User talk:Thibbs/Archive 4

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hello

Yes, I figured that they are related enough that making a template would allow them to be easily accessible from each article. I understand that you've been working hard on them and I appreciate your dedication. I've not looked at the articles particularly hard (although glancing at them as I pasted the navbox, I see most are very derelict). You can take a look at the work I've done to the List of fictional universes page, It was pretty messed up:[1]. (and I had one person contact me about 3 items on the list (that shouldn't be removed, according to this person), and my strict inclusion criterion. I ended up re-adding them.

I might try to tackle the list of fictional dogs or cats here soon but not tonight. If you have any need of assistance, please, don't hesitate to ask. Ncboy2010 (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Phase I is complete: List of fictional dogs, brought it down from 80,613 to 15,277 bytes. Still have to work on the "main" pages and do some more trimming but it's a start.

Wow. Thank you for that! It looks spectacular. I am worried that you may find these kinds of tough edits to be met with hostility but you have my full support. The articles had become ridiculous. The record of RfDs for these list of fictional animal X articles alone proves that serious steps had to be taken. Please let me know if any trouble starts on the talk pages because I have thought about the issues underlying the need to cut down the cruft for a long time and I would be very interested in participating in such a discussion. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the list of fictional dogs was referred for deletion and the vote was to keep. The backdoor deletion you and Ncboy propose really isn't cricket. Nightspore (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Try to assume a little good faith. Nobody is proposing backdoor deletion. Cutting out cruft is generally regarded as a benefit in most parts of Wikipedia. I think it would almost certainly help here too. -Thibbs (talk) 14:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no qualms about anything being on this list as long as its notable. Why do you assume I'm trying to delete the article? If anything my edits should make it /less/ likely to get deleted. And as for the vote on the AfD, Most Keeps were weak keeps, and a large number of people mentioned to clean it up. Ncboy2010 (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

List of Fictional Dogs

Instead of encouraging Ncboy to engage in wholesale deletion of almost all of an article that many editors have spent many years on, the contents of which have been discussed at length on its talk page, including the question of references (I refer to the List_of_fictional_dogs), you might read the talk page yourself. Ncboy seems to have been simply using his/her own judgment about notability, and ended up removing almost everything. Nightspore (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

From my experience with these articles I can tell you that the vast bulk of most of them are added by fly-by-night one-time IP editors that quickly add all of the fictional animals they can think of irrespective of Wikipolicy such as WP:N and then disappear. These pages are by-and-large not maintained at all and they have become little more than repositories for vast amounts of cruft. Althought here may be good arguments to revert some of what Ncboy has done, I generally support any effort to cut back on the cruft. I'll see if I can contribute anything to the discussion on the talk page. -Thibbs (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't see backdoor deletion when a list of dogs in literature, flagged as by its nature incomplete, is pared down to three? And when Ncboy is kind enough to call most of the article crap? (Though I guess he sort of retracted.) And do you really think that the fact that an article is nominated for deletion proves that there's something wrong with it? When anyone can nominate for deletion? And when the article survived a vote? I would say that your implication (on my talk page) that a nomination for deletion shows a problem, but a vote to keep the article is somehow less relevant than the RfD is,well, debatable.

I myself have little interest in the dogs as mascots, dogs in video games, dogs in comics part of the article. But the article is a useful resource for people interested in fictional animals in literature. Useful for writers, useful for critics, useful for genealogists of fiction. It matters, to take an example of a dog that Ncboy deleted in the wee hours of the EST night, that Virginia Woolf wrote a novel about a dog that belonged to Robert Browning and Elizabeth Barrett Browning. It matters that she had precedent for doing so, partly in James Joyce's Ulysses, where a major character -- the drunken know-nothing nationalist figure who represents the Cyclops there -- has a dog, Garryowen, named after "Garryowen" (air). I'm going to cross-post this paragraph on the article's talk page, and try to say some more about criteria for inclusion there. Nightspore (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It's no more a backdoor to deletion than the removal of any unsourced non-notable character from anywhere in Wikipedia. Wikipedia's policies are firm on this issue. Lists are subject to the same rules as articles. They are a specialized kind of article but that doesn't give us free rein to turn them into indiscriminate collections of cruft. Normally articles are not nominated for deletion willy nilly. The nominator in that particular RfD quite right asks "How big do you think the article will be when it is a complete list of all fictional dogs??" As I pointed out in talk, there are numerous problems with the article and the most obvious of these is that it has neither sources nor any actual inclusion criteria. Arguments regarding specific examples can be taken up as the cleanup occurs, but I don't think they will be of any use in refuting the obvious fact that the article as it stands is unacceptable. I hope that we can work collaboratively in achieving an end that is both within the policies/guidelines of Wikipedia and that is acceptable to you personally. -Thibbs (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply

It seems to me he only cares about the dogs in literature section, it might not be the best compromise but at the very least he might allow us to clean up the other sections (and perhaps even that section, provided we let him keep his entire list on the list of fictional dogs in literature page. I haven't done anything as of yet, and I agreed to stop messing with the article. He also stated that he didn't care for the video games, mascots or animation sections. That might be a place to start, for now I'm still expanding the template.

I don't think that compromise simply for the sake of compromise is a good idea in this case but I can certainly help him to locate sources for the dogs in literature section if he needs my help. Cutting the list down to actually notable characters would go a long way toward safeguarding the list from future deletion. The idea of creating a massive (possibly limitless) list of non-notable dogs in fiction is exceptionally impractical and frankly useless to the average reader. -Thibbs (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your judicious reply

Here's why it seemed to me you thought I needed a tutorial: "it would be good to walk him through Wikipedia's policies on this point so he doesn't come to the conclusion that we are in any way attacking him or his work. Having an editor on hand who cares deeply about the subject is extremely useful in preventing the article from sliding back into disrepair after the cleanup is finished provided that he understands Wikipedia's policies with regard the article he is stewarding. " Since I do I understand Wikipedia's policies, I hope you'll understand that I'm also offering logical and consistent standards and criteria in accordance with those policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightspore (talk • contribs) 06:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

OK I see what you mean. That message wasn't actually addressed to you, but it does suggest that I took you at first impression to be a new editor here at Wikipedia. I confess that this is accurate. As I indicated earlier in the post you've quoted, this impression was created by your poor reaction to NCBoy2010's attempt to clean up the article (i.e. your method of reverting NCBoy2010 and the fact that you had described his edits as vandalism despite his edit summaries and the evident care he took). This impression was further strengthened by your failure to dispel NCBoy2010's notions that you own the article or that you are interested in "winning" as well as your failure to sign your posts and several other actions of increasingly trivial nature. But with that said, I'm sure there may be any number of reasons why you would have done things that way and even if they created an improper impression I am not suggesting that those were bad-faith actions/omissions.

Whether I took you to be a newcomer or not, though, shouldn't be an issue for us. In my view the disagreement that we are currently discussing should be resolved by reference to Wikipolicy/guideline. This is true whether you are a newcomer (as you are not) or whether you've been here for ages. Regardless of my incorrect initial impression of you, my note to NCBoy2010 was written to ask him to emphasize policy/guideline arguments as these are the arguments by which in my estimation it becomes clear that a cleanup on "list of fictional dogs" is due. I would like you to know, though, that I stand unqualifiedly by the usefulness I described in you in my note to NCBoy2010. I view your edits to the article as stewardship and I can tell you that even if I find your idea of the article's scope to exceed reasonableness, I commend you for keeping an eye on it. I have been firsthand witness to the fact that unstewarded articles of a similar nature fall into truly deplorable states. Please accept my sincere thank you for actually caring enough to monitor it. -Thibbs (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I thank you back. The reason I summarized what NCBoy2010 did as vandalism, a characterization I now regret, is that he cut down an 80k article to 13k without any discussion on the Talk page. Unfortunately the only way I could see to revert, given that I don't have admin privileges, was to undo each of his changes manually. Nevertheless 80k --> 13k while permissible is probably inadvisable without discussion.

As for policy, as I said on the talk page, I am convinced my criteria are consistent with Wikipolicy. There are other ways to do the list, but the way I am advocating is not inconsistent with policy or guidelines. As far as disspelling NCBoy2010's notions that it's about "winning" (he didn't say I was interested in winning: he said, "you win," which is what people do when they have disagreements or when they come to see the possibility that the person they're disagreeing with is right) or that I "own" the article, well the last thing I wanted to do was offer him more correctives after his really gracious open-mindedness. Nightspore (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC) --

Maybe. If some relatively new editor with whom I had a disagreement wrote to me "OK you win. I respect your ownership of the article." or something along those lines I think I'd be obliged to assure the person that I did not own the article. Keeping silent on the issue (or indeed responding with "Thank you - I really appreciate your open-mindedness") might imply agreement with and approval of the notion. Certainly your methods are different than mine, though, and you were not under any obligation to correct him apart from what I would consider a moral one. It's no matter. I was trying to explain to you why I thought you were new here in response to your concerns. You have informed me that you are not new and I have acknowledged that I was mistaken. I do not wish to turn this into a new issue to be debated. For the present let's stick to the issue of whether or not a list of all dog characters in the entirety of fiction is the sort of article that Wikipedia should have. And let's stick to that on the article's talk page. -Thibbs (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

"apart from what I would consider a moral one." This is insulting, even more insulting than NCBoy2010's "what's his face," and I am done interacting with you. — Nightspore (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I am sorry you feel that way. If you recall it was you who began by telling me that you were not new here - a claim that I acknowledged as true and to which I apologized for treating you as such. When you followed it up with a further explanation of how my comments to another editor had made you believe I thought you were new, it seemed to me that you were asking for an explanation on top of the apology. So I explained myself. Using my own experience here as a yardstick of what it means to be an established editor I pointed out that it seemed like the actions of a new editor to fail to correct another's assumption that you were the owner of the article and instead to respond with the line "Thank you - I really appreciate your open-mindedness". This was not an assessment of immorality but rather one of unfamiliarity with wikipedia. As my own morals would dictate a different response I assumed you were not like me - i.e. you were new here. That your morals and mine differ should be no reason to take insult. As I have specifically pointed out in each of my comments above it was my sincere hope that the issue of whether you were new here would not become a divisive issue as it has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand. I've apologized and explained myself and although I cannot control your reaction to my explanations I am sorry that you have taken exception to them. I hope you don't carry this attitude into the discussions we are involved with. -Thibbs (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Also note that repeatedly referring to Ncboy2010 by the name "Mcboy2010" severely undermines any kind of self-righteous claim of insult from the fact that he referred to you as "what's his face." -Thibbs (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC) (Note: this issue has kindly been cleared up by Nightspore now. -Thibbs (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC))

Oh Speaking of vague inclusion criteria

I thought I'd like to point out (as an aside) that I AfD'd the List of fictional people from Boston. You might want to check that out if you get a chance to vote on it. =] Thanks! Also, I've been reading the argument (discussion?) between you and whats-his-face.. Night-spore or something.. Any luck in compromise yet...? Ncboy2010 (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll keep an eye on it and I may weigh in if I think it would help. -Thibbs (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

"Universal acclaim" discussion

Thanks for setting up that new "request for comment" discussion. So, with that, do I just let other people respond now? Or do I summarize my viewpoint again? I didn't want to come off as rude in discussing it again when I shouldn't, or conversely, to seem neglectful if I was expected to summarize my thoughts again. Let me know. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 23:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You can either wait for others or you can comment. Either way is fine. I'll respond in more detail at your talk page. -Thibbs (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Source for "List of Satellaview Broadcasts"

What was/is the source, especially for dates? The references don't appear useful. I'm trying to find sources for the Satellaview releases of a few games, if you have a RS handy it'd simplify the search. :) Salvidrim! 00:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The information contained in the sources listed under the name "Kameb" are transcriptions of broadcast schedules printed in Satellaview Tsushin magazine and transcriptions of information from the Kabe Shinbunsha - a newspaper feature from BS-X that was updated during the lifetime of the Satellaview. The best source possible for release dates would be the actual collection of Satellaview Tsushin magazines, however these are extremely difficult to get hold of and they do not exist online. Second to this, I know that broadcast schedules are also printed in some Famitsu magazines but these are also rather difficult to obtain and they are absent from the internet. So I think the Kameb source is as close to the best resource as is readily available online. If you had specific questions about the release dates of some of these games I could check my records as I do have access to a number of schedules. For a lot of the broadcasts, though, the release date may be very difficult to determine without the emergence of more text-based resources. Let me know the names of any games that you want me to scour my sources for and I'll send you whatever info I can. -Thibbs (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's mainly about Dr. Mario (for now). I know the release date, I was just looking for a RS. TMK.net passed GA, but I'm still thinking I could use a more solid source. Plus, if there was a complete listing in a RS, I could re-use that source in other articles. Salvidrim! 15:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed TKM's dates agree with the date I found in the Kameb source. Again, Kameb states that the information he presents is copied from Satellaview Tsushin so I think that would be the source for his claim but he doesn't give any specifics like page number, etc. For this specific date Kameb had also included information from a downloadable magazine called "Game Tora" as well. I'll look through the official timetables I've collected though and I'll let you know if I find anything related. -Thibbs (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. TMK is currently listed a situational (for facts on Mario) at WP:VG/S, but I have a feeling it would nonetheless be contested in any FA. Salvidrim! 15:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Sadly I still wasn't able to find anything on point in my sources. I have schedules from 1999, 2000, and even a few from 1998 and 1995 but 1997 eludes me. The best secondary source would be if you could track down Satellaview Tsushin or a copy of Famicom Tsushin from this time period. There's no guarantee that Famicom Tsushin would carry the info but they have in the past so it might be there. Because "Dr. Mario BS Version" was not a SoundLink game there is sadly not much information available on it except in these obscure print resources. Realistically, Kameb's source has proven to be a reliable tertiary source that is commonly relied on within the field of Satellaview research inasmuch as such a field can be said to exist... From what I have seen there are maybe 20 people who make up the entire Satellaview community online... -Thibbs (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Another thing I should mention is that if worst comes to worst you can simply remove the release date info and that should be sufficient. I can definitely provide you with very clear reliable sources that demonstrate the game to exist. -Thibbs (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Nah, it is sufficiently sourced and known to be accurate. It possibly wouldn't hold up to FA scrutiny, but it's not going there. Thanks for the assistance. :) Salvidrim! 00:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. You're welcome. -Thibbs (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Question

So.. should I not edit the list of fictional dogs' main article? Ncboy2010 (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's best right now. I agree with the edits you're making based on my understanding that notability of each member is the best way to handle the list but Nightspore disagrees and at this point he's sticking to the idea that non-notability should be the defining inclusion criterion. He has indicated that he is OK with you editing the non-literature portions as you see fit because he is unfamiliar with the idea of non-literature fiction, but in the end we're going to have to have a single standard for the article. If you make edits to the article removing non-notable characters then there's a risk that Nightspore will revert you based on his understanding of the inclusion criteria. I think removing most unnamed characters and characters by non-notable authors would probably be ok.

I've decided to avoid editing the body of the article myself until we get the whole issue ironed out. I'm not sure why Nightspore is keeping quiet right now regarding your recent proposal at talk but he's probably just busy with off-wiki stuff. I think he got rather upset that I had pegged him for a new editor when I first encountered him but I have high hopes that he'll find your suggestion to be a good solution. If he doesn't reply soon I'll send him a note. In the meanwhile I'm fine with you carrying on with the cleanup but Nightspore may not be too happy about it so I'd probably wait if I were you or only remove the nameless and non-notable author characters. I'm really not sure what's best until we can start finding common ground with Nightspore. -Thibbs (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone ahead and fore-warned the people watching the talk page on the list of fictional cats what I'm going to do (In all the time I've been here, I've never met anyone so vehemently defend anything like he is) So I didn't think anything about just editing it in the best way I knew possible. I do understand now that I /should/ have mentioned something on the talk page. I'm not very new here but I am new to social interaction here, thus far I've pretty much worked by myself on everything, actually... I only just now got into the list of fictional foo articles, because they all need some cleanup. I also think we need some kind of... standardized manual of style or something... and a default lede, because the ledes they currently carry leave it open to /everything/. Just as an example (taken from the list of fictional cats): "Great Ghost Cat", no link, no author, no citation, no idea what it is, where it's from... I was thinking about setting up a task force, maybe, if I thought there would be enough support for it. In any case, we /do/ need standards and practices to try and keep these articles under a similar layout and with the same / similar criterion, particularly to avoid creating indiscriminate collections of information.

Might be a very good idea. I'd been doing similar things on my own in the past and I'd cleaned up several lists of "fictional animal X" articles but it does seem to be something that needs more than one person since there's just so much work involved. A taskforce would be ideal. I'd recommend perhaps contacting Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters for the "fictional animal X" articles, though there may be a better Wikiproject to go to if you'd rather broaden the taskforce to cover all "fictional X" articles. Either way let me know if you end up forming one. As for a standard form for these kinds of articles I'd recommend starting with strict inclusion criteria using a common-sense approach based on notability. I outlined something along these lines for a different article a few months ago here. Nightspore's insistence that non-notability is allowable in articles is an acceptable stance in some limited cases such as when we are speaking of limited small-scale lists like a "list of non-notable kings of England" or something but in the matter at hand I think Nightspore's approach can't be extended as far as he would like to. -Thibbs (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my original thought would be to use the Wikiproject Fictional Characters (Since they are the main wikiproject that handles all the List of fictional /animal/ lists, unfortunately I don't think they actually worry too much about those particular lists. I suppose I could go ahead and start writing up a proposal (and figuring out exactly how one would go about doing such a thing). Do you know of anyone else who might be interested in this project? Another thing I want to point out: My navbox, while not too large now, I can foresee it growing to the point of needing to be broken down, although I've not decided how exactly I'd like it to be broken, (I'm leaning toward the /main/ topics, like Mustelids, Canidae, etc) although I wouldn't want to split it in such a way that one navbox would be much smaller and one be overly large. In any case, this isn't an issue as of yet, just something to look forward to in the future. Yes, I do think that a task force is exactly what we need, but would we have enough community support, I wonder? Ncboy2010 (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: I want to thank you for consistently defending me, my schedule sometimes gets in the way of me making timely responses, although I figured it would be better than going ahead and editing the article and then ending up in an edit war/argument. Still, I feel a bit bad that it seems every time I turn around, you're having to defend my actions. It makes me question whether what I'm doing is truly right, despite the fact that I know it's so. Ncboy2010 (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Frankly you're the first editor I've seen that is interested in cutting out trivia from these lists rather than adding in more. I'd lost a lot of interest in cleaning the articles after having met surprisingly passionate resistance from some of the few editors that were involved with the articles I cleaned up and I didn't relish the bad blood it inevitably created. I knew I wasn't up to the effort of tackling some of the more popular animal lists like dogs, cats, mice, etc., but your involvement cuts my work down to just the policy side of it and that's a relief to me.

Regarding the taskforce, I've never created or been a member of such a group and so I don't know exactly how they would work in this situation, but I'd hope that the general feeling would be that it is a good and useful thing for Wikipedia to cut down some of these articles which in some cases have become little more than jealously guarded cruft. I've had a bit of time on hand recently but I'll be much busier very soon as the holidays are upon us. I have some ideas about the policies underlying the taskforce and I'll try to come up with a clear and concise version for you when I get a chance. -Thibbs (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan to me, I look forward to working with you, and I have to say we seem to make a good team, you're more well-versed with wikipolicies and I'm not burnt out on tedious cleanup projects. I've found a large number of articles, 293 to be exact, that fall under "List of fictional...", "Lists of fictional...", "List of fictitious..." and "List of ____ in fiction". I think that it would probably be best to have the taskforce under /lists/ and /fictional characters/. I'm currently working on the list of fictional cats in my sandbox, so I can edit without causing to much problems (and give people time to respond to the talk page on cats) Ncboy2010 (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Proposal

I've proposed the wikiproject Fictional Lists, if you'd like to add your name to the list of participants and see if theres anything you think I might have left out could make better with the description, please feel free to edit it however you like, you're a lot better at that than I am and I feel that this is just as much your venture as my own. I'm going to post to related wiki-projects to try and get others who might be interested. Thanks! Ncboy2010 (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Task Force

Ok, after speaking with some people, I've found that we should most likely go with WikiProject Lists, as the main wikiproject, and I've met another who would be interested (primarily in video-game related lists, but still any support is good support. I've left a short message on the discussion page of WP:Lists and I'm awaiting some kind of reply, although I don't know how long it might take with christmas and all that. I'll let you know as soon as I hear something. Thanks, Ncboy2010 (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Good luck! Salvidrim! 22:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention NCboy2010. I'm currently a little busy with the holiday season and all, but I'll try to give it my full attention fairly soon. And thanks for the good wishes, Salvidrim. -Thibbs (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Tallaght Stadium

Grateful if you could stop vandalising this page. The day after the Tottenham game, the 16th of December, the temporary south stand was taken down. This is irrefutable. Ring the club office or take a trip out to Tallaght if you dont believe it.

So obviously the current capacity reverts back to what it was previous to the Europa League group stage. I fail to see the confusion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.190.34 (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Your inability to come up with a source for your claim suggests that you've made it up. Please turn your efforts to the discussion on the talk page if you'd like to try to explain why your claims (unlike those of every other wikipedia editor) don't need sources. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

92.251.190.34

If vandals keep IP hopping, it's hardly worth blocking, one only ends up stopping some innocent editor(s) and chasing IP after IP address. I've semi protected the pages instead. Hopefully, he go away, page can be unprotected on request, once it's thought that they have gone. Or he may make an account, but then he has to do 10 edits and wait 4 days before he can edit - then he only gets a few tries before we can block.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

OK that's a much more practical solution than what I was suggesting. I was hoping that a block against the person could more easily be followed up than trying to deal with the cloud of IPs, but with your solution the issue is hopefully moot. Thanks so much, -Thibbs (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Dimensional Accrual And Dissociation Theory

Unfortunately I know nearly nothing about the source of this text. It was added by an anonymous user (at Oklahoma University, it seems) to the main Acculturation article shortly after I had submitted a revision. I am working with some collaborators on a further revision to the Acculturation article. As the text regarding the Dimensional Accrual and Dissociation Theory seems inappropriate for the main wikipedia article in both style and content, my collaborators and I were planning on giving the theory it's own page, linking to that page from the Acculturation article, and then contacting the major theorists in hopes that they will edit the page to Wikipedia's standards. I hope this clears things up! -fdanbold (talk) 9:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah OK, that's very helpful. Thanks for this info. -Thibbs (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Uncle Henry's Playhouse

Can you look at Template:Did you know nominations/Uncle Henry's Playhouse and address comments there? :) The fixes should be relatively minor and easy enough to get it ready to go.--LauraHale (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Commented back on the review. :) No worries from me about not doing everything correctly. :) Things are a learning process and I notified you so it could be dealt with. :) --LauraHale (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. -Thibbs (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Uncle Henry's Playhouse

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! -Thibbs (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixing reference in Bop it XT

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Thibbs I'm hainvg problem with the referencing in Bop It XT. Lately Hasbro uploaded the instructions and I have added them as references to the section and add references for the game modes as well.--2.96.84.31 (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC) You're not supposed to be editing here, Sam. -Thibbs (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Unfortunately I can't log in my account anymore so I'll have to edit without logging in.--94.196.195.89 (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC) That's against the rules Sam. You must get your block cleared before you are allowed to edit here again. If you won't stop editing then I guess the administrators will have to try your parents again or your school. Please stop writing to me. I'm not interested in anything you have to say unless your block is cleared away. -Thibbs (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Cockchafers and Totor

Hi there; thanks for your interest in the Totor article. I myself used "cockchafer" because it appeares in some of the English-language literature that discusses Herge and his work, and is therefore not my own translation. I hope to be able to add some referenced material to the page soon, having previously pulled Tintin in the Land of the Soviets up to GA status. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC))

OK. Sorry if I implied OR. My initial reaction based on my own translation was that the term was overly specific, but as you say, when I looked online it's clear that some English sites do seem to use the term on their own (without Wikipedia's influence). There were a few official scouting sources that tended to go with terms like "june bug" or "may bug" (e.g. [2]) as well, though, so I just thought I'd check. Thanks for your good work on these articles! -Thibbs (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey there

Hello, I'm back after a cool-down period.. I got pretty frustrated there for a while. =/ What's up with the list of fictional dogs article? I saw the request for discussion thing... Still trying to clean it up? Need any help, let me know. =D Ncboy2010 (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back. It's good to see you! Since last we spoke, User:Nightspore informed me that he no longer wants to engage in discussion. He was clearly very frustrated but he has since calmed down a bit and I've been able to coax a little participation out of him at the article's talk page through an independent RfC I filed (after Nightspore declined to engage in a mediation). As you can see, the RfC has been open since Jan 6, so it will close in a week (on Feb 5). I hope that there is a bit more community input before the close date because the more participants the more valid the consensus. I don't want Nightspore to feel like it's just one or two rogue editors that are attacking the state of this article. If you'd like to participate in the RfC, by the way, feel free to. It would probably help, actually. After the RfC closes we'll be able to progress from there. -Thibbs (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I weighed in on the convo, I re-did the sub-articles for the list of fictional dogs. I stated that I was going to clean up the List of fictional bear article on its talk page (but it, like the dog page is huge and fairly active, I'm afraid we might hit another hitch with that one as well) and I've created the List of fictional arthropods article. I'm thinking of maybe consolidating some of the other articles as they're not very long individually. What do you think? Ncboy2010 (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I wish I had your energy for the actual clean-up portion. These articles have a way of wearing me down because there is so much non-policy-related resistance. I'm much more used to working in the mainstream areas of Wikipedia where elements like Proper Referencing (Verifiable and Reliable Sourcing) and Notability are considered important and useful elements. Some sort of a taskforce would probably be the best way to go about cleaning these articles but I'm not sure how much interest there is considering that the main editors on these "list of fictional animal X" articles are one-time IP-editors and SPAs who often view Wikipedia's rules/guidelines as encumbrances. The unfortunate business going on at the fictional dogs article, for example, is nearing the 2-month-long mark now and I am saddened to see that some editors have become frustrated enough by this that they have given up on discussion altogether. Things like that make hesitate before trying to clean up the next one. I don't actually care about the underlying topic except in the most general terms so it's hard to convince myself that spending 2 months of my time and creating bad blood is worth it in the end.
I do support your efforts though. And I will provide what little help I can in the area of Wikipolicy. Sorry to dwell in such length on my exhaustion (above) but I just wanted to express that I may not be that focused on this kind of cleanup on my own. So if you'd like me to weigh in on specific articles in this area (namely the "list of fictional animal x" articles) then please let me know. Otherwise I'll probably be avoiding them for a little while after the fictional dogs thing is settled. I support the cleanup 100% but I'll rely on you to update me as to its progress if that's ok with you. -Thibbs (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well that's fine. =] I know things can get a bit headachey and theres a lot of mental stress that goes into this type of editing. Let's see... as of now I've removed the List of fictional bees, wasps and hornets article to the List of fictional arthropods, I've restored all the redirects from List of fictional dogs in literature, comics etc. I've finished the List of fictional cats article, I've done some cleanup with the List of fictional bears article and moved all info from List of fictional pandas there... oh, and I've re categorized everything under the Category Lists of fictional animals that belonged in a new category I made List of fictional animals by work. x.x so I've done quite a bit today, i think... Let's see... I wikitabled what was left in the list of cats article, and finished the wikitable in the List of fictional dogs in animation article... so all I really lack is to clean up the List of fictional bears into a wikitable.... oh and interlinked the french List of fictional frogs and toads to the english one (It was linking to Frogs and toads in fiction. =. can't think of anything else i've done.... anyway, I'll keep you posted.

Oh, and about the taskforce thing? it was a good idea but like you said, I don't feel like there would be much support... thanks! Ncboy2010 (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty of creating two of the redlinks in your post and redirecting them to the appropriate targets.  ;) Salvidrim! 23:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, nice that Ncboy2010 waited till the RfC closed on February 5. Oh, I'm sorry, he didn't. Nor do I recall "declining to engage in a mediation." (IIRC I suggested mediation early on, and you mildly suggested that you didn't think this was necessary yet. I guess we skipped the part where it might have become necessary.) But I guess what you two did makes sense, after the universal roar of assent that echoed among all the editors in the wikipedia community, undoing years of work, leaving behind a list that will be of tremendous use for people up to second or even third grade: well you've done a good job there. And now, on to pastures new! (For the record I am now declaring that I will not enter into mediation. I am done with this issue and regret having ever spent my time on a list that has been turned into an unsightly joke by people who believe in their own superior morality, as you have declared you do.) Nightspore (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediation requires the consensus-oriented involvement of all involved parties. Because you had stated that "[you were] done interacting with [me]," I wrote to you to inform you that "I would be glad to gain an outside perspective if you'd agree but that [I'd] interpret your silence as an unwillingness to reach a bilateral solution." You maintained your silence and, as I said I would, I interpreted it as a refusal to engage in a bilateral resolution process (including mediation, 3O, etc.). So on my own I initiated an RfC to get this situation resolved. I made every effort to include you in the process while respecting your apparent disinterest in direct interactions and to your credit you have been good enough to join in the conversation from time to time (7 times in the last month by the look of it). The RfC is not finished and the outcome is not settled. From your sarcasm above, in fact, I can see that it will require an administrative close. Until this note from you I hadn't noticed that Ncboy2010 had redirected the article but as we both know, that edit is easily revertible. Whether you are part of the resolution phase of this issue or not is entirely up to you. But please recognize that your attempts to belittle my efforts to gain community consensus on this issue won't deter me from trying to implement a community-based solution. And also, for the record, I never declared that I was morally superior to you. -Thibbs (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Quote: "If some relatively new editor with whom I had a disagreement wrote to me "OK you win. I respect your ownership of the article." or something along those lines I think I'd be obliged to assure the person that I did not own the article. Keeping silent on the issue (or indeed responding with "Thank you - I really appreciate your open-mindedness") might imply agreement with and approval of the notion. Certainly your methods are different than mine, though, and you were not under any obligation to correct him apart from what I would consider a moral one." This bears only one interpretation, despite what you now claim you meant: You saw me as under no obligation to correct him, even though you would have felt obliged to assure him that you did not own the article in similar circumstances. No obligation, that is, except what you would consider a moral one. This means that I failed in what you would consider a moral obligation. That's why I said I was done interacting with you. Now, back to your little coterie, and enjoy! Nightspore (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume we have different values. And I clearly suggested earlier that I believed these values to be something that one picks up the longer one works at Wikipedia. So I took your edits to be more characteristic of newness to Wikipedia than of bad faith. If you recall, I was admitting and trying to explain to you why I thought you were a new editor in response to your having taken offense at my suggestion to Ncboy2010 that we point you to policy on the underlying issue rather than simply engage in opinion swapping. As I said earlier this is a completely trivial issue to the discussion. I wish you would not dwell on it so much. By latching onto what you read into my comments as insults ("Asking Ncboy2010 to cite policy? He must think I'm an ignorant new person!", "Suggesting that the right thing to do would be to disclaim ownership? He must think he's morally superior!" etc.) you are completely missing the point of the discussion and you are driving the conversation in the direction of petty personal comments. Remember that at Wikipedia we are to comment on content, not on the contributor. If I invite you to comment on me personally (e.g. if I ask why you think I'm unreasonable) then feel free, but from day one I have been trying to guide this conversation toward the issues at hand and away from the personal. If you wish to be included in the policy-oriented discussions of what you describe as the "little coterie" then you are still welcome to do so, but let us cease this pettiness. I have apologized repeatedly for whatever offense (real or imagined) that I may have given you. If you cannot accept these apologies then that is your issue. I am not interested in this non-resolution-oriented topic in the least. -Thibbs (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I had assumed, like Thibbs, that you were "done talking", but reverting a single edit is easy enough. Thibbs, just let me know if you want me to revert it and I will. The talk page is still there. Ncboy2010 (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Nightspore is clearly upset by it so I think the proper thing to do would be to revert it and wait out the RfC period (I believe it ends on Feb 5). Based on a basic up or down vote count I think it would be fair to implement the basic consensus of the community after Feb 5, but the issue won't really be resolved until an "admin close" has taken place as well, because from the look of it Nightspore does not consider the discussion to adequately represent the full community. An admin close may take some considerable time unfortunately, but I think it would be ok to use a majority vote from the RfC as a new starting point prior prior to the administrative decision. If worst comes to worst, everything can still be reverted when the admin makes the final close. -Thibbs (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Why can't I login?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey Thibbs I can't log into my main account. I type in the correct password and it doesn't allow me to log in. Why won't it let me log in?--86.140.249.132 (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited History of British animation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Disambiguation complete. -Thibbs (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

oops

Sorry about the mustelid/loid thing, and the hyenas. =/ I suppose you can see where I'd make a mistake like that but yeah I can fix it. ^_^ thanks for the heads up. I've also been working quite a while on everything and I'm getting fatigued. I need to take a break. Ncboy2010 (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

again, simple mistakes and i'm glad you've caught them. =] Ncboy2010 (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I can imagine you must be fatigued! You've been really improving things though. Thanks for the help! -Thibbs (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

There, I think I've got everything, does it look ok now? >_< sorry, I feel stupid for making a mistake like that. Ncboy2010 (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks perfect to me. Don't worry abut it. I wouldn't have known some of that material either, but I had worked on that particular article a bit several months ago and had learned these things while working on it. The hyenas thing really surprised me for instance. They really look like dog-ish creatures. -Thibbs (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thibbs

I'm tired of fighting with nightspore, I don't want to argue anymore. He's made some valid points. Maybe I was in over my head? I just don't know... I would like to compromise, I think... I just want to stop fighting. Ncboy2010 (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that these cleanups are a constant uphill battle. I don't think you've done anything wrong here. Nightspore has a vision of what Wikipedia should be and I don't think it's one that the community at large shares. The compromise that you suggested (i.e. limiting non-notable and unverified dogs in literature to the "list of fictional dogs in literature") was rejected by Nightspore. The issue is a deadlock so we've turned to the larger community for help. Don't let Nightspore's antics get to you. There's no need to antagonize him but just ignore his sarcasm and insults if you can. It's important to focus on the fact that this is not Nightsporepedia, it's Wikipedia and Nightspore will have to abide by a community decision whether he likes it or not. (The same is true for you and me too of course, and I'm glad to follow whatever the community consensus is). -Thibbs (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, I've reverted the List of fictional dogs article to how it was before I ever edited it... I'll leave the other pages, list of cats, arthropods, canines alone... because no one raised any issues with them. Now I wanted to ask you about... your choice of aesthetic? you mentioned something about it not being quite what you might have done, I think. I'd like to know if there's anything you think I should change in any of the articles, ok? Same for you, Salvidrim! if there's anything you think I should change, please let me know. Ncboy2010 (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop assuming I read other people's talk pages! Haha. ;) But as I've said, I haven't really looked much into the contents of your edits. :) Salvidrim! 19:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't assume, I know you have this talk page on your watch-list =P. Ncboy2010 (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I tend to avoid tables because I find that they require a great deal of maintenance that needs immediate attention. A typographical error within the simple list form runs the risk of avoiding detection for a long time but a typographical error within the table code often breaks the table. But with that said, there are advantages to tables such as sortability by other fields like author, work, etc. So I'm content to go with your tabled lists if you think that's a good way of doing it. I would have brought it up if I thought it was a problem. It's really just my personal preference and there's no need to change things to fit my preference. The specific content and presentation of these lists is really of little or no interest to me. I am mostly concerned with trying to bring them into line with the rest of Wikipedia policy-wise. It would probably sound silly to someone like Nightspore, but I consider myself largely an inclusionist. As an inclusionist, however, I try to remain vigilant against indiscriminate inclusion. I strongly believe that the cleanup of these articles is vital to ensure their survival in Wikipedia's current deletion happy climate. -Thibbs (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, I understand then.. Well my reasoning for tables is kinda two-fold... It's sortable, yeah but it also leaves space for certain aspects to be input... for example, anyone trying to add something will at the very least see that the table already has [name] [work] [author] and [notes]. Before you had people putting things like... just off the top of my head The shaggy dog. Yes, it's a film... yes it's got a dog in it.... but it doesn't say WHO the dog is, whether it's a film or not, etc etc. =/ That's my main reason for preferring tables, It leaves space for missing information and any information that's missing is easily determined. The other format can be written in so many ways, it's hard to just glance and see what's there/missing. Ncboy2010 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. I have had problems with lists in the past that are filled with titles of works that merely contain the name of the animal listed along with the animals (e.g. Swann's Way listed as a fictional bird). It seems to be a difficult thing to explain to someone that even though a work may be about an animal, linking to works about animals makes it a "list of fiction about animal x" rather than a "list of fictional animal x". So your table idea certainly would lay out exactly what is required. -Thibbs (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm glad you understand. I've notified Nightspore that I'm not going to edit the List of fictional dogs in the future unless we can come to a mutual compromise. The bad blood isn't worth one article, I don't think.. Ncboy2010 (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe we may have come up with a solution. (at least I think it's better than my previous solution). Nightspore and I think that it might be a good idea if we just transferred the List of fictional dogs to Dogs in fiction. That gives the article a more literary-specific meaning allowing him the freedom to cull the less desirable bits of the article (e.g. mascots, song, advertising, tv) and differentiates it enough from List of fictional canines to avoid future issues. What do you think, Thibbs? Ncboy2010 (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to get back to you so late on this. I don't really understand the specifics of this suggestion. It sounds like Nightspore really is only interested in the literature portions of the list and so to me I think a better title might be "List of fictional dogs in literature" or perhaps "Dogs in literature" if it is to be a non-list article. But this is exactly the same as the compromise you suggested in mid-December and which Nightspore seemed to reject. Has he had a change of heart or are we talking about something quite different?

But also... I'm not sure if working out a compromise at this point is really feasible considering that the RfC is underway and will soon close. Apart from the 3 of us, 5 others have already given their opinions on the matter and we will have to take their opinions into account as well. The reason I initiated the RfC was to determine the community consensus, not to force Nightspore to compromise. Although I'd prefer to have an administrator look it over before saying anything definitive, it seems to me that the basic consensus from the RfC runs against the non-notable and non-sourced model that Nightspore has advocated. I am really pleased to see that he wants to compromise but for the 3 of us to now form our own 3-person compromise in opposition to what appears to be the community's opinion on this matter would be to ignore the larger consensus. I hate to be a wet blanket here but it might be best to either relist the RfC and then try to sway the larger consensus or simply let the RfC expire and then find a closing admin to determine whether our compromise would still be an option given the opinions expressed in the RfC. If you and Nightspore think that relisting the RfC would be the best move then I'll go along with it.

Again, I'm heartened to hear that Nightspore is willing to compromise and I definitely agree that ending the argument in an agreement would be the best possible outcome, but the compromise comes at a very bad time in relation to the RfC. I'm quite sick of this issue honestly but I am kind of a stickler for the rules and I think the resolution should be achieved properly if at all possible. Does that make any sense? I hope I'm not being too much of a stick in the mud. :/ -Thibbs (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you're not being a stick in the mud. You're right, this is exactly the same (only with a different title) and after looking at other examples, e.g. Extraterrestrials in fiction, I realised that while it sounded, to me at least, different it's more about the USE of X in fiction than a list. Majority does rule here and we should go by whatever the general consensus is. I guess I just started feeling bad about NightSpore. I mean, I can totally get how he feels, He probably really did spend years of his life watching that article grow... he probably really does care about it. But I see your point and I know we need to go with general consensus. You are by no means being a wet blanket though. haha. On a side note, I came across the Yummy mummy article... I redirected it to Age disparity in sexual relationships. Ncboy2010 (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If the goal is a non-list article on dogs in fiction, there are certainly sources available. I did a little searching online and I can see the potential for an article on this topic. And I can easily imagine one featuring an embeded list. Like you, I also understand Nightspore's distaste for edits that serve to cut out information he may have approved of or even have included himself. Indeed, I have been on the wrong side of several arguments where additions of mine that I thought were valuable were removed by others who considered them less than helpful. The takeaway message I've come to embrace, incidentally, is that sources are king here at Wikipedia and that if there's any possible question about your additions, be prepared to offer a source. But anyway the point is that I can see where Nightspore is coming from and if there is a way to achieve a mutually acceptable solution that is consistent with the policies/guidelines and with the current consensus then I'd be happy to give it a try. -Thibbs (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

PS - Not a bad call on the Yummy mummy article. It looks like it was pretty bare-bones affair and I can't imagine it would have been very easy to expand beyond stub status. -Thibbs (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

He might be willing to do like you said, with the Dogs in fiction with an embedded list, but I think that one day someone is likely to say "Why can't this be merged into List of fictional canines?" dunno. Ncboy2010 (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been taking a break from any major editing on the lists of fictional x articles, though an article I created a while ago (from the requested articles page) is List of banned items in China. I know, the articles not great but I wanted to ask you if you think that it should be deleted? I don't want pick a side for any reason other than you honestly believing that wikipedia should or should not have this article. You're more experienced than I am when it comes to matters about wikipolicy and notability... I thought it would be a good article but the consensus thus far is 44.4% delete, 33.3% merge and 22.2% keep. It's sometimes hard to believe your right when you're going against a majority. Ncboy2010 (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Well it does look like you've taken most of the steps required to make it a discriminate list and the underlying topic is demonstrably notable. You might be interested in making a case for it at WP:ARS (or even listing it at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list). -Thibbs (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: ANRFC closing

No, you're good, that was clearly the result of the RfC. I removed the request mainly because the issue seemed to have resolved itself a week prior with no new discussion; collapsing the debate in order to save on scrolling is perfectly fine. --PresN 01:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The voice of the Modern Bop It games

Hi There Thibbs

I just found how who the voice actor is for Bop It! Bop It XT and the Bop It iPhone App and others!

http://www.voiceoveruniverse.com/profile/BuddyRubino--94.197.78.233 (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Women and video games, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Wired and Swarthmore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Y Disambiguation complete. -Thibbs (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Fictional Dogs

Do you think we should work on merging the content into the List of fictional canines and the appropriate sub-articles? (i.e. List of fictional canines in literature et cetera?) Ncboy2010 (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That might be a good idea if after deleting the unsourced entries only a few remain. In general I treat all of these articles as splits from "list of fictional animals" and the only reason to split would be because the parent article is so large that it is difficult to navigate. So keeping dogs separate from other canines makes sense if there are so many dogs and other canines that the list is difficult to navigate but if it really ends up pretty small then a merge might be the best idea. I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it. -Thibbs (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of fictional dogs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page All Creatures Great and Small (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Y Delinked. -Thibbs (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Art game template

Yes, I was trying to simplify navigation between articles about art and videogames, and felt overwhelmed by the task :-) I didn't know how to mix it with the already present Video game industry template, and I didn't like the formatting at all; so I wanted to discuss it at talk pages first. But now that it's actually used I suppose it will generate some useful discussion. Diego (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a bad start and definitely a good way to get the ball rolling on a discussion. I had tried to do something similar by setting up a dab page but the template is probably more eye-catching so that should help. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Panthic.org

Hi Fellow editor. I've been through hundreds of artisles on that site, and they are extremly poorly written. Some are nothing more than gossip and titilation. A good examples being this, nonsense like this, and this. It's not only this site, but unfortunately the Sikh related articles are plagued with junk like this and other sites. I'm trying to clean this all up and get people to use WP:Reliable sources. Most of the Sikh related articles are joke because of sites like this. ThanksSH 17:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I've replied at your talk page. -Thibbs (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Thibbs. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources.
Message added 01:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Salvidrim! 01:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. After a bit of preliminary elimination of confusion like this I'd like to start a series of discussions on the reliability of individual sources. You may have noticed that I've been linking a lot of related discussions to the checklist. Some of them are fairly trivially related, but my hope is to simply collect them as fodder for a good discussion in the future and then to condense the more trivial ones into said good discussion which when linked would replace the more trivial links. -Thibbs (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that there's doesn't seem to be a whole lot of editors interested in discussing the sources at length (except for the largest ones), and flooding WT:VG with them isn't the best of ideas. NLife has had a few discussions where no oppositions were raised; normally I'd say just keep it as reliable until there is opposition, if ever. Salvidrim! 22:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I understand. NLife isn't really what I was talking about. Now that most of the internal inconsistencies have been ironed out, I'm mainly interested in discussing the sources that have not been determined one way or another yet. I figure I'll start trying to get up some interest in these discussions when I've done the background research for the first third of the checklist. I'm wading my way through the archives for the Gs right now (since I'm going alphabetically). There is a terrifying number of them. ;) -Thibbs (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, linking all the archives discussions to the relevant entry in the checklist is an immensely daunting task I admire you for undertaking! Salvidrim! 22:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Well after all that I guess I kind of did go ahead and flood the talk page with sources to be discussed. I basically only went for ones with more than 3 prior discussions, though, and I don't plan on doing it again until I've gone through at least the second third of the checklist which may take me a while since some of my initial bravado has worn off. :) Hopefully this will pan out and editors will leave comments. -Thibbs (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I too admire/thank you for the work you undertook. I commented on a bunch of them too, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. It's always good to hear that your efforts are appreciated. Thanks for weighing in on the issues too. -Thibbs (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm at work so most of the Internet is blocked (and I'm trying to avoid abusing proxies... too much), so I can't do much research. I'll try to look into them a bit more over the weekend. Poke me if I forget. :) Salvidrim! 17:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure no worries. Whatever you have time for is great. I'll probably bump the thread at WT:VG when I get the second third done as well. Thanks again. -Thibbs (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Dragon collection

Hi there!  :)

Thanks for the interest. Unfortunately at the moment, my computer is down with no ETA for getting it back up, and that's where my collection is stored. However, that's no reason not to link it. You can include it in whatever way you feel is best. If you want to add it to some kind of index, you may want to mention that I have access (normally), but I am probably not the only person who does. BOZ (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

OK sounds good. I'll link it then. Thanks for the great work. -Thibbs (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Gridrunner iOS

Thanks for the improvements you've made to the Gridrunner iOS page, it was my first one and I see you've done work on other Llamasoft pages so I appreciate your time spent improving mine. Chris Coloniusredux (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I noticed that you've been improving some of these articles and I think that's a great thing. The coverage of Jeff Minter's oeuvre on Wikipedia is really not so great and he's such a seminal figure that I really welcome any improvement to the Llamasoft articles or the new creation of others. There was another editor (User:Hyphz) a few months ago who was starting to become really active in the arena, but I haven't seen anything he's been doing lately. You may want to contact him to collaborate and if you need help you can always ask here and I'll see what I can do. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I had some difficulty getting the GridRunner IOS page up as it was declined twice in Articles for Submission (not notable), in the end I just made a stub and didn't put it up for review which may have been bad form. It does seem a fight to get any Llamasoft stuff accepted as notable. You're right I have been having a tidy and I'd like to have a crack at the main Llamasoft page some time but my knowledge of the whole span of their history is a little weak so I'm focussing on at least some consistency on the Minotaur Project era. I did drop a note on Hyphz's page as I didn't want to step on his toes but he hasn't got back to me yet.Coloniusredux (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess the main thing for proving notability is finding reliable sourcing. If the editors at Articles for Submission were a little leery of the sources you had listed then this is most likely due to the unfamiliarity of these editors with WP:VG's specific stances on the reliability of certain sources (from the look of it, even prior to my edits the MetaCritic and Eurogamer sources should have proved notability). I don't think it was poor form for to just create the article as WP:BOLD actually encourages this. For future articles you might want to write, you may find WP:VG's "Custom Google search engine" to be helpful as it filters Google's results to only show reliable sources (which demonstrate notability). You can find that tool here (second paragraph in the lede section) or you can use a more up to date version that I wrote about here if you prefer. The more reliable sources you cite the better because notability is defined by multiple RS citations and so only 2 cites is cutting it to the bare minimum. Hope that helps. And let me know if I can be of any use in the future. -Thibbs (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those tips and the reassurance about going straight for an article, I'll try that custom google search next time. The next Llamasoft entry '5 a day' isn't too far off so I can try it out then.Coloniusredux (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. I look forward to it. -Thibbs (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Guess who it is?

Well, guess who this is?--78.149.1.104 (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Re:VG newsletter

First off, I am quite flattered that I would be the first person you'd ask about this. Anyway, basically, the main reason why we haven't issued the new newsletter is not only thr last of a Featured Editor interview, but rather we also got to copyedit to make sure everytthing it written correctly. As well, we haven't added all thre article s that reached Featured or Good Content. If you want to help, please do and ask any questions on what to do for the newsletter. And as for who mails the newsletter, you're going to have to talk to MuZemike about that. GamerPro64 00:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see. Well thanks for your help. I took a look at the quality logs, but it's such a mess it's hard to find anything very helpful there. Also it looks like WP 1.0 bot hasn't updated since March 22 so I'm not sure how to check the remainder of the month... Incidentally I did have a question come up. From the look of it I'm guessing you don't list articles that on first assessment meet FA, right? Only actual promotions or demotions, correct? -Thibbs (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I manually made the bot update today. See the WP1.0 talk page for the explanation of the issue that stops it from running automatically. Salvidrim! 03:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, good to know. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Thibbs. You have new messages at Talk:CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series.
Message added 05:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've replied at talk. -Thibbs (talk) 05:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your impressively large amount of research (both in talk page archives and on specific websites) and tireless contributions at WP:VG/S! Salvidrim! 17:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I appreciate the support! -Thibbs (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Sneaky date change vandalism

I know the ANI thread is stale, but do you have a list of the IPs, or other info, that you found when you dug into the cartoon-related date change vandalism? I may do some digging into some of that and see if I can find some patterns. Shadowjams (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a partial list that I saved for later. I deleted most of the ones that fell into the "maybe" category. It's hard work since these articles are bombarded by IP edits every day and it seems that the average writing-level of most IP editors on those articles is around the 3rd or 4th grade level. Here is the partial list I'd saved:

Dodgy IP-editor list
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
76.108.146.86 66.108.233.96 76.103.171.69 98.203.171.189 74.68.34.57 76.116.193.139 71.165.224.157 76.116.83.33 24.6.57.152 71.74.87.105 24.4.254.1 24.208.10.188 98.214.252.115 99.52.121.31 112.209.196.3 76.21.52.14

It seems the particular targets are List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network, List of Chowder episodes, and List of The Ren & Stimpy Show episodes with some activity also apparent on SpongeBob SquarePants (season 1), List of Dora the Explorer episodes, List of Codename: Kids Next Door episodes, and many other similar articles. These list of cartoon episodes articles are a total mess in many cases. Let me know if you discover anything interesting. I may take a closer look when I get a little time. -Thibbs (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

And of course there's the two that I indicated in the AN/I report. I've added them to the above table. -Thibbs (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. When you recently edited List of fictional dogs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeb (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Y Fixed. -Thibbs (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Hello. You have a new message at BattyBot's talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Sorry to have created more work for you! -Thibbs (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding recent disruption by User:70.56.234.3

Hello Thibbs, i saw your comment on the talk page of the IP. Can you explain me in detail exactly who this person is and why is he/she removing the same content again and again ? Also let the IP blank their talk page, doesn't matter, as the reviewing administrator will look in the page history anyways, at least we can stop reverting on the IP talk page to let it cool down for this IP user. Let it remain blank, after the block if they continue the blanking the talk page access can be revoked. TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that's probably the best move. I was hoping AVI would move a bit faster, but I'm often disappointed by them. The story with this guy is that he wants to remove links to "Small Soldiers" from a number of places. I'm not sure how long ago this began, but you can see his edits covering the electromagnetic pulse article since March 2 and he's been bedeviling one of User:Tbhotch's pages since June 2011. From the look of the "Small Soldiers" article, he's been creating havoc there since at least November 2010. I know of at least 10 different IP accounts he's used in the past, so I suspect he's using a dynamic IP. His motivations are a complete mystery since he never responds to questions. -Thibbs (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for help desk assistance

Hi, Thibbs! Just a quick note to express my appreciation for your assistance at the help desk. You guys who keep the various infrastructure and assistance boards humming are the best! Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh thanks. I just started trying to help out there recently. I think I've finally been around enough to know a good number of the ins and outs of the place. It's a satisfying way of spending time when you have time to kill. I used to try to help fight vandalism at the "Recent changes" page, but I'm glad to say that people with anti-vandal tools are usually able to correct vandalism before I can even get to it. So now I've started to switch to the Help desk. I appreciate your comment. -Thibbs (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Quick couple of questions

Hi Thibbs! Once again I'd like to thank you for your positive help and advice with my article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Modulate . It's much appreciated! I do have a couple of questions tho. First one, I noticed that on all music for Modulte that in the song section there may be songs listed there that were not done by the band. Meaning that I think that there a links to song remixes (the named used for the actual remix) that may not be by the artist. If that the case would it still be ok to use? Also, the compliations that are listed to discogs may not be on there (still checking) so would it be ok to use those just for that section or would it be better to remove some or all completely? The only reason why I used discogs is because I know that iTunes, amazon etc. may discontinue at anytime and that discogs tend to be more permenant (especially for obscure music). Secondly, for formatting the references I went to a few other band pages ( Combichrist, but namely Skinny Puppy as this page seems to be more like Beatles example you pointed out) that were similar to the type of music Modulate does to get an understanding of the references. Would it be better to separate the current references and format the references like Skinny Puppy page? This is still really new to me, and the more I learn, especially with things like this, it helps me to understand and help contribute better to pages! :)

Sydirasky (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Allmusic is one of the websites I've seen frequently cited in music articles. It is one of the recommended resources at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Resources (which also lists a few others). You can use the discogs source to reference things that allmusic doesn't have, but you have to be aware that other editors may disapprove and remove that information unless it has a better source for it. I do like discogs personally because it is so complete compared to other sites, but it may not meet the high standards that WP:MUSIC imposes. So I'm not sure if discogs is considered a reliable source, but you could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music if you want because they are the group primarily involved in music-related articles.

You can format the refs like they have at Skinny Puppy if you wish. The important thing to remember is that authors should be listed for the linked articles if they are available, and the source (Allmusic, Pitchfork, NewYorkTimes, etc.) should be clear. The date is also usually important.

If you need more help I'll be happy to do what I can. -Thibbs (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I actually did forget that Allmusic was one of recommended sources, but I will follow your advice and ask on the Wikitalk page for music about Discogs. Perhaps it's possible to use a few and not all of them. Sometimes it's a bit confusing but you've explained a lot clearer and easier to understand when it comes to the referencing as I've noticed that pages differ. I will definitely reach out to you for help again. Thank you! :)

Sydirasky (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad to help. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

My article got approved! Thanks so much for all the help and advice!!! :)

14:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydirasky (talk • contribs)

Hey congratulations! I'm glad my advice was helpful. -Thibbs (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

RE: IP vandal

He's just a troll, and he does this for fun. I've found these kind of "editors" all the time. There's no reason to talk to them so I can't tell you more than you've found out. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I know he's trolling but I'm trying to figure out if he's a human troll or a vandal bot that is merely owned by a human. In the former case there is the possibility that he will get tired after a while so it's easy enough for us to keep treating the symptoms until time cures the issue, but in the latter case I think it's clear we'll have to look for a preventative solution to the problem. Anyway that does seem to answer my question though regarding whether you have ever seen him communicate like a human, though. If you didn't initiate any talk then I assume you never saw him make any sort of reply. I'll keep looking to see if I can find any patterns to his behavior that would indicate one way or the other. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Ra.One

Thanks a boatload for the text! You wouldn't believe how much of solid information I can now put back. One last request: could you give me the link of the cache file? I still haven't been able to confirm whether the said article actually came in print, so I'd be safe and go for an online reference. Thanks for telling me about the non-necessity of weblinks. Cheers! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks a ton. No, I was planning to archive the cache using WebCite. That should solve the problem, I guess. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad to help. -Thibbs (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh oh. I guess one archiving website can't archive another archiving website. The archiving failed. Dammit! No end to the troubles one faces when encountering a dead link :(. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a pity. If it is a print source, though, then you don't need a weblink. A weblink is nice to have, but it's not essential if physical copies of the article exists (as books, magazines, etc.). -Thibbs (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Famitsu June 30, 2006

Hi, Thibbs. I noticed that you've been adding the Famitsu cross review scores to several articles (in particular Tokimeki Memorial 2 and To Heart, which is where it caught my attention), and I would like to thank you for that. I am wondering if you can also provide the ISBN of that specific issue and if you can provide a transcript or any other information regarding those particular reviews if possible. Thanks! -- クラウド６６８ 08:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This page has scans of FAMITSU WEEKLY #917 (street date: 30 June 2006). Salvidrim! 09:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad the scores helped, Cloud668. There seems to be no ISBN (or ISSN or other) number for the specific magazine I got these from. The magazine bills itself as a Part 2 (中巻) to the actual #915, so perhaps the same serial numbers would apply? Luckily I have #915 proper, but in looking it over I can only find what I believe is the JAN number (4910264570668) and some sort of a 5 digit Magazine Code (雑誌) (26457-6/30). There is also an "Ⓛ" number (no idea what that means) and another 5-digit number on the back cover that seems to be the printing number (which I assume is unique for each different copy). The magazine is quite large so it's possible I missed the ISBN. Do you know where the ISBN is normally be located on Famitsu publications?

As for a transcript of these reviews, I'd be glad to provide them for you, but I am very slow at transcribing Japanese so it may take me a little while. If you'd rather, I could just provide scans of the portions you need. That would probably be much faster for you. Let me know which is more convenient and I'll do my best to get you the material.

Disturbingly, the scans from the link Salvidrim posted do not match the pages from the copy I have, but this does bring up an important thing I neglected. The cross review scores I've been posting all come from an issue of Weekly Famitsu so I'll have to go back and make changes to all of the citations. It looks to me like the link Salvidrim posted actually covers the normal Famitsu (not Weekly Famitsu). Does that seem to be the case to you guys? If so that would nicely explain why the page numbers (and indeed the content) doesn't match. If not then I get worried. -Thibbs (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that last part. I have #915, not 917. I guess the date overlap is due to it being regular Famitsu instead of Weekly Famitsu. -Thibbs (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I gave you a scare! :p Salvidrim! 17:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I hadn't had my morning coffee yet. :) -Thibbs (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! If I remember correctly, the JAN code for books are the same as the ISBN (so you already gave me the answer!). Looking at this page, it seems the cross review catalog that you have is an extra that comes with the Weekly Famitsu issue. It will also be a great help if you can send me an e-mail with the scans for To Heart and Tokimeki Memorial 2 reviews, so that I can perhaps take a couple sentences out of the short paragraphs that accompany the scores. Thanks! -- クラウド６６８ 18:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's exactly the one. As you say, the comments left by the reviewers would probably be perfect to grow the "reception" section. I'll try to get some scans for you shortly. Tomorrow if not today. -Thibbs (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Here's a cookie if you don't mind them! -- クラウド６６８ 02:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Cloud668 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Ah I appreciate it! Least I can do as a card carrying member of both the Video Games and Anime/Manga Reference Library Projects. Feel free to ask again if you see anything that interests you. -Thibbs (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

PC Gamer

Hi, Thibbs! I know that you've got quite a collection of old PC Gamer magazines and was wondering if you could find out the page numbers of this article about The Curse from Monkey Island from PC Gamer US July 1997 issue. That's a shame for me not to know the page numbers after digging out such a premier source. Thank you in advance, Electroguv (talk) 06:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Sadly I don't seem to have this issue. I've listed at the WP:VG Reference Library (here) all the issues that I have access to, and while I do have the September 1997 issue, it doesn't have the article that is referenced by the article you linked. It would seem from the date on the linked article that you'd be looking for the June 1997 issue or earlier. At the Reference Library, though, I can see that User:SubSeven has a few of the older issues from 1997 so you might want to contact him.

Alternately, there seems to be coverage of this game in a few of the other PC Gamer issues including the November 2000 issue (offered by User:Twas Now) and the December 2003 issue (owned by me). I can provide a scan of the article from the December 2003 issue if you'd like.

Finally, just to cover every angle, I can also see from the Ref. Library that there are articles that cover the game both in Next Generation Magazine (specifically the March 1998 issue offered by User:Mitaphane) and in Games Magazine (specifically the December 1998 issue that I own). Again, I can offer to provide a scan of the Dec. '98 Games article, although I believe it's not particularly depthy (the holiday purchase guides are usually fairly brief blurbs).

None of the 4 magazines I've listed above (Next Generation March 1998, Games Dec 1998, PC Gamer Nov 2000, and PC Gamer Dec 2003) appear in the article currently so I think they could all help. Let me know if you want scans of either Games Dec 1998 or PC Gamer Dec 2003. -Thibbs (talk) 13:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, July 1997 issue is the only one I'm interested in as it contains a large preview of the game with lots of info not available from other sources. Still, thanks for your time. Best wishes, Electroguv (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I'd contact User:SubSeven as my best bet, but it's kind of a long shot since he didn't list June 97 in the Ref. Library (linked above). -Thibbs (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Dead link in article 'Masaya Matsuura'

Hi. The article 'Masaya Matsuura' has a dead link that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix it?

Dead: http://www.dcaj.org/oldgp/97awards/english/mmgp/work.htm#jinbutu

• You added this in November 2008.
• The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

This link is marked with {{Dead link}} in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots|deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Y Done. -Thibbs (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Famitsu Strider review scores

Hi. I Just noticed your Strider 1 and Strider 2 edits. Did they both separately receive the same score or was that score supposed to cover both titles in the in the ストライダー飛竜1&2 set? Can you think of a way to make that clear? Remember though, it's not necessary to list every score the Strider games have ever received over the years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge protector (talk • contribs) 20:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The magazine gives one score for the ストライダー飛竜1&2 set, not individual scores for Strider 1 and Strider 2. I was thinking that this would be semi-clear to the reader due to the fact that it says "Famitsu scored the PlayStation version..." and as far as I know the 1&2 set is the only PlayStation version. Also there's the citation which lists the title of the game scored of course. But I am not very familiar with the games so if there is another PlayStation version then this should indeed be clarified inline. I am not sure what is the best way to clarify the issue, but if you can think of anything, feel free to modify what I wrote.

I do think it would be a mistake to just delete the review though. Although not every review is necessary for a clear understanding of the games' reception, I think it really helps to include publications from different nationalities to give a broader perspective to article sections like these. Currently the Famitsu score I added is the only non-British score in the Strider 1 article, and it is the only non-English-language score in the Strider 2 article. Including a Japanese publication may also be of particular interest to readers in this case because the games are in fact originally Japanese games that were translated for English-speaking audiences.

So I'd say that we should include the reference (or other comparable Japanese ones) in the article but as far as how the information is presented, you may be better at judging that than I as it's clear from your edit history that you are fairly familiar with the topic. Let me know what you think would be best. -Thibbs (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

GAMEST Magazine

Ever heard of this magazine that was popular in Japan? I'm sure its issues can be used as more reliable sources of reception information. Parrothead1983 (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The name is familiar, but I don't actually have any copies of it. It would be good to add Japanese sources to the gaming articles to expand their reception sections because the inclusion of sources from different nationalities helps to reduce systemic bias and POV. Naturally English Wikipedia will use mostly English-language sources, and naturally there are a lot of high-quality English-language RSes, and these are sufficient to demonstrate a game's notability, etc., but high-quality or major non-English and multinational sources would address Wikipedia's second pillar by reducing or eliminating cultural biases in the reporting. It sounds to me like reviews from GAMEST would be a great addition to Wikipedia for this reason.

For articles on games created in non-English-language countries, I think it's also very helpful for a full grasp of the topic to include reception from the originating culture. So in my view, reviews from Japanese sources like Famitsu or GAMEST should be used to expand the articles on Japanese games whenever possible. (And similarly, reviews from French magazines would be helpful for French games, and Russian magazines for Russian games, etc.). I have heard that Famitsu is considered Japan's premier video game magazine so I think that its reviews for Japanese games are particularly helpful, and I have been adding them to gaming articles recently, but thanks for bringing my attention to GAMEST too. If I happen to pick up any copies of it I'll try to add reviews from there as well. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh also, I wanted to say that one other place where non-English reception is extremely helpful in my view is where the reviewer belongs to the culture that is being portrayed in the game. So, for instance, I think it could be very helpful to include Italian reviews of the Mario games or to include Russian reviews of the Karnov games. -Thibbs (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

So just to condense my thoughts, I think that non-English-language source should be used in the following cases:

• When a game comes from X country, then reviews from X country can provide cultural insight that might escape foreign reviewers.
• When a game depicts Y country or aspects of it, then reviews from Y country can provide reliable, detailed, and direct reaction to the depiction.
• When a game comes from Z country, reviews from X and Y countries will help to reduce POV and to provide an international response thereby eliminating systemic cultural biases.

Sorry to go on and on, but I'm really just articulating my views on these matters for the first time here. :) -Thibbs (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, I'll keep that in mind, and you're welcome on my reminder of Gamest. See also Jap-Sai. It has lists of Japan's video game magazines with dates and games that were featured in each issue, including Arcadia, Neo-Geo Freak, and of course Gamest. Parrothead1983 (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A very interesting read. Thanks again. Another magazine I've been keeping a lookout for is FamiMaga. It was aimed at a younger audience, but it had good breadth of coverage as far as I can see. -Thibbs (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hope that website will guide you through each magazine history. Hmmm...interesting. FamiMaga even released videos that can be found here, which feature familiar visitors like Satoshi Tajiri and Shigesato Itoi. Speaking of Satoshi Tajiri, "FamiMaga" and especially "younger audience" reminded me of his fanazine (fan magazine) Game Freak, but I'm sure it's unsuitable for Wikipedia; however, besides Game Freak and FamiMaga, he also worked as a freelance writer for Famicom Hisshoubon (later known as Hippon). Check them out if you can. Parrothead1983 (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, I've been noticing Chris Covell's contributions online and I've even contacted him in the past. Unfortunately his interests concentrate on the 1985 to 1995 period whereas I am most interested in 1995 through 2000. That said, though, I still find the late 80s to early 90s stuff to be fascinating. The other magazines/fanazines you mentioned sound very interesting as well, so I'll definitely check them out if I can track them down. -Thibbs (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I've also noticed that GameCenter CX sounds like another reliable source. Each episode contains galleries of video games by categories, interviews with designers or hardcore gamers, tours inside several video game companies, and several other interesting stuff. Parrothead1983 (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. Sadly that's my biggest weakness with Japanese though. I work exclusively with written text so unless I could get subtitled versions of GameCenter CX I'd probably be mostly in the dark. I do tend to look on commercially published hardcopy sources (subscription gaming magazines, TV shows, etc.) as more reliable than online or self-published sources, but of course this isn't a hard rule so there's no guarantee. I think GameCenter CX would probably count as an RS especially for opinion information like reception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

While the magazines we mentioned can be mostly used for reception sections, GameCenter CX and other similar shows can be used for development and history sections, and probably summaries. Parrothead1983 (talk) 04:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well that's even better. I find that it's often hard to find plot summary info that doesn't come from the game itself so if GameCenter CX can be used for plot summaries then all the better. And of course development-related material can also be difficult to track down. From looking at the show's article on Wikipedia, it seems like Kotaku hosts an English-translated version so it should be accessible even for non-speakers like me. -Thibbs (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why it isn't becoming successful enough overseas from Japan, but I assume that North Americans and Europeans are either lost on the point of the show or only view it differently compared to Japanese viewers, much like Americans hilariously enjoying the game Twister while Japanese are usually too shy to play it. Anyway, development and history sections in articles mostly use info found in interviews with designers. One example found in GameCenter CX is Yu Suzuki's interview seen in "2nd Season, Episode 13", where he discussed his involvement on Champion Boxing (his debut work), Hang-On (one of his most influential works) and Virtua Fighter (another very influential work of his). Some magazines and websites not only also contain interviews, but prototype screenshots and info as well, like Journey to Silius originally planned as a licensed game based on The Terminator film, and the SNES version of Super Punch-Out!! originally planned to have a different looking protagonist. Parrothead1983 (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it's culture clash I guess. For development info I think you're right that interviews are the way to go. I have also found some success in the past with looking up game previews in the magazines that have them (e.g. GameFan). When a game receives feature coverage I sometimes can find usable dev info too. Sadly if the game is obscure enough, there still isn't much in the way of interviews, previews, and especially feature coverage. Dev info isn't mandatory, but I guess if it's so obscure that WP:V can't be satisfied for any subsection then it really doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Hard for my generally inclusionish (just shy of full-on inclusionism) bias to accept. :) -Thibbs (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Bop It Article: Banter

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Thibbs When I'm talking about the Bnater in the Bop It Games, I mean when you mess up, it says things like "Do It the same but but better!" and it also says "Dude!" as well. The Bop It iPhone app refers to those comments as a 'Banter' so information about the Bnater should appear on the article.--86.171.146.215 (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.