User talk:Bertaut/Archive 2016

Archive 2010

←

Archive 2014

Archive 2015

Archive 2016

Cold Fear

Could've sworn I wrote here before. Have you ever thought about taking the article to GAN? GamerPro64 01:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey GamerPro64. A few people have mentioned to me about bringing articles to both GAN and FAN over the years (not exclusively video game articles, but some of my Shakespeare and William Blake stuff too), and I have considered it on occasion, but, to be completely honest, I don't really have the interest to see the process through. I was very peripherally involved in a couple of GANs a few years ago, and really disliked the process. In one case, I felt the article was gutted of most of its interesting information, and ended up being decidedly inferior to its prior-GA status. The other one became very bad-tempered and hostile, and although it did eventually achieve GA status, the amount of work that the main writer of the article ended up having to put in (and the amount of criticism they encountered) was insane. It's just not really for me. Having said all of that, however, I certainly wouldn't oppose someone nominating an article I've worked on, and I do appreciate you taking the time to ask me about it. Bertaut (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Allright, cool. I can always help out with the GANs as well. So it would be all right if I nominate Cold Fear then? GamerPro64 03:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. Bertaut (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Just letting you know if you would be interested in helping out that the GAN review is up. I don't know that much about the game so I might need help fixing some of the issues brought up. GamerPro64 04:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it, wasn't expecting it so quick!!! I'll be able to fix/answer most of those problems myself with a minimum of fuss. The two that might give me some trouble (especially as I'm back to work this coming week) are the lead (which I've never been happy with from day one, always felt it was too short) and the reception section (my academic training always betrays me in my tendency to quote rather than paraphrase). Give me a day or so to fix up the smaller problems and we'll see where we are then. Bertaut (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 15

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 15, December-January 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

• New donations - Ships, medical resources, plus Arabic and Farsi resources
• #1lib1ref campaign summary and highlights
• New branches and coordinators

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 16

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 16, February-March 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

• New donations - science, humanities, and video resources
• Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project
• A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates
• Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Myth articles

Apologies if this seems redundant but I felt the need to recognize your work. I have recently stumbled back onto the pages for the Myth series after some time and have found that you have greatly expanded them in detail. The Myth series is one of my personal favorites and I always intended to improve these at some point, though time and responsibility got the best of me in the end. I would like to very much thank you and convey my sincere appreciation for your time and effort with these articles. They have great attention to detail and cover the subject excellently. Well done! Frankly Man (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much Frankly Man. The Myth series is one of my favourites too. It's a shame Myth III was such a disaster when it was released, it really killed the franchise dead in the water, as did Take-Two's complete indifference to it. I don't think Myth III is a bad game (certainly not as bad as it's reputation - the Siege of Llancarfan level is one of the best in the entire trilogy), but it's certainly not up to the standard of the first two, and some of the plot inconsistencies are irritating (the whole Mjarin twist felt really forced at the end). It surprised me when I first arrived on Wikipedia that the Myth pages had so little info, especially given the large online fan base for the first two. The Fallen Lords didn't even have it's own article until I split the main series page a couple of years ago, which is insane when one considers how important the game is in both Bungie's history and the history of real-time tactics games. It surprises me the games aren't available on Steam or GOG.com to be honest, but I guess that's Take-Two's call. I'm just glad I'm able to run all three games on Windows 10, because whenever I tried to run them on Windows Vista, my computer laughed in my face!! Anyway, sorry for rambling, and again, appreciate your kind words. Cheers. Bertaut (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 17

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 17, April-May 2016
by The Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria

• New donations this month - a German-language legal resource
• Wikipedia referals to academic citations - news from CrossRef and WikiCite2016
• New library stats, WikiCon news, a bot to reveal Open Access versions of citations, and more!

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hello B. Have you heard or read anything about why The War of the Roses DVD release has been delayed. I'm a bit worried that it might be a rights issue that could nix the whole release. OTOH if it comes out soon I'll be paying less for it that I would have if it had come out on its original release date :-) Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 00:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I've gotten two emails from Amazon, but they have just been the generic "your order had been delayed, we apologise" sort. However, I assume this means it's coming very soon. That's from their official Facebook page, posted about six hours ago, which would suggest they've gotten the DVDs and now just need to ship them. I do know their release of An Age of Kings was delayed as well, but it finally came through, and I would think (although I could be wrong), the rights issues for that would be trickier to navigate than Wars of the Roses, what with there already being an R1 North American release by BBC themselves. I would suggest, sit tight, I don't think it'll be long now. Bertaut (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and for looking into this. Much appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 01:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Bertaut (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi again B. I got a note from Amazon UK today regarding the labeling problems. In my set all three DVDs are wrong :-) I watched the first play last night and it is just a marvel. It was interesting to learn that they filmed these at the theatre - as opposed to the studio filming a few years earlier for Age of Kings. I was also interested to see Michael Pennington's name down in the "other roles" section. I always enjoy getting to see actors that I admire early in their careers. David Warner was remarkable. I will get to parts two and three this weekend. I will say that the contrast to The Hollow Crown version of the plays is fairly stark. IMO that version seemed to be as influenced by Game of Thrones as it was by Shakespeare. Still I am glad to have both in my collection. I also picked up this The Comedy of Errors (musical) and watched it a couple days ago. I'm not sure if the few songs add anything to the proceedings but I did enjoy it. The cuts to the audience included several shots of young people watching the play. They would be in their 50s by now and I wonder if any of them remember attending the performance :-) Did you get to see The Theban Plays in 1986. My VHS tape of them is fading so I now have a faint hope that "Illuminations" will bring them out on DVD one day. I hope that you have a pleasant weekend! MarnetteD|Talk 19:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey MD. Yeah, I got that email too. In mine, only two are wrong. Henry VI is on disc 1, Richard III on disc 2 and Edward IV on disc 3. Begad, the printers really made an arse of things didn't they? Not good for a fledging company like Illuminations. Regarding them being filmed on the stage, yeah, I knew that, from my research writing the article. The BBC originally wanted to do them as pure filmed theatre, but Barton and Hall weren't interested, so they came up with the concept they used - kind of half way between original TV and filmed theatre, and which serves as an interesting precursor to the modern phenomenon of broadcasting live plays, some of which are presented in pretty standard filmed theatre format (RSC Live is especially bad for this - stick a camera in the Globe and press record!), but some of which are actually pretty visually interesting (two examples which spring to mind are Danny Boyle's Frankenstein and Benedict Andrews's Streetcar Named Desire, both of which were broadcast as part of the National Theatre Live and both of which were visually very interesting beyond the theatrical presentation). Funny thing was I attended a lecture recently on "Shakespeare: 800 Years Old" which posited where we might go in the next 400 years of Shakespearean adaptations. Obviously, there was a lot of talk of online stuff and VR and the like, but the whole concept of jazzing up the live broadcasts was mentioned, so you'd end up with half-theatre/half-film. I pointed out that The Wars of the Roses had done just that in the 60s, and much to my amazement, none of the panel (Shakespearean experts and theatrical professionals) had even heard of the TV adaptation (although most were aware of the stage production). As regards The Comedy of Errors, is that the one that begins with the camera entering the theatre with the audience? I remember seeing it many years ago, and really disliking it, but I would have been young and dumb at the time, so I may have to reassess. I haven't seen that production of the Theban plays, but the cast makes my eyes water (John Shrapnel as Creon!!) Will have to keep an eye out for it. Bertaut (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes that is the CoE that I watched. Always remember that I am such an actorphile that I can put up with a flawed production in order to see performers that I like - that might make me an unreliable narrator :-) That version of the Theban Plays is a treat. It features Mike Gwilym as Haemon in Antigone. What little I know about him is intriguing. A member of the RSC with many memorable performances he was also very good as Sid Halley in The Racing Game. Then, in the early 90s, he gives up acting completely. Amazing that they had not heard of the TV version of WotR. As ever thanks for sharing your thoughts and memories. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 20:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I've watched some bad movies in my time just to see good performances. Southpaw springs to mind. Anything with Jake Gyllenhaal is worth watching, but man oh man that was an awful movie! As regards Mike Gwilym, I'd be familiar with his BBC Television Shakespeare stuff (Berowne in Love's Labour's Lost, Pericles in Pericles and Aufidius in the excellent Coriolanus), but apart from that, I wouldn't have seen him in anything. I'd be more familiar with his brother Robert, who has done a lot of BBC TV stuff. Speaking of BBC, don't know if you'd be interested in this but I'm really looking forward to it. The Secret Agent is a favourite of mine. Obviously it's no Heart of Darkness, but what is?? I'll probably let all three episodes air and watch them together. Might be worth keeping an eye out for on your side of the pond. Bertaut (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up B. On another fading VHS I have the 1992 version with David Suchet so I look forward to seeing this one. MarnetteD|Talk 00:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Taming

Hi Bertaut!

Your articel says: "according to Philip Henslowe's diary, a play called The Tamynge of A Shrowe was performed at Newington Butts on 13 June 1594." In "A Textual Companion" pg. 110 Wells and Taylor says "a Performance of "the Tamynge of A Shrowe" on 11 June 1594,".

Now, what is correct 13. June or 11. June?

Greetings -- Andreas Werle (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andreas. Yeah, I looked into this. My source for the 13 June was the H.J. Oliver Oxford Shakespeare edition of the play. But I've checked the Textual Companion, the Barbara Hodgdon Arden Shakespeare and the Ann Thompson Cambridge Shakespeare edition, and they all list 11 June. Oliver simply says "11 June 1592 (assumed to be an error for 13 June)." I do know many of the dates in Henslowe are unreliable, but as Oliver doesn't offer any reason for changing the date, and as all other major editions seem to go unquestioningly with the 11 June date, I think it best to stick to that one, so I've altered it, and changed the reference from Oliver to Hodgdon. Good spot sir. Bertaut (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I've said it before and I know I will again - Bertaut - your value to WikiP is immeasurable! Just for grins I went to a calendar for June 1594 to see what days of the week are in question. The 11th was a Saturday and the 13th a Monday. I don't know whether those times had a rigid "we open new shows on a Friday" the way that our world does (for the most part anyway) but I thought I'd throw what I found into the mix. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 22:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info MarnetteD. There are various reasons the dates in Henslowe are considered unreliable - performances on days when the theatres were known to be shut, giving the same date for different performances, but I wasn't sure what the case was here. Never occurred to me to look at a calendar (like the guy who can't get sound on his computer and rips it apart convinced there's something wrong with the sound card only to discover the speakers are turned off!). I think though it's probably best to stick with the 11th. That's the date used by Hodgdon, Thompson, the Textual Companion etc. I do remember when I was writing the Chronology of Shakespeare's plays coming across a number of dates that most critics agreed were inaccurate and all supported changing them (if memory serves Henry VI, Part I is an example - although don't quote me on that). In the case of Shrew though we'd need an RS as to why we're changing the date from the 11th to the 13th (and as Oliver just changes it without explanation, I don't think he'd count). I'll look into it a bit further over the week and see what I can dig up. Bertaut (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

These Problems are the reason, why I own different Editions of Hamlet (Arden², Arden³, NCS, Oxford, RSC, Folger, Reclam, Engl.-deutsche Studienausgabe, dtv). :-) -- Andreas Werle (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

TWotR Conundrum

Hi again B. Two things before I get to the point that matches the title of this thread. First, it looks like I was too quick in my assessment above. Episode 2 has almost as many decapitations and stage blood as your average GoT episode :-) Next, you may hear or read comments about how flawed the makeup is - this came up in a DVD commentary for another series from the sixties - one person started to complain about a how a wig join was so obvious and the director pointed out that it is a combination of original format cleanup, digital TVs and large screens that expose these. On analog TVs of smaller screen size most of this looked reasonable. Now to the header. From 1965 until this month the only version available to watch matched what you and others (mostly you I'm sure) have written here The Wars of the Roses (adaptation)#Episodes. From now on there are going to be more (hopefully more and more) readers who have only seen the original three part version. I have been pondering how that section might be altered to reflect both. I haven't yet come up with a solution. I know that we don't want to repeat cast lists and plot summaries over and over but I am hoping there will be some way to acknowledge the differences. I know you are likely to be too busy to deal with this any time soon. Would a post about this on the talk page for the article bring any other editors to take a look at the situation? I watched the interviews with Warner and Suzman and it is wonderful that they were cast with so little experience. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 05:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

What is it they say about great minds MD?? I can never remember! Yeah, I was thinking that exact same thing regarding the episode outline. As of now, the only officially available version is the 3 episode version (which is the 'correct' version anyway). However, I'm not sure if simply replacing the cast lists for the 10 episode version with the cast lists for the 3 episode version is the way to go. But, as you say, adding the cast lists from the 3 episodes to the article as is doesn't make much sense either as it would simply be repeating information. I know IMDb is not exactly reliable, but if you look it up there, they only have info for the 10 episode version. They used to have the 3 episode version as well, but someone must have deleted it as a duplicate entry (actually, speaking of which, I must add the IMDb template to the article). It is a bit of a pickle alright. I'll think about it over the next few days and see if inspiration strikes, but whatever happens, I'll run it past yourself before I do anything. Regarding the interviews, I haven't had a chance to watch them yet. That's very interesting about the wig. There's a similar point made on one of the (many) Blu-rays of Nosferatu - the moderator is talking about the makeup looking a bit dodgy and mentions that the filmmakers never conceived of anyone watching the film in any format other than at the cinema; they certainly didn't think about the ability to pause or HD or the like. Bertaut (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Nice coincidence :-) One idea I've had is to change the section to show the plots, cast lists and air dates for the three parter, remove the first two from the 10 parter and just list the episode titles and air dates for that version. On the down side that is probably the most labour intensive option. Another IMDb snafu that I noticed is that the episode list has the original 3 parter air dates for the first three eps and then switches to the 66 air dates for the last six. Getting them to fix that would be like pulling teeth. It is also interesting (sadly so) that there is only one pic of the production. I look forward to reading any ideas that you have in altering the article. Have a wonderful week! MarnetteD|Talk 23:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds like a plan alright. I should be able to get to it over the next couple of days. It won't be that labour intensive; cutting and pasting more than anything. Bertaut (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

That is good to know B. It will also have the benefit of cutting down on the repetition of the names. Another idea might be to takes the cast lists direct from the episode end titles - pausing DVDs is less wear and tear than pausing a VHS :-) I don't know if that will work for you though. MarnetteD|Talk 20:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Yep, exactly as I'd planned. That's how I did the cast lists for the BBC Television Shakespeare. I wouldn't trust IMDb!! Bertaut (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Wavelengths still in sync :-) MarnetteD|Talk 21:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Problems with Rogue Galaxy

You've got a lot of nerve to ruin my fixes on these issues in the Rogue Galaxy article by re-adding scores to prose though the guidelines say they should be removed from prose; and removing Edge, Game Informer, PlayStation: The Official Magazine and Electronic Gaming Monthly scores from the chart though the rules again say they should be included. And there's also a dispute on the Australian release date: the GameFAQs link claims that the Australian release date is "September 20", while the GameSpy link claims the release date is "September 6". Which website is correct? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have much nerve. Shedloads of it in fact. It's quite cheap where I live, so I tend to buy in bulk. But getting back to the article. GameFAQs is not an RS, so it doesn't matter what date it has. If you can find some RSs to support September 20, then we're gold. Also, please can you tell me what "rules" say Edge, Game Informer etc must be included in articles? And while you're at it, could you point out to me where the rules are regarding not having scores in the prose please. I can't find it in the link you gave. Bertaut (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I have these two links about not allowing scores in prose in the archives of the WikiProject Video Games if you are looking for them. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I'm personally not overly pushed about whether or not the scores are mentioned in the prose, but for yourself for future reference, those links you've given me aren't guidelines. They're conversations between users and amount to nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT and/or WP:ILIKEIT. There's a huge difference between formal guidelines and editors' opinions as expressed on a talk page. So if you meet someone who is militant about the scores being in the prose, those links won't help you. Bertaut (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Astrophel and Stella

Good morning Bertaut, hope you are well!

Perhaps you have seen this and wondered how accurate it is printed. But this is surely not a 16. century print. The original text is reprinted here. I could not find the original quarto-titlepage. Should this one not be removed from the article? It suggests the original, but it is not.

Greetings -- Andreas Werle (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andreas, how are you? Okay so, in the interests of full disclosure, I don't know much at all about the provenance of Astrophel and Stella. However, having said that, I agree with you, this image isn't an actual 1591 quarto; the font is all wrong. I would imagine its a modern recreation of the original title page (a version of which you can see here, although I'm still not 100% sure that's an accurate reproduction - although its certainly better than the one we have.) My suggestion for the article would be that it would be better to include a genuine image of the third quarto (which is easy to find online) than a dodgy copy of the first. But that's just me. Perhaps Xover might be able to offer some advice, or if not, suggest someone who may. Watch this space! Bertaut (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Andreas Werle and Bertaut: Hi all. Apologies for the tardy response, but IRL has been… intrusive lately. Anyways, this isn't exactly my field and I hadn't previously looked into this, so all sorts of caveats apply (even more than usual). That being said, what I've found is…

The first edition, having been suppressed, is exceedingly rare. Only two copies exist, of which one is the British Library and the other is in the Huntington. Scans of it do exist, but they are all locked up behind various forms of paywalls and restrictions. The best bet for getting a copy is probably contacting the Huntington directly, with a distant second doing the same with the BL (who I'm expecting to turn down the request, but you never know). There should be a scan available through EEBO (scanned from the BL copy), but I don't currently have access to that, and you'd probably have to navigate some kind of EULA nonsense to grab a copy anyway.

The second edition is almost as rare, and only five copies survive. Of these, one is in the Huntington; but another was acquired (from the Pirie collection) by the Folger in December 2015 (these are the only two copies in North America). The Folger copy will eventually be catalogued and scanned, and most likely appear online in their "Luna" image archive. Thedarklady154 may have more information and be able to help, but I'm not sure they are still working out of the Folger (or editing Wikipedia for that matter).

In any case, if you're looking for alternatives, you might be able to use one of the following:

• 
  Title page from University of Glasgow Library's copy of the 1627 6th edition of Arcadia.
• 
  Title page from The Folger's (Pirie) copy of the 1591 2nd edition. This copy has damaged leaves that have been replaced by later facsimiles, of which the title page may be one. Once the Folger has cataloged it, they will most likely document this.

For reference, the original edition is STC 22536 and the 2nd edition STC 22537.

And finally, for the problem you're flagging with the current image in the article, the usual solution is to simply amend the caption to explain the provenance. Something like "A later facsimile of the title page of…". Sorry I couldn't be of more help. --Xover (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"Sorry I couldn't be of more help" - yeah, because compared to my answer, yours was quite useless!!! So there you go Andreas, more than enough info for you to make a more informed decision as to how to proceed. Bertaut (talk) 00:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Andreas Werle and Bertaut: And taking note of your plight, a crack team of literary ninja specialists (i.e. DavidPKendal) sprang into action, infiltrated the British Library, and came away with a photographic facsimile of their copy of the first second edition.

The title page of the first second edition of Astrophil and Stella (1591), from the British Library copy.

You'll find some alternate photos in c:Category:Astrophel and Stella.

I took the liberty of swapping out the lede image in Astrophel and Stella, but do, of course, feel free to revert or change as you please. --Xover (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

That's great Xover. Thank you. That's certainly a better looking image for the page, and takes care of Andreas's initial concerns I would imagine. No plans to revert; my knowledge of Astrophel doesn't extend much beyond reading it in college. So I defer to those more knowledgeable than myself on the subject. Which wouldn't be hard (I didn't actually pay that much attention whilst reading it. Must dig it out and peruse it again actually!) Again, thanks. Bertaut (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Xover, this is perfect! Thanks for your help and sorry for being so late with my answer! Greetings -- Andreas Werle (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 18

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

• New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
• Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
• TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
• OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Temple Run

Hi Bertaut, while there's Hugo (video game), it's based on the game show and so came after it. The RedBurn (ϕ) 12:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

That's fair enough The RedBurn, thanks for letting me know. As an aside, per WP:ALSO, you might want to consider adding a short explanatory note as to why it's included in the See also section. Something like "interactive TV show with an endless runner theme", or something along those lines. If I was confused as to its addition, you can be sure others will be as well, and the note would eliminate that. Bertaut (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the advice! The RedBurn (ϕ) 22:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

No worries sir. Bertaut (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:VGAGG

True, but it also says to use GameRankings if it adds value atop of Metacritic. The GameRankings versions had more reviews than the Metacritic versions, which must have been what they meant by "value". Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you're partially correct. If memory serves from the discussions that took place regarding the removal of GameRankings scores (and it's possible my memory is inaccurate), the whole "adds value atop" thing was applicable in two cases; the highly unlikely situation in which the GameRankings score was significantly different from the Metacritic score, and the more likely situation in which Metacritic had only one or two reviews, and GameRankings had considerably more (say, 10 plus). It definitely doesn't apply to situations where Metacritic has a decent number and GameRankings has more. By default, GameRankings tend to have more review scores than Metacritic. So in a nutshell, what WP:VGAGG says is that in most cases, we should use Metacritic rather than GameRankings; in rare cases, we should use both; but in no circumstances should we use GameRankings instead of Meatcritic. That's literally the opposite of the guideline. It would probably be a good idea to seek clarity on the "adds value atop", because, as I say, I could be wrong about what it means. I'll raise the issue at the project talk page and see what's what. Bertaut (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Opened a discussion on the project talk page here, so keep an eye on that and we should get some clarity on the situation. Bertaut (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 19

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 19, September–October 2016
by Nikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti

• New and expanded donations - Foreign Affairs, Open Edition, and many more
• New Library Card Platform and Conference news
• Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links

Read the full newsletter

19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Merry Merry

Season's Greetings, Bertaut! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 16:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I know you got to see this months ago. It airs here Friday night and my DVR is all set. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Cheers, same to you sir. Hope you have good one. And enjoy Shakespeare Live! Bertaut (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Archive 2010

←

Archive 2014

Archive 2015

Archive 2016