User talk:Woodroar

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

Florence Foster Jenkins[edit]

I generally don't get involved with categories, but your edit summary here intrigued me. As far as I can tell, Florence Foster Jenkins never sang an opera in her life. I think of her as a concert singer who sang, inter alia, operatic arias. Does that make her an opera singer? I think not, though of course it may be close enough for Wikipedia purposes. - Nunh-huh 20:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Nunh-huh, that may certainly be the case—I know very little about her and haven't yet seen the Streep film—but I reverted the removal of that category because she's described as "the world's worst opera singer" right in the lede paragraph. I did some googling and found that it's a fairly common statement: The Independent, The Guardian, The Paris Review, The Seattle Times, and JSTOR Daily all use some variation on that phrase. It's even used in the title of a biography reviewed in The New York Times. I think one could argue that being a bad thing might mean you're not actually that thing, but I don't know if there's a precedent for that on Wikipedia. Face-smile.svg Anyways, if you feel strongly about it, we should probably take this to the article Talk page to see what others think. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
It's not something I have strong feelings about (I find the implementation of categories renders them more or less useless, so it's hard to care one way or the other), more of a thought exercise. How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? Answer: 4. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one. Similarly, calling someone who's never sung an opera - never sung a full role, with other cast members, on a opera house stage, but who's sung arias in a concert hall - an opera singer doesn't make her one. Even if a lot of people do it. Nothing to do with quality, only reality :).... Anyway, I'm not focused on action, just musing. - Nunh-huh 01:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

You reverted my edit?[edit]

Hello. You have reverted my edit in "List of massively multiplayer online games". The game has 3d rendering, and it is in the browser. So why would it have been reverted?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alej0hio (talkcontribs) 13:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey Alej0hio, thanks for your message. It was MrOllie who reverted your message, which you can see in this edit. You're certainly welcome to ask him why he reverted you, but I can guess that it was because Wikipedia does not yet have an article on Per discussion at Talk:List of massively multiplayer online games, we only include subjects with an article on Wikipedia. If you think that might quality for an article, you should first read our general notability guidelines and consider starting an article at Articles for Creation. I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any questions, and cheers! Woodroar (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Response to the removal[edit]

Hello. You removed Godville from "List of massively multiplayer online games" with comment "not multiplayer, not really even single player".

Please don't be wronged by looking at the title "zero player game". You can actually play it, and it is a multiplayer game - all "heroes" live in one virtual world. It has multiple Coop and PvP modes, where you can interact with others in realtime. Just a few examples: coop dungeons, sailing, pvp arena. By wiki definition "A multiplayer video game is a video game in which more than one person can play in the same game environment at the same time". I believe it should be on that list. (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

If you can find reliable, third-party sources calling it a multiplayer game, feel free to add it back with a source. (See WP:VG/RS for more about sources.) I wasn't able to find anything. Both Wikipedia and the Godville wiki—neither of which are reliable sources for our purposes, by the way, because they're entirely user-generated—stress the fact that the player doesn't actually control the hero at all. The game runs perfectly fine without any player input at all. But it really comes down to what reliable sources, they'd need to call it a multiplayer browser game before we should add it to that list. Woodroar (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the game may runs perfectly fine without any player input. But it doesn't mean there is no way to actually playing and controlling your character, or to interact with others.
1. It is a browser game, it can be played in a browser (screenshot, also it says so right on the frontpage).
2. It is a game, the player can interact with his character (book source "Buttonless: Incredible iPhone and iPad Games and the Stories Behind Them", second paragraph).
3. It is a multiplayer game, your character can interact with other characters ("You can interact with what’s going on by typing in text-based commands to shape events and even influence other online players’ experiences." - The New York Times).
I believe The New Your Times is reliable enough. If not, I would recommend to spend 5 minutes to make an account on and see all of it personally. (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I played the game years ago, back when it was first released. But our personal experiences don't matter on Wikipedia. Content needs to be based on reliable, third-party published sources and we must accurately represent what those sources say without reading into them or adding our own interpretations. The NYT source is careful to call not to call it a multiplayer game, only that you "interact with what’s going on" and "influence other online players’ experiences". If you can find reliable sources that specifically and unambiguously call Godville a multiplayer game, then great, go ahead and add that at Godville and List of multiplayer browser games. You don't have to convince me, you just need to find sources. I hope this helps! Woodroar (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I think I found another reliable source. (PCGamer called it "a text-heavy MMO" (with "massively multiplayer online game" tag) - so not only multiplayer, but massive multiplayer game. Which it is, because the game has one shared game world with hundreds online players simultaneously. (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
But even there they call it "a text-heavy mmo of sorts" which says it's not, at least not exactly. My own personal opinion is that the developers have been so good at pushing the "zero-player game" term that nobody wants to come out and call it anything else. It's like how basically every game was an MMORPG for a while because that's what devs called them, despite the fact that, for example, they couldn't support hundreds of players simultaneously or there wasn't meaningful interaction between players. It's possible that other editors might know of sources at Talk:Godville, but after a (cursory) search I'm rather doubtful at this point. Good luck! Woodroar (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Edits to “Silmarillion” page and “Beren and Lúthien” page.[edit]

I don’t understand why my edits were undone with the reasoning if “reliable sources” when a simple google search shows the existence of these items.

Could you please clarify, as when I did the same edit to “The Fall of Gondolin” last year it went through without a problem.. SCB74656 (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey SCB74656, good questions! I'm sure the works/albums exist, but Wikipedia has—by design—a higher threshold than "this exists": all content should have been covered by "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Like all encyclopedias, Wikipedia is simply a WP:TERTIARY summary of other works, and any editor should—theoretically, at least—be able to verify that content by following citations. (You can get more information by following those links.)
As for why nobody removed your earlier edit, I couldn't say. It could be that nobody noticed it, or maybe nobody cared to do anything about it. We're all WP:VOLUNTEERs here, after all. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding my contributions[edit]

Hello Woodroar,

Appreciate for sharing a note regarding my shares. I'm the Editor of the content that I've been sharing here in purpose or spreading the words. But didn't realize that I'm not allowed to share them as they might appear as advertisement. My apologies for that.

I'd like to ask you if there's any way to create a Wiki page for our website "" where I can share my publications along with other Editors who are publishing there.

Many thanks in advance for replying.

Best regards,

Ron — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vednor (talkcontribs) 04:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey Vednor, thanks for understanding. As for an article about NoobFeed, I'm not your site would qualify yet. You can read our notabilities standards at WP:N (or WP:WEB for web content), but the short version is this: to warrant an article on Wikipedia, the subject needs to have been covered by multiple reliable, third-party published sources. (As in, other reputable sites/magazines would have to have written articles covering your site in detail.) For video game content, this often means coverage in some of the sites mentioned at WP:VG/RS. I'll be honest and say that smaller indie media rarely meets those requirements because (unfortunately) nobody writes about them unless they're...well, notorious for something. I did a little looking around and didn't find any coverage of NoobFeed yet, but of course that coverage could appear in a few years or even tomorrow, in which case we could start working on an article. If you know that such coverage exists—I'll admit, it's entirely possible that I missed it—you can then suggest we start an article at WP:SUGGEST. Our conflict of interest policies would strongly advise you not to write the article yourself, because it's basically impossible to be objective about ourselves. I hope this helps, and please let me know if you have any other questions. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Woodroar, Thank you for clarifying the policy. I totally understand your view and will keep a note of this from now onward. One final question. When we interview someone, and if that person have a Wiki page, can we share that interview in his/her page at the reference section? Thanks in advance for replying. Best regards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vednor (talkcontribs) 17:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't. Interviews are often acceptable as external links, as long as they're interesting and there aren't too many of them. But you adding them would definitely be seen as spamming. You can read more about this in our guidelines on external links, especially the section on advertising and conflicts of interest. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For you clear explanation at Talk:Sad Puppies Doug Weller talk 18:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

added some items[edit]

Hi. I added two new items to the list in List of multiplayer browser games. Hope that's okay. let me know any feedback. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey Sm8900, I'm sorry but I had to revert your contributions. The browser mode for RuneScape has been removed and it doesn't appear that Black Desert Online has ever been playable in a browser. (It's available for PC, Xbox One, and PS4.) I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


Hello. Question about relevancy and notability on articles. There are a near infinite amount of articles on Wikipedia that are stubs with no notability. Moti Island and Tychów Nowy are two good examples. They both have one source each and are completely irrelevant. What makes them okay and my Aardwolf article not? Or are they not okay and we should flag them for deletion? I'm trying to learn about the logic beyond Wikipedia, and it still just doesn't make sense. It sorta feels like its an elite club where the established members just sorta get to enforce the rules when they decide to. Hopefully you can help clear it up. Thanks! Bluedude588 (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey Bluedude588, good question. We have general and specific notability requirements on Wikipedia. The general notability requirement is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". In essence, if there are enough reliable sources covering a subject to write an article about it, then that subject qualifies for an article. (There may be exceptions or reasons why we wouldn't want to write an article, like WP:NOT and WP:BLP1E, but that's another topic.) Then there are specific notability requirements that vary by subject. For example, the notability requirements for geographic features say that "[p]opulated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." Or the notability requirements for music say that says any band with a certified gold album is notable. If a reliable source even mentions a populated place or a band having released a gold album, then we can create a "stub article" even without finding other sources. Now you have to understand that the subject-specific requirements were written in the early years of Wikipedia, when there was a bigger drive for more articles than better articles. That being said, there's still a presumption that, if people live in an area or a band releases a gold album, then surely someone, somewhere has written about it. That may not always be the case, but it probably is 99.9% of the time. Unfortunately, what makes subjects notable can't always be refined into a requirement like that. There are probably thousands of books with a "list of populated places" or a "list of bands with gold records", but you're not likely to find a "list of games that pioneered some feature" because that kind of claim really requires more detail. For those types of articles, we need to fall back on the general notability requirements. I hope that helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 05:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yep that does help. Thanks! Bluedude588 (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)