is just wrong (even more so, when the infobox itself links to other video character infoboxes which all have in-universe information and even the example given in the documentation does so). --Gonnym (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@Gonnym: Those other modules are distinctly a compromise between full-blown WAF-failing items and the current infobox--most characters don't have them at all, because they are presently so limited. No, it doesn't disallow material that is more fictional than not, but it actually does disallow an in universe treatment of that content. In this case, the character infobox puts inappropriate weight on concepts like "family" and "title" and... so on. These aren't concepts that a generalist encyclopedia needs or wants when discussing its characters in the detail reserved to a specific article. single infobox will not allow parameters that other infoboxes that deal with the same subjects (so not WP:OSE) is just wrong How so? You assert without reference to policy or guideline here. At best, this is a vague reference to WP:CONLEVEL? The level of consensus that a guideline like the MOS or a policy like WEIGHT enjoys is above and beyond that of a template specific to fictional characters--so it perturbs me that there is a defense of the current infobox character here. --Izno (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
What I meant was that all infobox character templates are of the same topic so I grouped them together into the same discussion, so this is not a case of WP:OSE where I say "But hey, Infobox medicine journal does this". And you are correct, I was referring to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which I think I linked to in the template discussion so probably felt it was needed here also. So if the original template and all other children templates of the same template allow "x" fields, yet one group of editors decide to create a new template of the same type to disallow those fields, for me that is a local consensus trying to add a backdoor exemption to the status-quo. Just to be clear, there are some in-universe fields which I think are pure trivia (which should not be added), some are mildly trivia (which I guess some people think have value), yet others I believe have actual value. To me family connections does give value as it lets the reader understand how characters from the same story are connected. Yes, it can also be done in prose, but that logic is valid for everything in an infobox (and if I'm not mistaken is pretty much a given that an infobox should not have any information not present in the article). --Gonnym (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@Gonnym: Their creation dates are separated by mere days, over a decade ago. Characterizing it as yet one group of editors decide to create a new template of the same type to disallow those fields is laughably off the mark. --Izno (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Izno. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Games with "computer game" disambiguation[edit]

Hey Izno, I'm not sure if these articles are at the correct pages, as I know WP:NCVGDAB says not to use "computer game", but I'm not sure which name is correct. If you have time, take a look at these: Star Trek: 25th Anniversary (computer game), Kingmaker (computer game), The Punisher (1990 computer game), Friday the 13th (1985 computer game) and Micromanía (computer game magazine) if relevant. Thanks! --Gonnym (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gonnym: "computer game" typically isn't necessary not least because "video" includes the same kinds of output most computers would provide (some exceptions to that general rule exist in the early history of video games). There are some exceptions when it comes to disambiguation and NCVG goes into a few of them.
  1. Star Trek: 25th Anniversary (computer game): This is disambiguated the way it is because WP:NCVG allows for "platform game" when there are multiple games in the same year. See Star Trek: 25th Anniversary. This seems fine.  Done
  2. There is a similar story with The Punisher (1990 computer game) and The Punisher (1990 video game), which we should tweak. The Punisher (1990 video game) should probably be moved to The Punisher (1990 NES video game) (NCVG) and then The Punisher (1990 video game) redirected to Punisher video games as ambiguous (WP:DABTOPIC).  Done
  3. Kingmaker (computer game) could just be moved per NCVG to Kingmaker (video game).  Done
  4. Micromanía (computer game magazine): I would remove the disambiguation entirely as there is nothing at Micromanía, possibly with a prominent WP:HATNOTE to Micromania. (I'd also create a redirect at Micromanía (magazine).)  Done
  5. Friday the 13th is unfortunately a bit more involved because it looks like Bignole redirected the target page which has history, in 2015, and then it was later recreated by an IP at AFC with subsequent promotion to mainspace by Surv1v4l1st. I don't think I agree with Bignole's original redirect there, but either way, I think what could be done would be to move the "1985 computer game" disambiguated article over the "1985 video game" title, restore the deleted revisions (as they are not parallel histories), and then decide to redirect again if desired. @Anthony Appleyard: Should/Could you do that?  Done
--Izno (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The F13 game page, even as it was apparently recreated, still does not really meet the GNG. That requires significant coverage, which it doesn't have. It actually consists of the IP's personal interpretation of the game, sourced (that's original research) to the most basic of their statements, followed with a few basic number reviews and nothing else to say about it. Even one of the reviews isn't even sourced, and the other goes to a page that doesn't exist. Even if you want to say that it does, there's barely enough information to support a page when it can all be included on the franchise page. That was the reason it was redirected back then and the reason it should really be redirected now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Bignole: Yeah, I'm not real hard over either way--just letting you know since you were reverted at a different page. I would just recommend making sure what references we do have make their way into the redirect target. --Izno (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Izno: Pages 1985 computer game and 1985 video game do not exist. Please what are the full names of the pages that you are referring to? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Anthony Appleyard: Merge Friday_the_13th_(1985_computer_game) into Friday_the_13th_(1985_video_game) and restore all revisions. --Izno (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Izno:  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Gonnym: I've made all the moves. Probably the things left to do are to:
  1. Sort out all the links to The Punisher (1990 video game) as being either for the NES page or for the computer game page (I wish I could run the disambig assist tool against arbitrary pages)
  2. Decide what to do with Friday the 13th (1985 video game).
--Izno (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at AirAttack 2. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You have reverted a newly created through AfC/updated article citing AfD which had the Keep result, not the Delete one for your information. Please do not do it again, or at least give me a good reason for what you have done. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jovanmilic97: Be careful templating the regulars, especially when you use an astonishing level 2 disruption template for what is really just a difference of opinion. (Especially when you caveat it with "explain to me what's going on".)
A keep result at AFD does not mean we keep the article and the entirety by necessity--it only means it's not deleted. We can still apply normal editing policies and guidelines to help us decide whether we should have that article or whether it should be covered as part of another. In this specific case, at least one user !voted to delete entirely, and I was swayed by the argument he put forth later even though I did not update my "keep" !vote. The sources used in this case are weak even if they are considered reliable. As czar noted, there is reasonable scope in the article on the first game to capture some of the discussion related to the second game. Of the sources used in the article accepted at AFC, only 2 or so were worth keeping at best. So overall, a continued redirect/merge to that article makes sense. --Izno (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for that, now that I read all, I will use templates more carefully. While I agree with some of your points, per WP:BARE, bare notability does exist, even you admitted only 2 were worth keeping minimally as well. Again sorry for using the template! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jovanmilic97: As before, just because a topic displays notability does not mean it cannot be covered, or better covered, as a topic in a separate article. This is especially true in WP:BARE cases and when we have a trivial merge target. --Izno (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Tracking categories[edit]

The Category:VIAF different on Wikidata is of great help. Can you create the same tracking categories for GND?

Thanks in advance --Light Yagami (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Light Yagami: You need to make that request at Template talk:Authority control. --Izno (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Bit goings[edit]

Also, when are you going up for the bit, @Izno? czar 16:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Whenever I feel like the concern voiced at my 2016 ORCP are far enough in the rear-view mirror. --Izno (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Also, are you volunteering to nominate? :) --Izno (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
2.5 years? Nigh time for another ORCP at least! There are some pretty rich comments in that 2016 discussion... Also ha, doubt that I'd bring much clout to a nomination as I avoid the behavioral boards. czar 17:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: I didn't just mean "time" (indeed, 2.5 years is a bit of time) but also "effort" in the mirror. The question about nominating was not quite facetious--it would be nice to have someone look at what I've done since the ORCP then to see if the same concerns would be dragged out. --Izno (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

re:bunny senpai edit[edit]

Hi Izno, I'm sorry that you were completely incapable of reading the (admittedly very small) typo correction I made in the Bunny Girl Senpai article. You see, the summary of episode 10 says that Nodoka moves in with Sakuta. This is incorrect, as she moves in with her older sister Mai.

I probably should have specified that in the edit comment, but I'm also going to be an ass about how you didn't spot a change that was actually there. I'm also going to put my edit back in with a comment so other editors with poor reading skills can actually spot the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.216.29 (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems you're right. You need to assume good faith rather than call me names or insult me though. --Izno (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)