User talk:Shooterwalker/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Shooterwalker. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Roberta Williams scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 14 November 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 14, 2022, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Star Control Homepage Dispute notification
Good evening. This is with regards to the editing dispute (Talk:Star Control - Wikipedia) as to whether the game's current homepage (www.starcontrol.com) should be listed on the Star Control article. A third party has offered to mediate the dispute to see if we can come to some sort of consensus or, if failing that, a resolution that best meets the encyclopedia's standards. At your convenience, please visit Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard - Wikipedia to enter your summary of the dispute. The mediator will likely ask a series of follow-up questions. Thank you for efforts and time in resolving this. ERegion (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
DRN case reminder
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Precious anniversary
 | |
| One year! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you today for Roberta Williams, "about a notable game developer, who earned their reputation mainly with the King's Quest series from the 1980s and 1990s. She arguably developed the first graphic adventure game, which catapulted her career and her company, Sierra Entertainment. She retired in the late 1990s after Sierra went through a series of acquisitions (including some unfortunate financial drama). But she leaves a great legacy of titles she personally developed, plus the successful business that she ran with her husband, Ken. She has won lifetime achievement awards for her overall career."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| I was wondering who had written a great FA on Roberta Williams! Thanks for the wave of nostalgia. :) Double sharp (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC) |
- +1. Cool choice of topic, thanks. Levivich (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Really enjoyed working on this one. Thanks for the appreciation. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- I thought the name on the front page was familiar! Congrats on reaching the front page! Panini! • 🥪 17:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- The face was familiar too, thanks to all those KQ4 death screens... Double sharp (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks again for all the support. FA writing is serious work. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- The face was familiar too, thanks to all those KQ4 death screens... Double sharp (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- I thought the name on the front page was familiar! Congrats on reaching the front page! Panini! • 🥪 17:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Really enjoyed working on this one. Thanks for the appreciation. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Heads up About Dark Moon
If you are still interested, you have done a copyedit of the lead a bit back but I have since then overhauled it to make it comprehensive to the article's contents. If you are willing, could you do a second lookthorugh? Panini! • 🥪 15:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Happy to help and glad to see you working on this. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I am writing this to inform you that I have requested the Roberta Williams article to have a TFA re-run on February 16, 2023, to mark her 70th birthday next year. Please let me and the coordinators know in the request template if you have any comments/concerns about this nomination.
Regards, Vida0007 (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC).
Your GA nomination of Star Control
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Star Control 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Panini! -- Panini! (talk) 04:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Metroidvania category
Game genre categories generally don't require citations, and I don't understand on the insistence for this particular category of Category:Metroidvania games? This is very problematic for a newer term like Metroidvania, which means reviews of older games can't possibly contain the term. The genre itself has a clear definition, and usefully applies to a lot of older games. When the elements of a game are well known and fit this definition, it is not WP:OR to apply the definition, it is simply applying the facts. 1+1=2. Furthermore, you're reverting even the ones I can provide a modern source for which actually use the term. I have no idea which sources you consider valid or not. You're gatekeeping a very useful categorization with an impossible task that has very nebulously defined requirements. I think some of your removals were correct, but for others you're eliminating good and correct information. List of affected articles:
- The Adventures of Captain Comic [1]
- Captain Comic II: Fractured Reality [2]
- Citadel (video game) - [3]
- Citadel 2 [4]
- Rainwarrior (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Categories follow from what can be verified in the article body. It's WP:OR to interpret a definition for yourself, and you're right that it's problematic applying new genres to old games. I've been adding citations where I can find them,[5][6][7][8] and removing them where I can't. Following WP:OR and WP:V is protecting useful information, not gatekeeping. (I've even been playing a little loose even where they say "similar to a Metroidvania", or something like that.) You can find a list of reliable/unreliable sources at WP:VGSOURCES, which might help. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- I feel that the factors of a game that constitute the Metroidvania category can already be verified by contents in the article body. I don't agree that it should be original research to just put two facts together, any more than it should be original research to e.g. summarize the plot of a movie. With the requirement you're insisting on, the category is being reduced to something like "games that a whitelisted journalist have called a metroidvania", and it will be impossible to apply the label to many relevant older games that have no ongoing commercial prospects and will likely never be discussed in future mainstream media. These old games may have more than enough past coverage to be notable, but there is no reasonable expectation that future journalistic coverage will ever come to exist to resolve a simple question like this. If we agree/verify that a game is a side-scrolling platformer, we agree that it's open-world/non-linear, and we agree that progression through the game is gated by collected utilities/items/abilities, why should applying the definition be gated by waiting for a source that will likely never exist? If there are editors who disagree on the facts, or want to argue that the conditions are not clear enough to apply the label, fine, take it to talk, dig up sources and gather consensus, but I really don't see a good reason to block a straightforward decoding and application of the label. - Rainwarrior (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thus far I've reviewed more than 100 articles in the category. Many are sourced, and almost as many are unsourced. I've removed the category where there is nothing in the article to verify it. I've also found sources where I can. If that only leaves a handful of articles where you believe we've lost something, then I think we can address it and figure out a solution. In a few cases you've found sources that I couldn't, and I thank you for doing that.
- I'm going to keep working through the category. I won't treat it as WP:HOUNDING if you follow my work and see where you can find additional sources. When I'm done with the 250-or-so articles, it's my hope that there are only maybe 10 articles where we will need to discuss further. Yes, every article on Wikipedia is a summary of what reliable sources say. No, I don't that editors can apply multi-factor definitions without WP:OR that could be potentially disputed. (For example, Mario 3 or Mario World aren't metroidvanias, but they are side-scrolling platformers, with non-linearity, and areas stuck behind item-based abilities.) Before the trendiness of the term, we called them action adventure games. But keep track of where you disagree, and we can continue to talk. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- I feel that the factors of a game that constitute the Metroidvania category can already be verified by contents in the article body. I don't agree that it should be original research to just put two facts together, any more than it should be original research to e.g. summarize the plot of a movie. With the requirement you're insisting on, the category is being reduced to something like "games that a whitelisted journalist have called a metroidvania", and it will be impossible to apply the label to many relevant older games that have no ongoing commercial prospects and will likely never be discussed in future mainstream media. These old games may have more than enough past coverage to be notable, but there is no reasonable expectation that future journalistic coverage will ever come to exist to resolve a simple question like this. If we agree/verify that a game is a side-scrolling platformer, we agree that it's open-world/non-linear, and we agree that progression through the game is gated by collected utilities/items/abilities, why should applying the definition be gated by waiting for a source that will likely never exist? If there are editors who disagree on the facts, or want to argue that the conditions are not clear enough to apply the label, fine, take it to talk, dig up sources and gather consensus, but I really don't see a good reason to block a straightforward decoding and application of the label. - Rainwarrior (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- I've not seen the "hounding" article before, but I am definitely not trying to harass you. If an user makes what is essentially the same edit to many pages at once, they have to be treated collectively, so if I'm going to respond with editing I don't see a way to do it except with multiple edits, and I'm sorry if it's come across as personal. I haven't started reviewing any of your other work, just the recent ones I spotted of you removing this category from pages. Anyway, I still disagree on what should constitute original research in this case, and I feel like feel it's playing devil's advocate for a "potential" dispute that doesn't actually exist. MOS:VG refers to Metroidvania as a "standard genre", and I really don't feel it's as nebulous and interpretive as you make it out to be, at least not for the majority of cases. There's always grey area cases, and I do agree we need to trot out the sources where an actual edit dispute has arisen, but most aren't controversial, and we should be able to call a fig a fig without having to hope some miracle of journalism will do it for us. However, I'm not here to edit war, and if I can't change your mind all I can do is hold out for finding a source that satisfies you, I guess. I don't really have enough bandwidth to start reviewing more cases of this if it's gone back much more extensively, but of those remaining in my above list, Citadel feels like a big omission to me. There are quite a few websites categorizing it as a Metroidvania, several with real commentary that shows someone has engaged with and understood the game, but alas nobody from that accepted press list, so far as I could find. - Rainwarrior (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't mean for the essay to sound like I took it that way. I'm actually thankful you're taking a constructive approach. I feel like the sources are out there for most of the grey area cases. I'm still working through the category so let's just keep track of any articles that feel like omissions. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- I finished working through the category. Many of them already had sources, and I was able to verify many more. In total, I think I ended with maybe two dozen removals. Take a few days and see if there's any borderline cases. I'm usually pretty good at deep diving for sources. If you are confident that some of these articles still belong in the category, there's a good chance there's a source out there to verify it. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- I've not seen the "hounding" article before, but I am definitely not trying to harass you. If an user makes what is essentially the same edit to many pages at once, they have to be treated collectively, so if I'm going to respond with editing I don't see a way to do it except with multiple edits, and I'm sorry if it's come across as personal. I haven't started reviewing any of your other work, just the recent ones I spotted of you removing this category from pages. Anyway, I still disagree on what should constitute original research in this case, and I feel like feel it's playing devil's advocate for a "potential" dispute that doesn't actually exist. MOS:VG refers to Metroidvania as a "standard genre", and I really don't feel it's as nebulous and interpretive as you make it out to be, at least not for the majority of cases. There's always grey area cases, and I do agree we need to trot out the sources where an actual edit dispute has arisen, but most aren't controversial, and we should be able to call a fig a fig without having to hope some miracle of journalism will do it for us. However, I'm not here to edit war, and if I can't change your mind all I can do is hold out for finding a source that satisfies you, I guess. I don't really have enough bandwidth to start reviewing more cases of this if it's gone back much more extensively, but of those remaining in my above list, Citadel feels like a big omission to me. There are quite a few websites categorizing it as a Metroidvania, several with real commentary that shows someone has engaged with and understood the game, but alas nobody from that accepted press list, so far as I could find. - Rainwarrior (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Suggested refs in Star Control
Are they worth using in the article? Panini! • 🥪 23:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I had a chance to double check. The Matt Chat actually became part of his book Honoring the Code, so I think the best parts of it are already in the article. I've gotten a good look at the Ars Technica interview before too, but I might look again, just because it is two hours long. Thanks again for your help. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Star Control
The article Star Control you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Star Control for comments about the article, and Talk:Star Control/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Panini! -- Panini! (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
January 2023
Good article nominations
Hi Shooterwalker, thank you for your assistance in reviewing at WP:Good article nominations. When you pass a nomination, please remember to add it to the appropriate list of Wikipedia:Good articles. All steps that should be taken are listed at WP:GAN/I#PASS. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, CMD (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Comments
Hi there Shooterwalker. Since you are very good at copyediting video game articles, I would like to ask if you are able to leave any comments here at my FA nomination for The Longing. It has stalled recently over a few concerns over the prose, and I would greatly appreciate some advice on how I can improve it. Any amount of comments would be appreciated, but I completely understand if you are busy or uninterested. Thanks in advance, The Night Watch (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Always happy to help when I can find time. We can work on this at the FA page. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
DYK for Star Control
On 26 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Star Control, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the creators of the 1990 game Star Control designed a starship for an alien race of female humanoids, naming it the Penetrator for its resemblance to a ribbed condom? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Star Control. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Star Control), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Reference you found for Realm of Nauga
Hi, in this AfD you mentioned you found a reference in the book "Playing Nature: Ecology in Video Games" by Alenda Chang. How did you find it? I cannot find anything about this game online, barring some database mentions. Do you have access to the book physically? Thanks, Merko (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have access to it. I believe there is a preview in google books, and Realm of Nauga is discussed for at least a page, with a few other games. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
July 2023
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
| Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive |  |
August 2023 Backlog Drive:
| |
| Other ways to participate: | |
| You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. | |
Precious anniversary
| |
| Two years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
FAC
Hi Shooterwalker, I hope you are keeping well. No real reason for messaging, other than that I was reminded of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ur-Quan/archive1 in a recent thread and so of the string of quality FACs that followed and I thought I would say hi. As I type this I realise that Ur-Quan came up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Raichu/archive1 where the nomination is struggling big time and there seems to be a communication issue. Possibly, if you were so inclined, you may be able "translate" to the nominator[s?] and so help them get the article back at FAC sooner rather than later (or possibly but sadly, not at all). Just a thought. In any event "Hi" and if you felt like nominating a new FAC, that would be most welcome 
. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi! I'm going to look at this and see if there's a way I can help. I am working on some additional articles as we speak, and I hope to be back at FAC soon. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks; and excellent, I look forward to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Superb, thank you. I have copied it and squirrelled it away; I see myself using chunks in similar future situations. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate hearing that it helped, and hopefully it helps the FAC along. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Superb, thank you. I have copied it and squirrelled it away; I see myself using chunks in similar future situations. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I've heard on the WP:DISCORD that Toys for Bob is expected to be shut down amidst Activision layoffs. You are probably already aware of this, but it may be worth keeping an eye on the article as stuff unfolds to ensure the FA doesn't degrade. Panini! • 🥪 00:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- It appears that the people on Twitter did not double-check if they were right and it was blown out of proportion. Toys for Bob will still be around. Panini! • 🥪 05:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- It takes a lot to completely eliminate a studio. But it's definitely crappy news. There will be more interesting news to come from this merger for sure. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
March 2024 GAN backlog drive
| Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive | |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
| You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. | |
(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
uhh, why?
You reverted Special:Diff/1227496266. The linked article has much more content, is about the same topic, and is likely to be mistaken for this page. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's unprecedented to promote an essay at the top of another essay. That's what the "related essays" section is for. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Respectfully, all this essay does is quote SIGCOV, with only perhaps one additional sentence of expounding. Meanwhile, the other essay is much more popular and detailed while the redirect is likely to mistake people into quoting that essay instead.
Linking potentially confusable essays on top has precedent. For example, WP:1S, which was my second random click in the navbox, has it. What is unprecedented is having a section only for related essays and nothing else "See also"s contain.
Come to think about it, I don't exactly see what purpose this essay serves, nor a reason why this essay should stay... Could you expound on that? Currently it just seems like a restatement that doesn't makes things clearer.
Sorry if I sound aggressive, that's not the intent and I often have trouble with tone in my writing. It's just that I was confused by the essay's placement and feel like it's a bit of a detriment towards navigating. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)- The essay is already linked to the other essay. Neither of them are binding on how we edit Wikipedia, so it doesn't matter that much. But since you asked, a longer essay is usually stuffed with more opinions and speculation, while a clear restatement of a guideline is more likely to represent Wikipedia policy. I'll always prefer directing editors to something clear, concise, and accurate. But again, neither essay is binding. And rather than arguing about which essay should be more prominent, I'd encourage you to work on articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Respectfully, all this essay does is quote SIGCOV, with only perhaps one additional sentence of expounding. Meanwhile, the other essay is much more popular and detailed while the redirect is likely to mistake people into quoting that essay instead.