User talk:Izno

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

Tower Defense[edit]

Hello Izno, GaelicCharm here. I re-updated the TD page. Removing a good update to the Genre's wiki page because it LOOKed like promotion doesn't make sense to me. If you're familiar with the genre, you'll understand the change as legit. If you're not, then visit and play for an example of what I mean. You'll note the 44 Million plays. It's not a rare device in TD.

I am in no way affiliated with Kingdom Rush or Incursion, but I deleted there names this time. KR and Incursion are 2 different companies that I have no formal affiliation with at all. I only mentioned those games, just as "Flash Element" and "Desktop TD" are in the first 2 paragraphs, by way of reference material. I hope you don't choose to undo this honest update to wiki page again. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaelicCharm (talkcontribs) 09:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted. Please discuss next time per the WP:BRD cycle. In summary though, the source used is not a WP:RS. --Izno (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Izno, Forgive me, what is "WP:RS"? The source is the ACTUAL GAME THAT EXISTS. SO I can't imagine what issue could possibly be had with it... Do you play tower defense games? If so, you know this "claim" to be true; if not, what kind of source would you need other than examples of games themselves. The #1 Downloaded app for the last month has been a game with this mechanic. ...? GaelicCharm (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

If you would click the link you would see that it is our guideline on sourcing. To add something to a page, and especially the genre pages (which are susceptible to spam), you need to show that those games or that particular sub-style of game is covered by reliable secondary sourcing. The page you've provided does not qualify as such.
Additionally, most genre pages tend to focus on the important games of the series (as a matter of editorial judgement). Your example is not one of those.
And yes, I have played many TDs in my time. Which is irrelevant to what Wikipedia needs in an article. --Izno (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


Hello Izno, I haven't used a talk page before, so I may not get this quite right. I'm contacting you about the repeated deletions of the external links to density and surface tension calculators on the "Hydrochloric acid" entry.

I hope we agree, first of all, that being able to convert between volume and mole-based concentration units, and know apparent and partial molar volumes, and surface tensions, is valuable. The article lists, in the main body, a few physical property values.

The calculator, which you dismiss as "any old calculator", reproduces values from a critical evaluation of original data up to the present time - including those on which the Critical Tables values, and those in Perry, are based. A number of discrepancies have been resolved, and densities and the other volume properties below 0 oC are also obtained. I think it is safe to say that these values are the most accurate available. The work is described in a paper published in J. Phys. Chem., as is the work on surface tensions.

I should also say that the site where the calculators can be found is not trying to advertise or sell anything, and is free to all users. I think this is consistent with the philosophy of Wikipedia. I hope you will not delete the links again.Slcpr (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Freerunning article[edit]

Hi. user:Feraess and I think "Freerunning" should have its own article page, as not only is the sport all but not represented on the parkour page, but there's actually a lot of reputable parties out there who specifically contradict that freerunning should be a part of parkour at all. Saying parkour inspired freerunning without actually saying anything about it just doesn't cut it given the notability of the sport.

I noticed this old revision was extremely thorough, and somehow got paired down to a mere stub which you deleted on Mar 15 2012. Was there an official debate whether to keep the article, or was this your judgement alone? Either way, what do you think of restoring the freerunning page at least as a stub if you think there are too few sources to warrant an in-depth article? There are multiple pro freerunning athletes recognized by WP--Timothy Shieff, Daniel Ilabaca, and I started the Ryan Doyle article about 18 months ago who's primarily a freerunner, hence there's more support on WP for it now than when you redirected the page. If you want another solid source here's a National Geographic episode of Fight Science. user:feraess has listed other sources on talk:parkour Squish7 (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Merging a small category[edit]

Hi, I note that you manually merged a category without discussion. The proper thing to do would be to start a discussion at WP:CFD, especially as there was a previous decision supporting the category, which was clearly linked from the talk page. As it's a small case I'm not too bothered, but one thing which I think you definitely should have done was to place the articles into the other parent categories of the cat which is up for deletion (now done). It's also good practice to notify the category creator. Please drop me a line if I'm not being clear about any of this – Fayenatic London 18:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  1. The previous discussion was in 2011, when there were actually a large number of articles in the category, of which a good number were in the past year or so merged. Due primarily to the previously merged articles, circumstances are different. Even if I had realized there existed a previous CfD discussion, I would have still probably merged it. (I would probably have not merged it were the parent category not also small, but as it is small even with the merged articles....)
  2. In short, it was a bold decision because I knew the category probably wouldn't merit a full CfD and that a bot-tagging (or semi-automated by another editor cleaning a backlog) for CSD-for-empty-category alone would probably suffice.
  3. My apologies on missing the additional categories on the one article.
--Izno (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
My mistake, I meant to link Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 24#Category:Lists of James Bond allies.
For the record, there were two articles, one of which I have just nominated for merging, but List of James Bond allies should not have been removed from Category:Lists of fictional sidekicks. Anyway, apology accepted. – Fayenatic London 18:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I realized my own error on the time periods just now and corrected it just prior to your edit. You somehow managed to miss the usually inevitable EC. :^) --Izno (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh no I didn't! Face-smile.svgFayenatic London 18:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Undid revision 565782310 by Izno (talk),[edit]

Hello, sorry if this bugs you. why did you undo my editing on The Sims Series Template? i'm not a vandal, but if i skip the discussion page (or whatever that is), sorry. there is an expansion pack named Into the Future, Check the official website, because i still don't know about why the deletion. i know i still a newbie and i am not an english native speaker, so pardon my grammar. and you did not write note about the undoing. please tell your reasons. and i am happily read any critique, but be clear and simple :) AldeyWahyuPutra (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)AldeyWahyuPutra

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neon Genesis Evangelion[edit]

Due to the insular nature of the WikiProject, I have opened my proposal up for debate at AFD.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:MOBA[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:MOBA has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Soetermans. T / C 20:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


Two days ago I opened up this formal move request based on the suggestion I initially made at WT:ANIME. As you contributed to the original discussion, your input is welcomed at the new one.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Dynasty Warriors and the like game cast[edit]

Dynasty Warriors series is an acception under inappropriate content #10 because the game's cast and VA are particularly notable. Dynasty Warriors holds a world record for the most playable characters in a franchise (excluding Warriors Orochi) and the voice actors can't be fitted in the article any other way. Lego Marvel Superheroes is another example, considering the wide range of playable characters it would be messy and vandalistic-like to create sections stating the playable characters since it is not necessary due the fact it is in a table. Now on the other hand, take a game like Super Mario 64 DS. Since the game only features three playable characters; Wario, Mario, and Luigi, it falls under inappropriate content #10 because making a table for them would be a waste of space and would be added in a section for characters, where voice actors would also follow the three characters etc. But for Dynasty Warriors, simply putting (in addition to the notability of the characters) the entire series' installments are defined by the stages and the characters. In every game, the big gist is the stages carried over and manipulated and the newly made available characters in the installments. Why? Because the game follows the Three Kingdoms period of Ancient China. It isn't a new story and isn't a work of fiction. Also, the list isn't fancruft.

Please do not take further actions to the page as we discuss here. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 03:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update[edit]

Hey Izno. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata fussing[edit]

Hi, Izno. I spent some time fussing to add the BnF identifier for Jean Giraud (mathematician), then left a plea for the latest person to edit that page. --P64 (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Blizzard template[edit]

Hi Izno,

I noticed your revert on {{Blizzard Entertainment}}. I was actually wondering myself why the franchises weren't listed in full, but after searching through the history section, I saw that the decision was made over five years ago. May I suggest a new discussion about incorporating the rest of Blizzard's games? --Soetermans. T / C 18:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@Soetermans: Well, the reason I remember that that decision was made is that I've been here that long... awkward (for me). I wouldn't stop you from beginning a new discussion, but I'm not sure I would support your version. The current solution seems completely appropriate to me. --Izno (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Two days short of two months of replying! :D It's okay though, I realised if nobody else in that same period ever thought of putting everything into one template it'll probably won't make it through a discussion. --Soetermans. T / C 09:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
@Soetermans: Well, obviously, look at the previous revision to yours; it was that way at one point. The reason it was changed was that it was causing duplication in navbox templates, as there are Warcraft and StarCraft specific templates (and a Diablo template?) that covered the navigation to an appropriate degree on all of the pages that would be added to the Blizzard Entertainment template…. That no-one has changed it back since (without checking the BE template history) may be a result of people (like me) preserving the previous consensus…. --Izno (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Parkour re-revert[edit]

Replied to you at Talk:Parkour#Izno film re-revert. ··gracefool 23:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Your deletion of text from Vulcan (Star Trek)[edit]

I reverted your edit to Vulcan (Star Trek). I assume you mean this was taken from If so, it's not a copyvio, since all the text there is CC-BY-NC. There may be legitimate reasons to want to delete that text from the article, but it's not a copyvio. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Actually, CC by NC is a copyvio when we're working on CC by SA as a first point (the NC means the text is not permitted to be copied freely as that restricts downstream users to non-commercial uses). As a second point, both licenses require attribution, which was not provided (in the history summary or otherwise). So no, actually, due to both points (both are both necessary and sufficient) it would be a copyvio.

Of course, that's beside the point. There are better reasons, mostly that the text is not in keeping with our guidelines on writing about fiction. Please revert your reversion. --Izno (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, please do not use rollback except in cases of obvious vandalism. Thanks. --Izno (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough (on all counts). Thanks for the correction. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


Blueprint Barnstar 2.PNG The Template Barnstar
Thank you for all your help at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Recent. I hereby award you this template barnstar as surely it was a great team effort. I will be sure to swing by if ever I have any coding questions. Mkdwtalk 06:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Common Core article -- thanks[edit]

Hi Izno. Thanks for fixing up the table in the Common Core article. Much better now. TimidGuy (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


So why did you just remove a whole bunch of content only because it was inside brackets? ViperSnake151  Talk  05:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Twitch Plays Pokémon#Parentheticals. --Izno (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

your Assassin's creed Navbox edit[edit]

You have mis-applied for non-bidirectional link in your edit.

The page reads: Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional.

It just means that every article that has a particular navbox should have a link in that navbox to that article, not the other way around. It does not mean that every article that a navbox links to should have that navbox in the article. (e.g. see: Template:Health in the People's Republic of China)

SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@SYSS Mouse: I have no idea what edit you're talking about. That aside, you may wish to review the discussion on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and_navigation templates#Bidirectional navboxes?. Your interpretation does not seem to be the consensus interpretation, so perhaps the text needs amendment. --Izno (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


Just checking; in your edit here, did you really mean WP:C (Wikipedia:Copyrights), or did you intend maybe WP:CON (Wikipedia:Consensus)? TJRC (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@TJRC: Yes, I meant Consensus. --Izno (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

neutral RfC notification[edit]

Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC has a discussion on succession box usage. You had previously noted or opined at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 6#Template:NYRepresentatives thanks. Kraxler (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Super Smash Brothers hatnote[edit]

I saw your revert of the hatnote addition for Splash Brothers. While your edit summary mentioned "I don't see that as a likely typo", it's not a typo as much as a mixup of terms. If we Google search for images of "Super Splash Brothers", it shows that there is a large number based on a Super Smash Brothers theme for the basketball duo. My rationale for the hatnote is that there might be some non-basketball fans who remember the basketball tandem by the Super Smash Brothers-like theme, but don't remember that they are really called the "Smash Brothers". Thanks for the consideration.—Bagumba (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Instinct says that they're still unlikely to go to the article on Smash Bros. if they know that what they're looking for is Splash Bros. Additionally, that seems to be an images-only thing. Using the web search yields drastically different results. --Izno (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I was implying that a reader might want Spalsh Bros, but they vaguely remember it as Smash Bros because of the Mario theme. It was an attempt to lead a few anticipated lost readers that might make this mistake. At any rate, if you maintain it is too obtrusive, it's not the end of the world. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@Bagumba: I probably wouldn't revert if it you readded it if you really think it's going to cause a problem for confused readers (again, I'm skeptical). I'm not sure why you thought I suggested it was obtrusive. --Izno (talk) 04:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


I learned a quick new way to talkback with people (ping) from you & wanted to express my joy! Thank you! Look forward to working with you more. :) IamM1rv (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

hi, i think the changes/additions are useful. If the form of the links is inappropriate please edit/change them that they show up in external or references (?). thanks and best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyk1ng (talkcontribs) 14:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Warcraft Universe[edit]

You are making point that you do not give consensus but have been making changes without watching talk pages or answering pings. The other gentleman and I have not agreed to all of your transfers in the merge proposal - but they can stand if we organize it better. I have several points to discuss, but they belong on the talk page - instead of a 3 way conversation on 3 different talk pages. IamM1rv (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@IamM1rv: "they belong on the talk page" - I agree with this.

"The other gentleman [... has] not agreed to all of your transfers in the merge proposal" - Flatly disagree with your opinion of what the other gentleman has or has not agreed to. You are the only one who has had a problem with those links in particular. If we're going to merge the templates, then we're going to merge the entire content of one template to the other where the one template has more/different information contained therein. That's how a merge works. If we want to move forward from a merge, then that should come as a separate discussion (already partially begun at Template talk:World of Warcraft).

I won't be answering anything else for the next couple of hours since I have work to do. --Izno (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Roger on that ... will drop more notes on the talk pages. My work sleep schedule is offset 8 hours from you, so I won't be active for 16 more hours. The other guy had previously put on original talk page to me (before we knew you were active still with 4 days since I messaged you) that he transferred all the links he agreed to merge & to delete "World of Warcraft" template. Maybe he just forgot them, not looked like implicitly saying they were not important enough. IamM1rv (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I transferred the links I was aware of at the time. It was not an endorsement of any links otherwise missing, as I did not do an exhaustive check for others. Let's continue any further discussion on this topic at Template_talk:Warcraft universe#Category for 3rd party. -- ferret (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

2012 Virginia Beach F/A-18 crash[edit]

Hi and thanks very much for fixing this. Samf4u (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks on category for wow2! IamM1rv (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Wikipedia[edit]

You are being contacted because of your participation in the proposal to create a style noticeboard. An alternate solution, the full or partial endorsement of the style Q&A currently performed at WT:MoS, is now under discussion at the Village Pump. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: proposal to permit non-English Wikipedia links in navboxes[edit]

Izno, this discussion, Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#The inclusion of 'Commons', 'Wikiquote', and 'Wikisource' on appropriate templates, has now been converted into an RfC on the same page. Given that you took the time to comment on this issue previously, I thought you would want to know. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

SCOTUS tables[edit]

I have a sandbox version at User:Postdlf/SCOTUS-termlist-entrysupport (and the other related templates also copied at User:Postdlf/**), with a table transcluding it at User:Postdlf/temp. Feel free to use it rather than the live one. postdlf (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

List of stars within 20–25 ly[edit]

I think the User:Izno/Sandbox/List of star systems within 20–25 light years now contains every star! (There's a few in the template that I excluded because their parallaxes would suggest that they are actually in the next or previous block). However, I'm thinking the parallax column is unnecessary as it just repeats the distance column, and the fact that a star has had its parallax measured isn't a noteworthy property by any means. Thoughts? StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I will copy-paste this to WT:AST and answer. --Izno (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Illegal Wikileaks of personal information[edit]

Why Izno is removing sourced content from Wikileaks article? Seems like Izno is engaged in vandalism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Tower Defense Editing[edit]

Hello, Izno, sorry for the edits I made relating to the Tower Defense genre. Yes, I know there are elements in the Real-Time Strategy genre, but I not sure if anyone still referring Tower Defense as a subgenre to RTS. I figure it could be outdated, because of the first references in the Tower defense article were from 2007. ExplorerX19 (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Legal English, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morphology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

What research?[edit]

About this: I'd be happy to read any research that supports your claim. I've seen none that demonstrates the value of disclaimers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Oof, you'll have to give me a day or three (or more--I am moving this weekend) for that. I'm fairly certain I bumped into that piece reading the Signpost or possibly reliability of Wikipedia, but I'll have a look around. Trying to think of a good search term. --Izno (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


I must have missed the TfD for that template. Anyways, I won't revert you again. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 18:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No worries. You weren't the first to revert the removal for some reason... --Izno (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Dragon Ball[edit]

WP:3RR applies to you too. Please stop reverting. --NeilN talk to me 13:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: I'm aware that WP:Edit war applies, since WP:3RR doesn't in this case. Discussion is ongoing and I've just gone to request additional participation from the relevant WikiProject given the stated intent to disrupt (however good faith it might be). I also assumed this might end up on my talk page. --Izno (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:3RR certainly does apply in this case and both you and the other editor have broken it. --NeilN talk to me 13:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: Er, no, actually, neither of us have. No set of 3 reverts were made within a 24 hour period. Heck, only 1 revert per day. Count the number of days. (1 revert on the 18th, 1 on the 19th, 1 on the 20th, and 1 on the 22nd.) It's not even appropriate to say it's gaming 3RR.

I'll also note that I'm not the only editor to revert this editor's removal; see the edit history at 8 July, but I think that's tangential. --Izno (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I apologize, you are completely correct. --NeilN talk to me 13:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
It's fine. I'm sure discussion will be productive on the talk page. :^) --Izno (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, the other editor removed the edit warring warning and continued to revert with no signs of stopping so it's a 60 hour block for them. --NeilN talk to me 13:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: I'm not sure that's necessary and in the RFPP I obviously advocated for a not-a-block solution. He was communicating at the same time (the removal of the warning also added a paragraph of text in response to my last comment at his talk page). Up to you whether you want to leave the block in place. --Izno (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Considering his first action in the dispute was to wipe out the target article, it's hard to see him engaging in productive discussion during full protection. We usually don't fully protect articles because of one editor tending towards disruption. --NeilN talk to me 13:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Template:Dragon Ball shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
3RR very much applies to template space as it does article space. This is fundamentally a content dispute and has nothing to do with vandalism.Farix (t | c) 13:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@TheFarix: Gee, NeilN came after me already just above. Couldn't stop to read, could you? RIP. :^) --Izno (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


Hey Izno,

I noticed the revert on CS:GO. I still don't understand when abbreviations should or shouldn't be part of the article lead. Grand Theft Auto V is shortened to GTA V in RS'es, but not on its article. I don't know if WP:COMMONNAME applies automatically to video games. I've tried several times in the past to get some consensus about this, without a clear answer. --Soetermans. T / C 12:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Soetermans: Some comments:

Assume always that a project-wide guideline (such as COMMONNAME) is relevant. (In this specific case, COMMONNAME is not relevant since it is the guideline on the name of the article, not how we deal with content internal to the article.)

I think WP:ALTNAME is the relevant guideline as is WP:MOSBOLDSYN, both in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. How you establish common name is probably to use reliable sourcing, but I suspect that in most cases, it's trivial to show (via a simple Google search if you want) when a particular abbreviation is common. Example: I just googled "cs go" and got not a few responses. Whether its common-enough to specifically be called out in the lead may be questionable. In general, it aids recognizability. WP:R#PLA is also interesting because it says we should try to add common terms to the lead to aid people who were redirected to the page in question. --Izno (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That's the one I meant, sorry. I was on my phone earlier, looking up guidelines is a pain. Look, I honestly don't see anything wrong with adding a common name or abbreviations to a lead. After all, Wikipedia is based upon what sources say, not how developers or publishers call it. If CS:GO can be part of its lead, by that argument GTA V can be part of Grand Theft Auto V‍ '​s lead section, right? Couple of other abbreviations I've seen on RS'es are Unreal Tournament -> UT, Half-Life 2 -> HL2, The Last of Us -> TLoU, Age of Empires -> AoE, etc. If we're trying to be consistent with video game articles, is adding those abbreviations okay? --Soetermans. T / C 14:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at/searching on Wikipedia on phones is a pain outside of mainspace.

I've always been one for abbreviations; I think you might be the only one I've ever seen remove them actively, though there might be a few who inactively discourage their inclusion. --Izno (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I do think you'll agree that some of these abbreviations might be too soon, unnecessary for the article or probably aren't abbreviated at all.
For other abbreviations, I often wonder where does it stop? LoZ: OoT and tlou are both redirects, but having that in the article would be a bit much, right? --Soetermans. T / C 14:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Specifics for each of those:
  1. MRB: I would tend to agree, especially with your rationale. Popularity of the game itself may be a good indicator whether an abbreviation is interesting to note, since I would find it unlikely that an unpopular or new game would be Googleable, for example.
  2. Supersonic: I agree, but not because of any case that we're discussing here. It's simply unnecessary/bad writing to abbreviate it in that article, when the point of that article is RL and not it's predecessor. Basically, that question's irrelevant in this context.
  3. F:W: Agreed. Failed the basic Google test.
  4. Warfare: I want to treat this separately. I think it's obvious, and we perform this practice in multiple places and have discussed this shortening in multiple usually-separate-from-abbreviations discussions, to abbreviate a game to its subtitle. I would never say The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time in full, ever, except in the first bolded item in the lead section. Especially where I'm writing an article, "The Legend of Zelda" becomes repetitive when a reader already has that as the base context for his reading. Ocarina of Time and Ocarina are both obviously acceptable. In the same fashion, shortening (and subsequently bolding in the lead) "Warfare" makes sense.
  5. TLOU: The only thing that pops up on Google from TLOU is Last of Us. So I would add this to the article.
  6. LOZ OOT: I don't know about this one. The pulls from Google are all specific 'walkthrough' type sites and such; maybe this is an interesting point.
In the general, I would say we go article-by-article, especially since we have an MOS that says "do this". That's how Wikipedia works. --Izno (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Soetermans: Any other thoughts on this topic? --Izno (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Izno, I didn't notice your reply before, sorry about that. If the Google test only brings up walkthroughs for Ocarina, when is an abbreviation common enough? When a reliable source uses it? Because when I looked up "tlou" within a couple of RS'es, only a couple of times the abbrevation is used (Kotaku, Game Informer, GameSpot). --Soetermans. T / C 11:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

[1] only yields The Last of Us, though many articles don't contain the exact name "TLOU" it's plain that that's the intended meaning. The same search for LOZ OOT drags up the same set of reliable sources. Hmm. --Izno (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Intended meaning, but intended by who? Isn't that just Google's smart search engine that has learned that when people google "loz oot" they mean The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and with "tlou" they mean The Last of Us? Or did writers of articles started tagging articles and reviews with abbreviations before they were commonly known, without actually using them? --Soetermans. T / C 15:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Soetermans: I think your question is irrelevant since it seems to indicate that you misunderstand how Google's search engine works (for the most part). Do you have another indicator which we could use to judge that usage of the terminology? TLOU isn't that far a jump (though LOZ OOT might be) for abbreviations. I think also it's important to keep in mind the guidelines and policy and I linked in my first reply, also. --Izno (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
You're not answering my question, because to you it seems to indicate I don't understand how Google works? How does that make my question irrelevant? You say "intended meaning", well, someone must've had an intention to call it that. So again, who is shortening The Last of Us to "tlou"? Is it a marketing team from Naughty Dog or Sony? General game enthusiasts? Hardcore PlayStation fanboys? And when is it notable? Because "loz oot" still points to The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, even if they are mostly FAQs and walkthroughs. --Soetermans. T / C 14:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Except in cases where Wikipedia made the term, it is irrelevant who started referring to X video game by Y name. It is relevant how a name is being used now, and that's what "intended meaning" (of the we or plural you) refers to.

WP:N is irrelevant to our discussion, so what do you mean when you use the word "notable"? I guess you mean "what makes one of these phrases worth mentioning?", which is the same question as started this discussion.... --Izno (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. I'm asking when an abbreviation is used enough to merit its inclusion on Wikipedia. Is a Google test reliable? Is or isn't it notable when walkthroughs refer to The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time as "loz oot"? Should a RS call it that, like Rock, Paper, Shotgun calling Call of Duty: Black Ops "codblops"? --Soetermans. T / C 15:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Persondata removal & transfer[edit]

Izno, we need to get behind T.seppelt's bot request @ Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KasparBot 3. It's the only game in town, and T.seppelt is the only person with the necessary skills who has been willing to volunteer his time and effort. It's not the way I would have done it, but if the alternative is bot deletion or T.seppelt's plan, I'll happily sign on to the latter. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Solution to the 'Bonnie and Clyde' problem[edit]

Hello Izno, you suggested an alternative solution to the 'Bonnie and Clyde' problem at phab:T54564. Since that bug is currently focused on one particular solution, I started phab:Z276 in hopes that you could elaborate your idea there. — Sebastian 22:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Question about the ping[edit]

Hi, Izno - can you advise as to whether the ping will work if you "preview" your post before you save it? Atsme📞📧 17:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

If you're using the "show preview" button, yup. --Izno (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Copyeditor Barnstar Hires.png The Copyeditor's Barnstar
I just want to say thankyou for all your work on Parkour. It's been interesting to see it progress over the last decade, sometimes taking backward steps but overall gradually turning into something really good. It's been challenging due to various controversies (parkour vs freerunning, lists of movements), and especially because the majority of edits are vandalism or very low quality from anonymous editors. You've done a lot to mitigate those over the years, with a huge number of reverts and copyedits. The article is frequently used as a reference by people discovering parkour, so it's important work :) ··gracefool💬 22:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)