Jump to content

User talk:rst20xx/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Any comments made by me are in bold - rst20xx.

Re: ANI Thread on small IP range

Replied here. ~ Troy (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Lesson learnt - rst20xx (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Your welcome :) ~ Troy (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

RFCU removal

FYI, I removed your RFCU request. Since the range is already known and is very small - and moreover, the vandalism has not only ceased but was pretty controllable anyway - there really wasn't much for a checkuser to do. Please let me know if I am misunderstanding your request. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Half-Life 2 episodes

You can strike your "on hold" now. Gary King (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

ATP Masters Series

Hi, I saw the discussion about tournament names on the tennis wikiproject and wanted to get some information for myself. I am in the process, along with User:Oxford St., of creating articles for all the masters series/Super 9 tournaments dating back to 1990. I created a template with all the tournaments in but Oxford St. informed me about the different names for the pre-2000 tournaments. But on some of the other templates, the 1999 Paris Masters is shown as Paris Open but elsewhere it is "Paris Masters" and some articles are named with the sponsors involved. I was wondering what the policy is on naming these articles. Thanks. 03md (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well generally I think where there is a non-sponsor name, that is where the articles are placed, but this is just my opinion. We couldn't agree on that in the discussion, in fact we couldn't agree on anything because of one other particularly vocal editor, and I'm sorry to say the whole thing turned into a giant waste of time. I would think though that "Paris Open" is the official sponsor name, unless they weren't called Masters at all then (which I think they were before then if not then?). See also for example http://masters-series.com/ where we have e.g. "Masters Series Monte Carlo", but it's still "Monte Carlo Masters". Sorry I can't be more helpful - rst20xx (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy titles FTC

I'm working on a Final Fantasy titles FTC with The Prince of Darkness. The articles will be what is in here, in the "Main series" row. Do you think it is sufficient to call it the "Final Fantasy titles" to exclude any spinoffs or expansions, or should we hunt for some references to back this up? It's a bit different from the Zelda titles because in this case, the Final Fantasy games are numbered and so there's a fixed order, etc. Also, we found this which shows that the games that are part of the main series (excluding the newer ones that were released after this document was published). Thoughts? (Please respond or notify me on my talk page, thanks!) Gary King (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I would vote support for that topic! rst20xx (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

FACR

Rst20xx/Archive 5, you posted at one or more of the recent discussions of short FAs. There's now a proposal to change the featured article criteria that attempts to address this. Please take a look and consider adding your comments to the straw poll there. Mike Christie (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! rst20xx (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

ATP Masters Series

Thanks for your help. My problem was that different templates within wikipedia said different things. Should names such as "1991 Newsweek Cup" be changed. Would you be willing to help with the project to create the pages at all as it is quite a lot of work? 03md (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I was under the belief that by 1991, the common name was the "Indian Wells Masters", in which case that is what the article should be called, but I suspect this belief may have come from within Wikipedia itself, in which case nevermind! Surely there was some non-sponsorship name in 1991? (i.e. if not "Indian Wells Masters", then "ATP Indian Wells" or some such.) If there is, I would probably use that.
I'd love to help out, but unfortunately I'm now back at Uni, so my time is too limited, sorry - rst20xx (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Half-Life 2 episodes (2)

Perhaps the FTC should just be restarted? It's getting hard to tell what's what. Gary King (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I restarted the nomination. Please make sure that I did it correctly. Do you think the participants from the previous FTC should be notified? Gary King (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me. If you want to notify the previous participants, go ahead - rst20xx (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
StarCraft: Ghost was promoted to FA, which caused the StarCraft GT to be promoted to FT automatically. I've done so: Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/StarCraft and Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Featured log/October 2008. I'm not sure if I did all the steps correctly; since this is the first GT -> FT, please re-check my steps. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I notice that a few edits need to be made to the stuff outside of the FT process such as Goings-on, the Featured topics Portal, etc. Should I undo the edits I made to promote this topic and let you do it? Anyways, this should all be hashed out with this topic as it's the first one, then we can have it move more smoothly from then on. Gary King (talk) 03:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I suppose Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/StarCraft titles would also need to be updated? Gary King (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Well I think consensus was that we didn't bother to update the logs, or the milestones. Look at my edit history to see what else I did - rst20xx (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Alright thanks for doing that. When Ghost was promoted, I pretty much wanted to try out promoting a topic for myself to see what needed to be done, as I had never done it before. I'll review your edits so I know what to do next time, although I'll probably leave it up to you from now on! :) Gary King (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, this was a far from typical promotion, much of the work was done already when promoting it to GT. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Nomination procedure's promotion procedure bit is pretty accurate. If you wanna try it out properly, so long as it's 10 days after opening, and there are no active ongoing discussions, just go ahead and promote :P rst20xx (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Tennis project and featured content

Right now the Tennis wikiproject has no actual tennis featured content. Sure it has two FAs, both about video games, but for a project of such significance it's really poor. I'm trying to initiate a discussion as to why this is the case and what can be done about it and I was really hoping you could contribute to the discussion here. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have left my 2 cents there now. Cheers! --HJensen, talk 12:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Withdraw Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Half-Life 2 episodes

Please withdraw the FTC when you get the chance. Also, please respond to my question at the bottom of the page. Gary King (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

OK will do tomorrow - rst20xx (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, your thoughts are appreciated at the FTC questions page when you get the chance. Gary King (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Admin nom

I just remembered that you aren't an administrator. Would you like a nomination? You clearly have a level head and a good grasp on how this place works. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to offer my support as long as you accept :) ~ Troy (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh cool, thanks guys! However I think I'm going to reject (for now anyway!) I am an Oxford student and it's term time, hence I wouldn't really have time to get behind the nomination - rst20xx (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Evo.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Evo.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Evo.JPG

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Evo.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Featured_topic_questions#Slipknot_discography

Wikipedia_talk:Featured_topic_questions#Slipknot_discography Gary King (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

State highways in Hamilton County, New York FLC

I've got a question, you know what my opinion of converting this is - there's nothing wrong with making the list separate, and I don't understand what is with the continuous opposing. You know I won't give in and I am still interested in making a deal with using a county route list. That would make it much cleaner, and more detailed topic rather than summarizing everything and leaving out details.Mitch32(UP) 19:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

But as it stands, all State highways in Hamilton County, New York is is one giant summary of six other articles... it seems to me that you're just chopping down on work for the FTCs. And the articles are worse, IMO, as a result. Sorry - rst20xx (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Two proposals (or no deal):

I have come up with two ideas - if you disagree to both, I will not listen to you. The first is to accept using the style I am building in my Erie County Sandbox, which basically compromises both styles (this is far from complete because of the massive road system). The second is to let Hamilton be the only one to use this style. The way List of highways in Warren County, New York is set will not be very good for Hamilton, mainly because there is so little to write about, as noticed. I am preferring the first style, but if you'd rather me be a bozo and do the second one, then please accept that one. I want to make some compromise. (Oh, btw, no more "List of"s - I feel that Highways in X County, New York should benefit). The decision is yours, my opinion is to use the first, but I won't make the decision for you.

Understand, I don't wanna keep fighting this, and I wanna finish Hamilton County off - I have more to do.Mitch32(UP) 21:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

...I accept the first - rst20xx (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I will implement the CR section in Hamilton tomorrow afternoon.Mitch32(UP) 02:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you - rst20xx (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Just understand this will not be as detailed as Warren's - it'll mainly consist of a summary a link to List of county routes in Hamilton County, New York, which I'll write tomorrow as well.Mitch32(UP) 02:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Yep, got it - rst20xx (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
What happened here? Are you gonna withdraw the GAN, and put an end to this article-and-not-list business? rst20xx (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I have a life to live. I am trying to get things done in a manner that I can go with.Mitch32(UP) 20:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
But, surely withdrawing the GAN is just deleting a few things, and if you want to do it you should clearly do it before anyone reviews it... rst20xx (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Done, I am really busy, handling like, 10 different on-wiki and on-Commons things at once, so I am a litte slow at getting to things.Mitch32(What's next on the agenda?) 03:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I've added the county routes section. Anything else?Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 22:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Nah, that'll do me. Thanks! rst20xx (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Then I guess its time for FLC once again (yes i brought it back to list). Thanks for understanding that we have different views.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 22:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Universities in Canada

The peer reviews are closed now. Gary King (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know, I'm incredibly busy at the moment to the point that I haven't had the time to do anything to do with featured topics. I appologise that no-one else has stepped in... I'll see if I have a chance to get on it soon - rst20xx (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Featured_topic_candidates#Metroid_Prime_topic

Gary King (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:2008 ATP Challenger Series tournaments

Hi there. I see you created this template and I m wondering why just 50 some tournaments are listed here when there are what looks to be about 200 actual challenger tournaments (according to 2008 ATP Challenger Series) Mayumashu (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm the reason I did that was that I based it on Template:ATP Challenger Series tournaments, so I was simply perpetuating the lackings of that other template. Quick research suggests that both templates contain all the tournaments up to some point in June, and as Template:ATP Challenger Series tournaments was originally created in March to cover all the challengers being held in 2008 (I changed it to just a general all the challengers template), then that could be why it didn't include any later ones - because they weren't announced yet.
So sorry about that, feel free to fix my mistake! But notice there's also Template:ATP Challenger Tretorn Serie+ tournaments and Template:2008 ATP Challenger Tretorn Serie+ tournaments - rst20xx (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Template:ATP Challenger Series tournaments needs to go (because of the yearly schedule changes) and I ve notified its creator of this view. I think Template:2008 ATP Challenger Series tournaments should be kept and linked, because of the unimportance/low encyclopedic quality of challenger tournament results, to a pages that describe the tournaments over the years (listing just champions and runners-up) and not to pages describing one year's complete results for each tourament. Anyway, I ll likely work away at these templates in the coming year or two. Mayumashu (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
You could just have it list all the tournaments across all the years... rst20xx (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops

I changed the link to the {{WPTennis}} template on your Tennis subpage...before I realized it was a "userpage". My apologies, but I was trying to remove the many DAB's to that template...just wanted to explain. -- Mjquin_id (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean {{Tennis}}? OK, well it's alright now, but you should try and fix your messes, and by changing where that pointed, you broke many links... rst20xx (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Uh, no, not "Tennis", but found that there are a number of references to the "WikiProject Tennis" banner (for talk pages). I have been eliminating [[WP:DAB} of "WP-Tennis" and "WP Tennis" in favor of just "WPTennis"...(substantially more prevalent across WikiProjects). (Knowing that the "real" page is actually "WikiProject Tennis", but not wanting to add the extra characters, for no "real" purpose... Also now looking for plain "Tennis" on talk pages...I am not sure about eliminating the WP part?? I hit your Rst20xx/Tennis page but accident. I am pretty new to AWB, so I did not exclude "user" pages properly...but stopped after only 4-5 pages?? Er...so What broke? -- Mjquin_id (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Dunno, but why on earth are you eliminating certain spellings? They're all redirects to the same place. I suppose it makes searching for them easier if they're all the same, but there are literally thousands of them (like 10,000), so you'll be there forever! Also, what's the point of piping links to the same place, eg here? rst20xx (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: 3 FTs and Essex

Yeah, I would suggest rewriting the template soon. As soon as I write and complete State highways in Essex County, New York for FL. Then I will probably, along with another FA possibly, will nominate it. So, go ahead and rewrite it.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 20:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ack. Okay thanks, I'll have to have a look then. Is there any possibility of something getting to 4 at some point soon? - rst20xx (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
NY 28N is planned to be in a 4th topic, but that is not ready or close yet.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 21:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I should add - NY 20N and NY 20SY, along with NY 92 and NY 173 will end up being in a situation like this as well, for Onondaga County. 92, 20N and 20SY will also be in Madison County's as well.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 13:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Well I've rewritten the template for 3, and asked Gimmetrow to upload the new version. I'm not going to do 4 until we're nearer needing it - rst20xx (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. (173 will be part of Madison as well). I do have Onondaga in the works at the moment, but have a few ahead of it.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 13:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Job done - rst20xx (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually I just went ahead and did 4, before I forget how to do it and have to re-learn again - rst20xx (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
That's fine, Thanks!Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 21:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(indent reset) - If you would like, take a look at User:Mitchazenia/NY Topics list if you want to see exactly what I am working on. I am often working on more than 1 at once, so its often that I will update it. It would also help critique the topics.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 21:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh thanks. You're very close with Essex - rst20xx (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Recreation of "featured topic" categories

Hey there, I noticed you recently recreated a bunch of "Wikipedia featured topics" categories that were recently deleted as WP:CSD#C1 (empty). Were you planning on actually populating these? If not, they will be subject to speedy deletion again. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I noticed you changed the wording of C1 today to exempt featured topics categories. May I ask why? Is there something special about these categories that should allow them to exist empty ad infinitum? VegaDark (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes. They're used in {{FeaturedTopicSum}}, which in turn is used throughout good/featured topics to automatically determine if a particular topic is good or featured, and then take appropriate action. And this is calculated by the number of pages in various categories, and is determined by the number and percentage of articles that are featured in a topic (currently, this needs to be 2 or more, and 25% or greater). If the categories are deleted, it breaks the sums, and hence breaks the whole process. This process is used on the talk page for every topic, the talk page for every article involved in a topic, for the dummy wikiproject for good/featured topics, and on both WP:FT and WP:GT themselves. Furthermore, pages will move into and out of these categories, if they move from good to featured or vice versa, so they could become repopulated at any time - rst20xx (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. Non-existent category description pages still output a number of category members. For example, Category:Censured or reprimanded United States Senators outputs 0. Or, alternately, you could do an #ifexist check to see if the page exists and output 0 if it doesn't.... So what's the issue? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Often articles get a bit sticky and don't move between categories like they should, and it requires manual intervention to make them move. In fact this happens practically every time a topic gets promoted, and can sometimes happen afterwards too, eg if the talk page of an article gets vandalised. Being able to navigate between the categories and see exactly what page is in what category makes problems a LOT easier to track down. Also, to make another point, CSD C1 includes exemption for "project categories that by their nature may become empty on occasion". These categories also can become empty for a while, only to later become repopulated automatically. The bottom line is, having them makes life much easier. There's only about 40 empty ones after 2 years of featured topics, so it's not like there's a huge number either - rst20xx (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
You do realize making things stand out is really annoying, right? :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
lol yes. But (otherwise needlessly) deleting things, and thus making WP:FT harder to maintain, is also really annoying :P unless you're actually referring to me bolding my text here... in which case I disagree, because it actually makes it easier for me to read! rst20xx (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, is there a better way that this could be done? It doesn't seem logical to have to keep a bunch of empty categories around in order to be able to do this. BTW, I wrote the wording for the current CSD C1 criteria (prior to your change) and would not consider these categories to become empty on occasion "by their nature" - I wrote that thinking more towards categories where their goal is to become empty, like "Wikipedians looking for help" or "Empty pages for speedy deletion". These pages, ideally, we would like to see full. I don't see how we can be delisting good and/or featured articles at such a high rate that we can't simply restore the category if it becomes populated again. VegaDark (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh okay, I didn't get the intent regarding the categories clause from reading CS1. But anyway, back to the FT cats discussion, I really don't see the point in deleting and recreating them when they're perfectly fine just existing all along. There are really not very many of them (so they don't take up much space), they're not growing in number very fast at all, and the only argument against their existence that you've presented is that they stick out like a sore thumb. There is no better way that I know of - rst20xx (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

FTC supplementary nom

Please see my response. -- Scorpion0422 21:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Solar System lists

I've been consolidating the Solar System lists. You said you wanted a featured subtopic of Solar System lists. I was wondering which lists you felt should be included. Serendipodous 20:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah yeah I see - nice work. Well I would think that one of the following two things should happen:
  1. all the lists should go in the main Solar System topic (well, all the really significant ones)
  2. one of the lists should be in the main topic, with the rest of the lists forming a subtopic to this one particular list
I think the second idea is slightly better because I feel that putting many lists in the main topic would make it a bit list-heavy, and doing it this way round would also make any list-related additions easier. Finally, there would be no rush to create the lists subtopic, just as there is no rush to make any of the other subtopics.
So I think the first question is which article should be the main one. To me, List of Solar System objects seems to be the most natural article to have as the main one (and indeed, has the correct article name for this role), but List of Solar System objects by size has the most information in it. You could possibly turn List of named Solar System objects into the main list as well, by adding some disambiguation to the other lists from it. I would probably lean towards the first option but am not too bothered. Another option would be to create a disambiguation page for the lists and make that the main article, which is completely unprecedented, but I think the nature of this subtopic is unprecedented!
And then question two is obviously which lists to put in the subtopic, if you choose to make it. I would say the stuff in {{Lists of Solar System objects}} would be a good starting point, plus List of notable asteroids and possibly the comet lists. Then other lists (e.g. Name conflicts of Solar System objects, the comet lists) could be future additions, and the lists subtopic could in fact have a subtopic of its own - for asteroid/minor planet lists - rst20xx (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's possible to make List of minor planets into a featured list. I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem doable. Serendipodous 21:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you might be right. But if you can't, you can always get it included as an audited list (it is after all a list of other Wikipedia lists). I definitely think you should try to include it though, because it is very important - rst20xx (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Metroid Prime trilogy

I still think that the trilogy is substantial enough to be a topic on its own, but an entire Metroid topic doesn't look too far off in the distance, either. Gary King (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I did support. But I don't know enough about the series to know whether it merits its own article, separately from the general Metroid one, and it strikes me as possible that if you were to make one, it would just be to make it easier to get the topic to FT. I'm not trying to accuse you of this, I'm just asking you to reflect on what your motives here. Glad to hear the whole topic can get to GT/FT tho - maybe you should just go for that, instead? It would end any debate, and the end result is +1 topic either way... rst20xx (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, withdraw it. I will work on the whole series, including Samus Aran, the only non-video game article of the series. I'll try to make every article in the topic featured—it will be that much sweeter ;) Gary King (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hah, sounds good, good luck with it and I look forward to being impressed with the results! rst20xx (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Half-Life topic

If and when the Half-Life topic is ready to become an FTC (only the series article remains), do you want the topic to be nominated as a new topic, or add the remaining articles as a supplementary nomination to the Half-Life 2 topic? Gary King (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I would think you should sup nom it, as it is an (admittedly very large) adaptation of an existing topic, not a whole new thing. Also if you nom it as a new topic then you'd probably have to nom the old topic for removal - rst20xx (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I guess a sup nom would take less of everyone's time, ultimately, so I'll just do that. Will it be the largest supplementary nomination ever? Gary King (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
No - you'd be adding 5 articles (6 with Portal?), whereas Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Solar System/addition5 added 6 (though these 6 were removed with Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Solar System/addition8) - rst20xx (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

GAN review request

Hi there. You're fairly active in the featured topic region, and I've got a new article to add to the Atlantic Coast Conference featured topic. The only problem is that the article, 2008 ACC Championship Game, has been mouldering away in the GAN queue for a while. I'm afraid that it won't be reviewed in time and the featured topic will expire. Is there any way that I could impose on you to review it? I'd be quite grateful if you could. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, I'd like to help you out, but I don't think I have the expertise to do such a review. I'm not an article writer and have never done any GANs before. May I recommend asking Gary King? (Also I really wouldn't worry too much about the topic meeting the deadline, firstly given the circumstances I don't think anyone would support demoting it, and secondly, you have until March 6th!!!) rst20xx (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

FTC still open?

Hi, I stumbled across a few talk pages, which still had an {{FTCaddmain}} or {{FTC}} template on them, despite being closed with consensus to promote. Is this correct? I'm not sure if these templates should just be removed or if ArticleHistory had still yet to be updated them, so I thought I seek your counsel on this matter rather than do it wrong myself. Some of the ones I found include:

Many thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I checked the links of the FTC image, and think I have found all possible offenders. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, these were all mistakes on the part of myself, Arctic Gnome or occasionally someone else. Some go back a year! :O The FTCaddmain ones are unsurprising to me because I never checked for that before when promoting a topic, whoops. Anyway, I fixed them now, and you only missed Talk:Guitar Hero - an easy way to check for this problem is just looking at [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] - thank you very much, and this is something I should look out for once in a while! rst20xx (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
No worries, if I find any in future I'll remove themself, just wanted to check that I would have been doing the right thing. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:2000 Miami Masters

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:2000 Miami Masters, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:2000 Miami Masters has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:2000 Miami Masters, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/X-Men films

It has been longer a week since I "re-nominated" the topic and everyone seems to have support over it. Does that mean it can get promoted? Your the guy who seems to be in charge of that stuff, I think, so I decided to ask you. Cheers. Wildroot (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't going to do it before ten days since the restart, as ten days is the length a nom normally runs for Arctic gnome also promotes topics by the way...) rst20xx (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I guess you can also look at it from a different angle, seeing as how I nominated it on December 2, and that was like 29 day ago. I guess we can wait for another 2 days. Fine with me. Wildroot (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rst20xx/Archive_5&oldid=1232600789"