Jump to content

User talk:Rhain/2016 July–December

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


talk

2011 · 2012 · 2013 · 2014
2015 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2016 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2017 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2018 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2019 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2020 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2021 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2022 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2023 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2024 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)




Talk:Doctor Who (series 9)#Episode Groupings

I would like to invite you to contribute to a discussion on whether or not "The Girl Who Died" and "The Woman Who Lived" and "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" are two-parters. Over the course of 3 weeks and 2 discussions, only 3 editors including myself have contributed, so it would be a great help if you could take the time to contribute. Fan4Life (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Rust (video game), GA?

Should I nominate Rust (video game) for a GA review? I think it's almost (if not already there) at that standard, but as it's in development, would it be quickfailed? Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: While the article is looking good (lead could be expanded to include more development information), yes, a GAN would be quick-failed As czar explains here, "GANs on unreleased games are quick-failed for completeness/stability, ostensibly because the article will need to radically change in the months following the game's release with reviews and new gameplay updates and whatnot"; not sure I can put it much better than that. Peer reviews are certainly not out of the question though, if you're looking for editor feedback. – Rhain ☔ 08:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I've expanded the lead a bit more, would you say it's B-Class or are there other issues? I'll probably take it to PR when the Far Harbor one is over. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Old_drafts

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Old_drafts. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fallout 4: Far Harbor/archive1

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fallout 4: Far Harbor/archive1. I've created the last 5 threads on this talk page so I hope I'm not getting annoying... Anyway, I'd like your opinion on this article because I'm trying to base it off one of the articles you took to GA (in terms of layout). You're experience in this type of area will help a lot. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Certainly not annoying! Anyone is welcome to comment on my talk page as much as they like (provided it's not vandalism or an attack; only trying to benefit the encyclopedia here). Thanks for the invite; I'll try to leave some comments shortly, should I find the time. – Rhain ☔ 10:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rhain. You have new messages at Talk:Fallout 4: Far Harbor/GA1.
Message added 07:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've responded to all the errors you mentioned. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Question

What exactly does "good faith" mean on Wikipedia? DBZFan30 (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@DBZFan30: To assume good faith is to assume that an editor's edits and comments have been made in an attempt to help Wikipedia, not hurt it. For example, when I reverted your edit here, I assumed that you added the information in an attempt to improve the page, not to hurt it. Hope that makes sense. – Rhain ☔ 00:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

GA v FA

Hello Rhain, thanks for the really comprehensive GA review for Fallout 4: Far Harbor, it taught me a lot about writing articles. I have a question about the ways GAs and FAs work. I'd like to eventually get an article up to FA, and at the moment, I'd like it to either be Monaco: What's Yours Is Mine (currently a GAN) or Fallout 4: Far Harbor due to them being my first real articles I've made. I've read over WP:GVF but I'd like to ask someone who has had experience in making both types. -- Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: It was my pleasure reviewing Far Harbor, and I'm glad I could help—your writing has clearly come a long way. Is there anything specific you'd like to know about GAs and FAs? WP:GVF probably summarises it best; while good articles are simply that—good—featured articles are essentially perfect, or at least the best that Wikipedia has to offer. If you thought that my GA review for Far Harbor was comprehensive, you haven't seen anything yet. If you nominate an article for FA, prepare to be scrutinised intricately. On the first FAC for Ellie from The Last of Us, I received a lot of positive comments and supports, but the candidacy ultimately failed based on some language and minor structuring choices—of course, I'm not angry that it failed (I actually appreciate the depth in which the article was scrutinised), but it proves how dedicated you need to be in order to achieve a successful FA. Time management is key—the final few weeks of the Ellie FAC coincided with an intense round of assessment at my school (in fact, it was actually archived while I was away on a school camp), so I found that I had very little time to address the issues raised in the FAC. At the end of the day though, after all the scrutinising and the editing, it's worth it: either you've got a failed FAC with enough constructive criticism and feedback that you can eventually give it a second go; or you get to enjoy seeing that shiny star atop an article that you significantly contributed to, and move onto new projects with even more knowledge and experience.
So yeah, I just figured I'd share my experience with FACs so far. If you'd like to know anything more specific about the difference between GA and FA, feel free to ask. Either I'll answer, or I'll direct you to someone with more FA experience who can. Let me know. – Rhain ☔ 12:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Basically, I wanted to know how it'd stand against current VGFAs, such as Czar's Blast Corps, David Fuchs's Wipeout 3 and Darkwarriorblake's South Park: The Stick of Truth. The first two are around the same length, and due to the feedback from Czar in the PR, I based some of Far Harbor off Blast Corps. The Stick of Truth has received more coverage than Far Harbor so it's expected to be longer. The depth of the development section in Far Harbor and Wipeout 3 is around the same, and so are the illustrations. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
@Anarchyte: Considering the amount of issues I noted in the GA review, I'd say Far Harbor is still a fair distance away from the articles you listed, but it's not unattainable. It's also a fairly recent release, so new coverage is more likely to appear, and that could be a major opposition point in an FAC. If anything, I'd consider opening another peer review before nominating it for FA. Another thing to consider is that I see myself as a fairly lenient reviewer—I'm not as experienced or skillful as many other editors, particularly those you've mentioned—so my GA review may have missed many issues with the article. That's why peer reviews are good; unlike GAN or FAC, you can't fail a peer review. Just some things to consider. You might like to seek advice from a more experienced editor if you're still unsure what to do. Thanks again. – Rhain ☔ 13:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I had a feeling that the release date may be an issue, which is why I would like to get Monaco: What's Yours Is Mine to FA more than Far Harbor. I guess we'll need to wait for the result of the GAN before FA is even an option. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
@Anarchyte: There's technically no rules that require an article to be GA before opening an FAC (the article that always comes to mind is Satoru Iwata, which is one of my favourite to read), but it's certainly recommended. GAN is good preparation for FAC. Best of luck. – Rhain ☔ 13:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I see GA as a checklist for basic components. FA is more subjectively whether the article passes the actual scrutiny of fellow editors. The standards of reviews vary, but let's just say that some get very nit-picky. This is sometimes warranted, but other times it's not. FA is really about prose quality and whether every sentence stands on its own as immaculately constructed. It's up to the reviewer to determine how nitty gritty they want to get. And with time you'll get a better sense of how to write such that it'll stand up to that scrutiny, but it's a process. So my suggestion would be to seek out a few editors who have done FAC reviews before and ask for a peer review in advance of FAC (don't just leave it open and see who bites—actually solicit reviewers). That would be more or less the same as FAC just without the pressure of a time deadline. Length is not really a concern at FAC. The question is whether it's complete—do sources exist that discuss dimensions of the game that have been excluded? (Academic sources, development sources, foreign language sources for non-English games, sales figures, etc.) czar 17:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
If you submit the article for peer review Anarchyte and bug me I will do my best to give you a thorough review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Rhain, Czar, and David Fuchs: I've created a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fallout 4: Far Harbor/archive2. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...
The Last of Us
... you were recipient
no. 1275 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Batman : Arkham Knighg Awards

In this page for Batman : Arkham knight which was released from more than one years 4 Wins & 25 Nomination but in IMDB only they mention 2 wins & 5 nomination .. I am wondering why they didn't mention the total until now Jameel1978 (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Apology

Hello. I just wanted to apologize for my edits on Grand Theft Auto III. It was all just a misunderstanding and I wasn't trying to start a fight over the GameCube and Xbox versions of the game. I won't edit the article again. DBZFan30 (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@DBZFan30: Not a problem, I appreciate your message. I never assumed your edits were intentionally destructive; you're very welcome to edit the article again, and I urge you to if you have anything constructive to add. Thanks again. – Rhain ☔ 02:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:John Marston.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:John Marston.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello from Jonathan Burroughs

Hello Rhain,

My name's Jonathan Burroughs.

I'm a bit unfamiliar with how things work at Wikipedia. But your video game posts have always stood out to me as well-formatted and thorough. I thought I might get in touch.

I'm a game developer, previously a developer on 'House of the Dead: Overkill', currently working on a new title, 'Virginia', which has been in production for over 2 years.

You can read a bit about it here: https://twitter.com/VariableState

I was interested in learning more about the Wikipedia video game section.

I hope it's not inappropriate to contact you like this. If this constitutes a breach of ethics, please accept my apologies and disregard this message. But if there's any way I could be of assistance to you it'd be my pleasure!

My email is burroughs [dot] jonathan [at] gmail [dot] com.

If nothing else it's a pleasure to find the opportunity to thank you for your work. And pass on my kindest regards.

All the best,

Jonathan

81.99.242.227 (talk) 09:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@81.99.242.227: Hi Jonathan, thank you very much for your kind words! I appreciate you getting in touch; it's nice to have developers interested in our work here—makes it feel more appreciated and worthwhile, I suppose. As far as I'm aware, contacting me (or any other editor) is not a breach of ethics; as long as you're not paying me to edit articles about you, your game, or your company, contacting me is great! In saying that, I've just taken a quick look, and I think there might be enough independent, reliable secondary sources to warrant the creation of an article about Virginia; I'll certainly take a further look when I have some more free time. The game looks very interesting—I'm looking forward to it.
If you'd like to learn more about the video game community on Wikipedia, I recommend taking a look at the WikiProject, which is essentially a banner under which all of the relevant content is collated and discussed. There are some incredible editors in that community, many of whom I'm proud to have worked with, so I recommend directing specific questions there if you wish for more expert answers—I consider myself fairly amateurish in regards to guidelines and what not. Speaking of which, I should make you aware that if an article regarding your company or game is created, you automatically have a conflict of interest on the topic, so while I don't think you're technically banned from editing the article, it's highly discouraged, simply to avoid disputes and what not.
If you have any specific questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to get in touch (either to me directly, or to the WikiProject). Thanks again! – Rhain ☔ 11:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Reply from Jonathan Burroughs

Hello Rhain,

Thank you for getting back to me. And thank you ever so much for the thoughtfulness of your reply. And for your interest in the game project, that's hugely appreciated.

I've considered becoming a Wikipedia contributor for some time, off and on, as it's a resource I use daily and, on a personal level, I find something innately appealing about the documenting and categorising of information and presenting it in a useful, elegant format. So I'm very grateful for your links. And for how thorough and useful your reply is.

I'll heed your advice about the potential conflict of interest editing any posts relating to myself or my business activities. The last thing I want to do is cause a breach of ethics or be perceived to be abusing the site. I think it'd be a welcome break from my day job to find a field distinct from video games to contribute to!

Just want to take the opportunity to thank you again for the work you do. I came across your user site via the '1979 Revolution: Black Friday' page. The page stood out to me as being particularly well laid-out and informative. So regardless of anything else, I'm appreciative of your contribution to Wikipedia.

I wish you all the best.

Jonathan

81.99.242.227 (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@81.99.242.227: Thanks again for your very kind words! Articles like 1979 Revolution: Black Friday and Her Story (as well as AAA games like The Last of Us and Grand Theft Auto IV) are incredibly interesting and enjoyable for me to work on, and I become immensely proud of my contributions to these articles when everything is done, so your comments are truly appreciated. If editing Wikipedia is something you're interested in, then I certainly recommend creating an account and getting started—there's many editors and guidelines that are here to help you when needed (me included, wherever I can). Of course, you're very welcome to continue editing without an account, but I personally recommend creating one; it makes it easier to build up a positive reputation here, and it's easy for other editors to contact you. And one of the best things about Wikipedia for me personally: it has no deadline! For someone like me, who has very little spare time to edit (primarily due to school) and regularly becomes bored of a topic and leaves it for later, having no deadline is very refreshing. I have about 20 articles saved offline on my computer that I plan on continuing when I regain the time and interest, but I feel no pressure to do so; it's lovely here.
If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to leave me another message. I'll be sure to get back to you as soon as I can, though I'm sure there are many other editors happy to do the same. Thanks again! – Rhain ☔ 08:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Red Dead Redemption GTC

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Red Dead Redemption/archive1—topic's complete, so I threw up the GTC nom. Feel free to replace/remove/add to the rationale. You did the majority of the work so not looking to steal your thunder. (And if you feel it isn't ready yet for some reason, feel free to take it down.) By the way, part of me thinks that the Music article could be mostly merged into its parent (which should cover the soundtracks), but there is a bit more musical detail that wouldn't be appropriate in the parent, so I can also see it standing on its own. Voilà, czar 05:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: Thanks for the message! I'm happy with the nomination—I intended on doing the same one day, whenever I got around to working on the Undead Nightmare and John Marston articles, but you took care of those (great work with Undead Nightmare by the way—impressive as usual). As for the Music article: I see what you mean. I'll see how it looks when I have more time and make a judgement then, but you're very welcome to do this yourself if you feel strongly on the matter—I'm not really opposed to it either way. Thanks again. – Rhain ☔ 08:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Spider-Man (2002 film)

I'm not sure what you meant to do at this article, since your edit-summary didn't in any way convey that you were removing citations and longstanding, necessary embedded notes. Per WP:BRD, if you have questions about my revert of this edit. please discuss it on the talk page. Thanks. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Wow okay, I'm really sorry about that. I have no idea how it happened. All I wanted to do was change "50th-highest-grossing film" (lead) and "54th highest-grossing film" (Box office performance) to "55th highest-grossing film", as can be seen here, yet every time I attempt to edit the page, the citations and notes simply disappear the moment I press the "Edit" button. I tried this on some other articles with an abundance of citations and notes, yet this issue didn't occur; for some reason, my computer doesn't seem to like Spider-Man (2002 film). I've honestly no idea why this happened, but I won't edit the article again. Sincere apologies for the inconvenience. – Rhain ☔ 21:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Quite all right. I suspected it was some kind of online glitch.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Ellie FAC

Rhain, I saw your note at the Ellie FAC. If you like I'd be happy to do a copyedit; I'd like to see the article promoted, but I'm afraid I did think there were prose issues. If you're interested, let me know; it might not be till some time next week that I can get to it. I'd also suggest pinging Nick-D since he did oppose earlier -- you don't want to see another late oppose if you nominate again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thanks for your message. I meant nothing personal by my note at the FAC—apologies for coming across as rather grumpy. Although it may not appear like it, I do certainly appreciate your feedback that you left, and I'm not particularly upset by your oppose—I know it's all in an effort to improve the article and the encyclopedia and I very much respect and value that—it was just late when I left that note, and I guess I'd become a little annoyed that the FAC had to be archived only a week after it had started actually gaining momentum. I'm grateful for your advice, and I'll take it all into account before nominating again. Thank you very much for your time—your contributions and aid is invaluable. – Rhain ☔ 00:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

My thoughts, which are only mine, and could be completely wrong

Hello Rhain. I see you have one FA already under the username Rhain1999. You seemed chagrined by the closure of Ellie. I hope I can offer my (admittedly, unsolicited) opinions, which are almost certainly massively outdated (I was much more active in FAC several years ago, under a different coordinator.)...First, I'm sorry I didn't have time to ce. I have several irons in the fire both on WP and in real life at the moment. Second, try to make friends with some of the good folks at WP:GOCE and ask for help way ahead of time. Not all copy editors are equal; try to make friends with some of the better ones. Third (and this is the bit that may be MASSIVELY outdated; I do NOT speak for the current FAC coordinators. I am speaking from experience from several years ago] just as not all copy editors are equal, in my personal opinion (which does not necessarily reflect that of the FAC coordinators), not all FA supports are equal either. A support seems relatively weaker if it is from an editor who 1) is a member of the related wikiproject and/or is active in the topic area, and more importantly 2) never reviews other FACS, but suddenly pops in to say a cheery "Support" on the one they are connected to (ESPECIALLY if they have little else to say except that). I dunno if that's the case on any of the Supports for your nom, but four supports may not be enough if some of them seem predisposed to judge in your favor.

Also see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Quick Question about FAC Consensus.

HTH.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: Thanks for your message. Apologies for the grumpiness of my note in the FAC. You needn't apologise for not having the time to copy-edit. I certainly wasn't expecting it of you—your feedback on the FAC was more than enough. I'll definitely consider your advice regarding copy-editing before nominating again. As for the four Supports on my nom, I'm fairly sure most (if not all) are closely associated with the WikiProject, but I've had disagreements and previous Opposes from some of them in the past, so each of their Supports is likely heavily considered and strongly judged. But I do see your point; being associated with the WikiProject also means that they understand the jargon of video games (and likely this video game in particular) so they're unlikely to pick up on some of the problems that outsiders would. I very much appreciate all of your advice, and hope that you'll be able to take another look at the article when it's nominated again—hopefully this time with far fewer issues. Thanks again. – Rhain ☔ 00:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Another thought: doesn't User:David Fuchs often edit video games? I dunno if he was involved in your nom or not, but he's been around the block a few times.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I've seen him around, and he's on the list of members. – Rhain ☔ 00:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
WHO DARES SUMMON ME FROM MY SLUMBER?
I did see the FAC, but I'm a bit more pressed for time than I was during my heyday. If you want me to give the FAC and the article a look-over, I can put it on my todo list, just be sure to poke me occasionally so I get to it with some alacrity. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 11:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
The big bad admin, awakened from his slumber, offered the young wandering editor a helping hand.
@David Fuchs: I figured you were likely rather busy, and I always hate pestering other editors. Thanks for the message though; I'll be sure to poke you when I (inevitably) nominate the article again, just to see if you've got time to take a look. (If not, it's fine—Wikipedia is a big place, there's sure to be other (though likely less wise) editors who'll end up leaving some comments anyway.) Thanks again. – Rhain ☔ 12:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Neil Druckmann, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Official PlayStation Magazine. 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) 09:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Grand Theft Auto: Vice City you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Indrian -- Indrian (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City

The article Grand Theft Auto: Vice City you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Grand Theft Auto: Vice City for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Indrian -- Indrian (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City

The article Grand Theft Auto: Vice City you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Grand Theft Auto: Vice City for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Indrian -- Indrian (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Crash Bandicoot games

Hi, I'm sorry for interrupting but if I could I'd like to ask if you could look at 'Cancelled games' section in Crash games list. I saw you had edited Crash-related articles. You're much more experienced user than me so I think your opinnion and possible edits could be really helpful and just a good point of view. I mean there are only 3 games (and for many years btw, since the first edition in that section) but few users was adding also another items and maybe do you have any idea/opinnion or sth if we should have only these 3 items or maybe we should add something else. If you could find some time for that, I'll be very grateful. Thanks in advance and greetings. PS. Sorry for my previous unexplained edit. Thanks. Jojnee (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Sid Vacant listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sid Vacant. Since you had some involvement with the Sid Vacant redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi (✉) 17:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Grand Theft Auto: Vice City

On 13 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the setting of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City is heavily based on the city of Miami? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Rhain. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The Last of Us Part II

I opened a discussion here. The game has officially been announced with trailer released therefore it is notable and passes GNG/VG. Please do not revert without discussion. Valoem talk contrib 10:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Crash Bandicoot games

Hi. I'm sorry for interrupting, but if I could I'd like to ask about one thing. Btw, sorry for yesterday's reverts, but I just hadn't known that WP's rule, so thank you for information :) I would like to ask if we should then expand other contractions from this article. If I am right, there are 3 more contractions in the article ("didn't go", "it'd have been" and "that's been revealed"). Because I am much less experienced user, I'd like to know your opinnion. Thanks in advance for help. :) 31.2.18.34 (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Help request: Flower, Sun, and Rain

Hello. I'm in the process of creating an extensive expansion and perhaps GA nomination of the early Suda51 title Flower, Sun, and Rain. I've been scratching my head about how to properly portray the gameplay through images, and in this article I found a GIF from the PS2 version (which is identical to the localized DS version apart from dual-screen shenanigans) that seems to solve my problem. Except that it's huge in terms of file and image size. Then I remembered your GIF for the Dev of Last of Us article concerning Ellie's motion capture, which is low res and functional. Could you help create something similar for Flower, Sun, and Rain? --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi ProtoDrake, thanks for getting in touch. Which GIF in particular from that article are you seeking? I've had some technical changes over the last few months, and have since lost the software that I originally used, but I'll see what I can do with my current programs. – Rhain ☔ 03:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. It's this one. It shows how the puzzle systems worked/works. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake: I've given it a go; it's 7.42 MB at 360 × 235, and 3.72 MB at 250 × 163. Given the amount of frames, it's unlikely that I'll be able to make the file size any smaller than these. If you're happy with one of these, just let me know, and I'll upload it as soon as I can. – Rhain ☔ 10:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
That's perfect. You're a life saver. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake: Happy to help! It's also interesting to read about some games that I never would have discovered otherwise. I've uploaded the GIF here (if you'd like me to manipulate the image, or lower the resolution, just let me know); feel free to add it to the article, and change the rationale as you please. Looking forward to seeing how the article pans out. – Rhain ☔ 12:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
It's perfect as it is. I've added it to the article. When I've applied the rewrite, that article will be as ready for GA as it can be. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake: The rewrite already looks great, and I have faith that the article will be outstanding once you're done with it (as your previous work clearly indicates). Best of luck! Not that you need it. – Rhain ☔ 12:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rhain/2016_July–December&oldid=1144310095"