User talk:Randomran/Archive 1

Role-playing games
I would like to help on the console/computer RPG articles, but I firmly believe, despite an unfortunately short-sighted resistance on the part of a few people, that this cannot be done until the articles are merged

They are not distinct. At all. There are tendencies of one or the other to lean toward certain sub-genres and styles, but these are not descriptive, nor can they be universally. Furthermore, any account of either's history and development that does not include all genres will be wrong. These articles will never meet anyone's standards of quality as long as we cater to a handful of people offering no definition, but stomping their foot all the same. Frogacuda (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I think a good strategy would be to merge the two history articles. If you establish the inextricable way that these supposedly separate genres developed, it would be difficult to argue that they should be distinct. For instance, you can talk about how RPGs were introduced to Japan by the Sharp X1 game The Black Onyx (created by a western programmer specifically for Japan) and this opened the way for console ports and localizations of Wizardry and Ultima, which became the foundation for Dragon Quest, and established the style of RPG that the current wiki calls "console RPG."


 * When you discuss them separately you need to pretend that Dragon Quest came from nowhere and that eastern action RPGs never had any impact on the western RPGs and it all falls apart. So that would be my strategy. I will do what I can to help when I have the time. Frogacuda (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

New articles
Hey, I noticed you've been creating new articles, thanks for helping out with Wikipedia! You can announce your articles here:WikiProject Video games/New article announcements. Cheers, JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2007-12-17 22:51

See Talk:First-person_adventure
Please respond to my post at Talk:First-person_adventure. And since you asked for reliable reference, where is yours?--Wormsie (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Changing references
Please don't change references other people have added to point to other places. If you need to add a reference, add your own. You've changed references without changing the access date, making it look like other people added these references. Also, please use Citation templates when adding references. Simply adding the URL is not satisfactory, as, if a URL to an article changes, people will not be able to find it if the author and publisher are not listed as well. SharkD (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing sources
Please stop removing sourced material from articles. You've removed sources and applied sources to comments that are not covered in the articles from Artillery game. You've removed sourced material and applied sources to comments that are not covered in the articles from Artillery Duel. SharkD (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, I wouldn't see that as a problem. However, no-one seems to be even starting in the discussion. I'm still waiting on opening statements. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 14:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've made a suggestion on the case page, I'd like to know your thoughts on it. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk to me) 14:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Spore
Thanks for joining in the discussion. It's good to have another level head in the mix. Dan si m a n  ( talk | Contribs ) 21:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've tried to be level. In fact, I came in agreeing with that other guy. But he's been so belligerent and the others have been pretty fair minded. I can't help but see the need for a compromise. It's silliness. Randomran (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: rail shooters and light gun shooters
You're right that it's deeper problem, essentially caused by people using their own opinions rather than checking for sources. Firstly, light gun games are indeed sometimes called 'rail shooters', but from the sources I've looked at (usual suspects, IGN, GameSpot etc), 'light gun shooter' is far more prevalent. Secondly, 'rail shooter' is more commonly used to describe games like space harrier, star fox, rez, sin and punishment etc. Obviously, these games and light gun games don't have much in common other than a (differing) form of 'on-rails' movement. It should be noted that using 'on-rails' to describe one particular aspect of the gameplay (movement) is not the same as saying 'this game is a rail shooter'; sources sometimes note the first person viewpoint of light gun games, but they don't consider them 'first person shooters'.

With regards to the main article on rail shooters, I believe originally it was about games such as space harrier, star fox etc. At some point, people began to add information about light gun games in. Cue much debate over what a 'rail shooter' is, on thetalk page; at no point did anyone look at any secondary sources. Eventually, I rewrote the article to cover 'on-rails' movement in both light gun games and shoot 'em ups (Space Harrier etc), as well as covering 'rail shooter' as a genre category (again, more information on the talk page). 'Rail shooter' and 'light gun shooter' should really be separate articles, but I never got round to it.

As for the template/category rail shooter, again I believe it's mistaken and reflects an editor's personal opinion rather than critical consensus. When I was rewriting the rail shooter article, I looked at several articles covering light gun games categorised as 'rail shooters'. None of them cited any sources to show they were considered as such, indeed the sources I did find termed them 'light gun shooters'. I intended to do something about that, but again haven't got round to it. I don't dispute that 'rail shooter' is a genre, only it's applicability to light gun games (or at least the prevalence of the term). It should be grouped under shoot 'em ups (along with scrollers, run and gun etc), or have it's own article/category. Indeed I believe it was orignally mentioned in the shoot em up section of the genre article and I misguidedly removed it (at the the time it appreared to me to be synonymous with 'scrolling shooters'). Bridies (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To sum up, it's the template that's the problem, not the genre article. Bridies (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I think adding 'light gun shooter' to the template is probably the quickest fix. However, currently there's no article on light gun shooters, though there is a list of light gun games. The rail shooter article should be split, with the information on light gun games being used to create its own article. That would make two very short articles at the moment though. Going deeper, light gun games categorised as 'rail shooters' in their infoboxes should be changed. Bridies(talk) 17:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Light gun game' does have an entry in the 'sub-genre' subsections of Shooter game. Bridies (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I created a light gun shooter article and moved the appropriate content from the rail shooter article to there. I also added light gun shooter to the template. There's probably quite a few light gun games marked as 'rail shooters' in their main articles/infoboxes; I'll check for that later. Bridies (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

4X.
I'd be glad to give it a review, but I'm a bit busy these days; mind reminding me around Thursday or so (I tend to forget this kind of thing...)? · AndonicO  Hail! 23:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to contribute if you have specific ideas, althought the article already contains just about everything I can think of that would be acceptable in Wikipedia. Refs are particularly difficult - I trawled extensively during the "4X notability" debate (now vanished form the Talk page, there appears to be no archive) and inserted almost everything I found. Philcha(talk) 19:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehe, right, I had already forgotten. :( I'll start copyediting the article tomorrow morning, and I'll probably have finished&mdash;and commented on&mdash;it by Saturday. · AndonicO  Hail! 00:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, right, very sorry. I'll get started right away. · AndonicO  Engage. 15:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, first impressions: needs a lot of copyediting (I'd be happy to help with that), and the definition is somewhat vaguely explained (though I'm guessing the reason is because there is no true definition; see the message I left on the talk page, though), the organization needs a bit of work, and too many mentions of "such and such game is a good example of this" (not really needed, at least, not too often). Finally, the "Examples of 4X games" section should be removed (the most notable ones are likely to get mentioned in the text, anyway). I'll post on the talk page when I've finished reading the article (only read a little so far). · AndonicO Engage. 16:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll make a better explained, more comprehensive review when I'm finished going through the article. · AndonicO  Engage. 00:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Re "Examples of 4X games", it would be better to create a "list of" article. There's no sense in throwing away information some readers may find useful. Philcha (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm very sorry I've not been able to review properly yet; I'll make sure to finish reading tomorrow. · AndonicO  Engage. 02:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. · AndonicO  Engage. 15:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Computer role-playing game
hi, instead of replacing one reference with another, equally informational, I believe it is better to give reader a choice likehere. You may want to consider merging the two articles, by the way ;) Pundit | utter  17:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, it is great that you're sorting these out. The only problem is that a "video rpg" is much narrower than "computer rpg". I'm one of these old guys who remember MUDs and other non-video computer rpgs. Therefore it is rather counter-intuitive for me to keep the video-rpg article as the main entry :) merging everything into "computer rpg", however, may be an option because of the big overlap. Pundit | utter 17:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What I find confusing about the "video" in the name is the fact, that there is a whole genre of computer role-playing games that is ONLY textual, without any graphics. Thus, calling them "video RPG" does not make much sense. In my view, actually, "computer RPG" does justice to the idea :) Pundit | utter  19:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do understand that you have your own terminology within the project, and that is totally fine. It is just that it perhaps should not be reflected in the generally accessible articles :) On Wikiproject RPG we distinguishcomputer-assisted gaming from the traditional one. I think it is better to try to stick to names, which are not anti-intuitive or misleading (which would be the case of "video RPG", when you consider the fact that many known computer RPG systems were entirely text, and not video based - some didn't have ANY graphics at all). Pundit | utter  21:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Hopefully some people interested in both types will come up with suggestions :) Good work! Pundit | utter  22:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a pleasure to discuss with you and develop Wikipedia in the atmosphere of constructive collaboration :) see you around Pundit | utter 00:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Music video game article
Hi, I noticed you added a "citation needed" tag to the top of the Music video game article inthis edit. Could you please explain inTalk:Music video game what it was that you felt needed citation? It is unclear from the tag alone. Thanks!-Thibbs (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"4X" and "Tech tree"
Hi, how do you feel about the current state of 4X? Before you turned up I'd though I'd said all I had to say about that topic, but you got me thinking on new tracks.

IIRC you also expressed interest in "Tech tree". I'd be interested to know what your ideas on that are. Philcha(talk) 11:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What aspects of "Tech tree" in 4X do you have reservations about?
 * That 4X tech trees are usually big, and sometimes complex?
 * That tech advancement is generally vital in 4X games, and often optional in other games?
 * That costs of going up the tech tree are often higher in 4X than in non-4X games?
 * That research mechanisms / resourcing are different in 4X and non-4X games?
 * The structural diversity of 4X tech trees? Philcha (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll have ago at making the "Tech tree" section in 4X more concise. I actually realised while typing my last message to you that the bullet points summarized the subject well and needed little more than the addition of refs. Philcha(talk) 17:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done what I can. It's not much shorter, but I hope it's little more coherent. Philcha (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that all screenshots of non open-source games are dodgy? If so, can you supply a pic that shows a many-to many tech tree from a suitable source and is clearer at thumbnail size than the Free Orion pic?
 * I don't how the Civ 3 tech tree pic's being from a mod affects 4X - it's not a game tutorial, the pic illustrates the structure and any mod has to follow the structure expected by the game code. Philcha (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think using FreeCiv as a "prototypical 4X game" is not a great idea: I doubt if it's that well-known, and the image is poor. I'm reinstating the Civ II image. I've checked Non-free content and I think using the screen shot in 4Xcounts as "for critical commentary" since: the article comments on the whole genre; it presents Civ II and the other Civgames as the prototypical 4X games. Philcha (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for drawing my attention to C-evo - I'd given up playing Civ games because of the amount of micromanagement (towns and units), but I'll give C-evo a try.
 * The problem with using open-source games as examples is that it might be hard to find good refs for their status as 4X games (assuming their own web sites are not allowable evidence). In any case most of the developers will not complain as they're getting free publicity. The only exception might be MOO III, criticisms of which are cited in 4X; but that image is really just eye-candy and its removal would not cause serious pain provided the caption is integrated into the text first.Philcha (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: 4X PR
Sorry about that-I've been working on my Eagle Scout Leadership Service Project, I should have more free time this week to review. Thanks for the reminder, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 16:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

4X (again)
I think we need to discuss your recent edit to "Depth of gameplay". I like some aspects, but in other areas you've changed the meaning. For example "even if the player's ultimate goal is total conquest" was intended both to make the point that would-be Alexander the Greats have to consider these factors and more specifically to raise the point that diplomacy etc. are important inSoeSE although the only victory condition there is total conquest. I'm turning in now, so I'll leave more detailed comments atTalk: 4X tomorrow. Please don't make any other major changes in the meantime. Philcha (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a suggestion at Talk:4X. Philcha (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there anything else you want to achieve with 4X? IMO the main thing outstanding is to make the lead summarise the content, but we should stabilise the content first. Philcha (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: WP:SPAM
Sure no problem. Anytime. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

Wikiquette_alerts
I've started this discussion on him. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

prodding
when you place a prod on an article you must give a reason. It should says something like "non-notable game, no sources" or something of the sort. Please go back and replace the tags on the ones you placed recently. To avoid confusing our reporting system, please delete the old one first, save the article, and then place the new tag. DGG (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Mahjong
Hi Randomran, nice list; could you put Aki and any other solitaire games on Mahjong solitaire instead? Thanks,Marasmusine (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hattrick AfD
Please see here:. Thanks,Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 00:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Side-Scrolling "Genre"
Thanks, friend! You've been helpful in many ways in my recent sporadic plunges into the whole Video Game arena. I have updated the Side-scrolling video game‎ article, removing references it to being a "genre". I've also stripped the "Side-Scrolling" sub-genre from the Video game genres‎ page. (Meanwhile, work progresses on my List of Super Famicom and Super Nintendo games by genre page.) Dawynn (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Refs
Convince me why there's 8 refs needed when 2 suffice and the facts aren't being changed. JAF1970 (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A Serious Sam blog constitutes a valid source? JAF1970 (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Good morning. I have a small request for aid and an admonishment. Giving the request first might seem disingenuous, but giving the admonishment first could sour further dealings. Which one should I lead with? --Kiz o r  02:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Second: You tampon, you voted for the deletion of an article about TV show characters while calling it an article about video game characters and citing WP:GAMETRIVIA. I waived my right to complain in tearing you a new one in that discussion, but you hopefully agree that this sort of thing shouldn't happen.--Kiz o r 18:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm generally good with assuming good faith so don't be ashamed to lay all your cards out. I'll assess your request on its own merits, and help in whatever way I can. Randomran (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. First: this edit felt wrong - my use of English seemed off. I'd be obliged if you reviewed it.

My bad. I was confused about that when I looked at the AFD as well. I saw the article because it was listed within the gaming AFDs. When I looked at the article, I saw issues of non notable information on a fictional topic. Gametrivia does a good job of summarizing the problems with these kinds of articles, and I usually rely upon that. On the other hand, I saw mentions of a TV show. I probably should have stuck to WP:N and WP:FICT and WP:PLOT rather than taking the easy way out with WP:GAMETRIVIA. But I still stand by my recommendation for deletion. This was lazy on my part, but not because I didn't review the article or attempt to seek sources. It was lazy because I got sloppy with my reasoning.

I also looked at the government simulation article and tried to improve it. The paragraph about hearts of iron still needs work, but I don't have enough experience with those games to clarify. I hope I've been helpful. Randomran (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye, if I was seeking to change your opinion then my timing would be as badly off as possible. I'm only concerned with due diligence in AfDs - !votes that get the topic wrong get ugly in most of all possible ways. (A personal favorite comes from last January: Six people called for speedy delete without denying or in any way acknowledging the explanation about the ineligibility of speedy deletion on the second line of the nomination.) For the record, Avatar is a TV show and has spawned a few cash-in games that have negligible impact on the main franchise.

Thank you kindly for your work on the government simulator article, you certainly have been helpful in aiding its legibility and that of later revisions. I do intend to make another pass later on because (a) I wish to put some more focus on the differences between government simulators and other genres, as similarities are common but usually very superficial - Civ IV, for instance, is about empire management but only marginally about government management. It doesn't have domestic politics. Half the time the player doesn't know what kind of state he's running until something uses his title. (b) I'm a greedy bastard. --Kiz o r  01:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for an amiable conclusion. I'll pay more care to the governmental thingy article and point the changes out on the talk page when I'm done. While we're talking, I saw a couple of things that took my interest in my watchlist and in bouncing here through your contributions and decided to bug you directly. Regarding a giant fish that I'm quite fond of, from my fairly anarchistic viewpoint WP:N, being a guideline rather than a policy or core policy, is a tool (not "the") for estimating grounds for inclusion. This doesn't keep it from being a good idea, just leaves room for other metrics. This was expressed and appreciated in my RfA (which was otherwise embarassing as it was during that time that I was making a hard left at Looneywood junction, but I digress). Featuring in several dozen video games over fifteen years (as well as some very unlikely places (the Far Side cartoon is a real stretch, but that image is fairly inarguable)) is a good argument for inclusion, is it not?

Regarding that Emrich article, is there a chance that I could get a copy, in private correspondence or otherwise, for my nefarious GA purposes?

Regarding my writing style, do I use the first person singular too much? It might be an artefact from my native language - where the equivalent is a fairly inconspicuous suffix - and I worry that it might make me look self-centered. --Kiz o r  08:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would otherwise reply "good luck, and good editing" and go on my merry way, but I was in the neighbourhood and saw you speak out in support of massive-scale deletion to polish Wikipedia's image. Lemme just collect the quotes and build some arguments, and I'll get back to you. I wasn't looking for any further commitments, so sucks to be me. ---Kiz o r  22:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You have no idea how right you are...
"Repeat what the sources say, and leave it up to the reader to interpret what's happening. ... and then who knows what could happen in a few months? The funny thing about wikipedia is that journalists read it. Just by virtue of saying "there's an emerging subgenre here", journalists will pick that up, and run with it, and then you can put that back in as research." —Precedingunsigned comment added by Tarranon (talk •contribs) 08:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop reverting - source verified
Source has been verified. JAF1970 (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed the cit to include the verification within the cit. JAF1970 (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Maxis keeps changing the name of that one phase
Now it's the Cell phase. JAF1970 (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"Business"
You changed a number of articles, including Clonk, from "economic simulation" to "business simulation". I'm not a native English speaker, but what is the rationale behind this? Clonk has a lot of resource managment (You can chop wood, mine ore, melt metal and build vehicles and weapons from it; similar to the more well-known The Settlers), but you aren't managing a "business" as in e.g. Sim City. I have heard the term economic simulation a lot for these games, but business simulation seems rather unfitting. Sven Eberhardt (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there were some fixed game categories in Wikipedia. In any case, reading the articles of the game categories, it does fit into real-time strategy much better than business (or economic) simulation. I changed the introduction text.Sven Eberhardt (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ace Combat
Do you think it would be possible to combine the information in Organizations of Ace Combat, Militaries of Ace Combat,Earth (Ace Combat) and Superweapons of Ace Combat into an Universe of Ace Combat article? This was done with Kingdom Hearts (see Universe of Kingdom Hearts). Thanks! RCX (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

re: video game genre articles
Hi there, sorry for the late reply. At one point I was trying to go through them all and take care of all the respective issues they are tagged for (mostly 'no sources'). I'm thinking of looking at the ones that are reasonably well developed and laid out (e.g. shoot 'em up and fighting game) and trying to get everything sourced (and any or removed). It's mostly the various action genres on my watchlist, all the variations on stragegy and RPGs I don't know much about. Bridies (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD notification etiquette
Please be sure to follow this aspect of the AfD instructions regarding the nominating process: "it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Also consider notifying WikiProjects listed on the discussion page.  Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits.  To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or useTDS' Article Contribution Counter. For your convenience, you may use Article title ~ (for creators who are totally new users), Article title ~ (for creators), or Article title ~ (for contributors or established users). You can determine the main contributors of the articles by entering the page name atWikipedia Page History Statistics." I do not believe you did so for Articles for deletion/Soul series mystical weapons or Articles for deletion/Superweapons of Ace Combat.  In the first case, you should notify any user of IP with more than one edit and the same for here.  Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your change to Europa Barbarorum
I see that you put a template on the Europa Barbarorum article warning that it might be deleted due to lack of notability -precisely what changes do you want made to it in order to make it notable? Please note that it would be strange if the article were deleted now as it has been around for several years as far as I know. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

List of locations in the StarCraft series
I've noticed that you've tagged the List of locations in StarCraft article for cleanup. Just incase this is a potential prelude to possible AfD, I just want to ask you to refrain from nominating for deletion. It is an utter mess, and its on my (fairly extensive) to-do list, but I'm currently taking a break from StarCraft related things after rewriting the FA StarCraft, dealing withSpecies of StarCraft and bringing StarCraft: Ghost to GA. However, I will get around to sorting it out in due course. -- Sabre (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Aki Ross gamecleanup
I'd like to know what you think needs to be game-cleaned up about this article. The other articles you tagged are obvious, but this one not that much IMO (especially as it's not even about a game to begin with). Thanks. Kariteh (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I tagged it for cleanup because there's a few parts that are unreferenced. Probably not the most suitable tag. It just needs more editors on it, hence why I tagged it. If you can think of a more suitable tag, feel free to change it. Randomran(talk) 21:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Refimprove is probably best. Kariteh (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think?
I don't think I asked you this, but would you consider making a request for comment on Le Grand? I haven't made it yet, but I'm strongly considering it, as his disruptive attitude is creeping into many aspects of Wikipedia (dispite many people telling him of policies, which he chooses to ignore). I was told to stay away from him, but frankly: I'm fed up with his attitude, and it's very clear others are as well. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While Le Grand doesn't curse, or attack people... his views are disruptive and seem to just flood many deletion debates at times. I can start building evidence, could you help out? Request for Comment requires 2 or 3 people at least for it to remain open, but I can easily find others to be part of it. If you could email me (click email this user while on my talk page), I can give you more details (not suitable for here). RobJ1981 (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I could just give you an email address that I don't use much, then I wont be too worried about it getting spam or whatever from whoever else might see it. Some policies that Le Grand is probably breaking: not assuming good faith, as well as point-of-view pushing. I haven't read the policies on those completely though (but I'm pretty sure POV pushing is something we could find many examples for, if that is indeed a policy that's been broken). Plus he keeps listing another editor's opinion essay, and acts like it should be followed (but it's not an official policy, as the tag at the top of it clearly states). The "Don't Destroy" one, that I'm sure you've seen at least once. For any type of thing: deletion debates, talk pages are indeed the best bet to find things.RobJ1981 (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * robJ1981@hotmail.com (my MSN messenger name: no active email though), we can talk there. Otherwise, do you use IRC? There's no need to create a new email address if we don't need to. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've started Wikiquette_alerts. I don't think any alert for him has been on there in the past. With alert, it takes less time to make, and gets enough input usually. If it fails (or not much response), then RFC is the way to go. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

At WP:ANI, LGRdC has stated he has to leave wiki. I think it may be best for all concerned to just let this go and peacefully help create a better encyclopedia. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm usually on the Wikipedia-en or Wikia channels. Look for me. I'm usually online late at night, or in the afternoon (central time zone). RobJ1981 (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm currently on IRC with this same name. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Characters
I'll see if I can get to it, but I would try to build up the main character article and merge the individual character articles there. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to echo this.  A merge is always preferred to a deletion if feasible--provided you actually do get consensus, demonstrated on the talk page. Yes,  in case there's no agreement there  we do need some better way of handing deciding on the validity of a particular merge--though I am very reluctant to propose further bureaucracy. DGG (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * oops, that was meant for someone else. DGG (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup?
Hello, why do you tag Ivalice for cleanup? Any specific issues that we can address, because this tag is a bit too vague. &mdash; Blue. 07:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

cleanup take 2
Hi, same question as above: what do you think needs to be cleaned up in Netrek? -- Akb4 (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

video game genres, contd.
I've decided to try starting with fighting game, I think, because there's quite a few sources on Gamespot which seem to provide a good historical overview. Specifically, I'm looking at History of Street Fighter, History of Mortal Kombat,History of Sega Fighting Games,Fighting Game Classics. I've yet to read through them properly but they should provide an informative starting point. With regards to the current fighting game article, the first paragraph of the 'history' section is good, and that's about it. I'm not too sure how the article should be laid out and what it should cover and since none of the genre articles are any good (as far as I'm aware) there's not much to go on. It should cover development, technical and critical milestones, waxing and waning popularity etc, but that might conceivably all go under 'history'. Bridies (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

VG guidelines
You may want to check out Guyinblack's draft for "How to write a video game article"; mind you, I think there's need for two different documents, one being the quick reference, one being the discussion given. --M ASEM 23:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I find myself agreeing with Masem - Guyinblack's draft is quite good, but also very detailed. The Guidelines should be a quick summary and should contain a link to a more detailed essay.
 * That said, I think your draft is great, Randomran! It's quick and concise, it captures the core concepts very well, and I like that you're linking to the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines - that seems rather important since people are questioning whether we're in line with WP's policies.
 * I don't have time to give much detailed feedback right now, but I do think it's a great starting point. Definitely open a discussion on the main VGProj talk to see if you can get the new revision adopted. :)  Good work! &mdash;KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 19:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think your draft is headed on the right path. Like Masem and Kiefer said, it's a good, quick reference and is easy to read. I like how you organized the "Inappropriate content" section and followed it with a good (and sourced) "Exceptions" section. I think the first "Overview" section focuses a bit too much on what should not be in an article, though I understand why you phrased everything the way you did. I would try to include an extra, brief sentence explaining what an encyclopedic video game article is actually for. Like providing a "comprehensive overview" or an "informational analysis and background" of a video game topic while not giving "too much weight" to certain sections of it. And regarding the content about transwikifying content, it seems a bit out of place, but I can't honestly think of a better section to put it in—just something to keep in the back of your mind while doing revisions.
 * All in all, I think it's a good step forward from what we currently have and I hope we can adopt it sometime soon. Nice job. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC))
 * Re WP:FICT, I've been probably the most active in trying to meet various "goals" for revising it since last year. The current version, which allows for limited but allowable lists of characters, is the one that is seen as the best likelihood of being accepted. --M ASEM  21:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a word of warning that WP:FICT can get noisy (it is very quiet now) but I will try to drop you a line when things change with it. Do, however, be aware that in the GNG at WP:N that one of the footnotes (#8 I think) also allows for selected non-notable spinouts (WP:FICT's revision is to try to expand this point more).  Again, as I commented on the talk page, I'm pretty I'm reading what you're thinking and in line with the existing guidelines, but it's just not coming out exact in the wording, but that's easily fixed. --M ASEM  21:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Email
Use the email facility on my User page to send an email which encloses your email address. I'll reply; you reply to the reply, adding the attachment. That's worked twice for me, and AFAIK none of the 3 people involved has had (increased) spam as a result.

Thanks for the notification about Tea Leaves, I'll gird up my lions loins and smite the unbelievers.Philcha (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you get my email re the Emrich article? Or are you just busy at present?
 * BTW congratulations on the Barnstar. Philcha (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Yeah, I don't blame you for not wanting to go to WP:RFA right now. No one should have to undergo the extreme scrutiny and rather pathetic reasoning for opposes that currently is being undertaken there, although there are efforts to have it fixed. If you're ever interested, let me know. Cheers,  Sephiroth BCR ( Converse ) 20:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: IAR
I don't believe in ignoring all rules. I'm just tired of Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles's cherry-picking of quotes and policies to stymy discussion and reduce everything to drivel by repeating the same points over and over again. I was making a point that if he/she really thinks that IAR is so important, I should be able to do what I really would like to-ban the annoying bugger and be done with it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is when push comes to shove, we’re going to have to overrule the opposers and roll out the guideline. While some have valid issues which should be taken seriously, the other four or so are on one side of the fence or the other on notability and can’t be reconciled. Prolly those who want to axe the stuff will be more likely to come on board, but even if we pass the guideline, it doesn’t mean any attempts to delete utter crap aren’t going to be assaulted by Citron and the like saying that the guideline wasn’t really consensus, yadda yadda… Without a functioning guideline, our ability to deal with this crap basically boils down to unilateral action, which definitely won't make anyone happy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 18:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know. This is just more annoying then all the shit that went down over at WT:SPOILER because this is absolutely essential to a vast portion of wikipedia, not just little tags in articles. Whatever, I guess I'll go back to some writing while this gets tossed about. Cheers. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 18:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a "he" incidentally. One could say the same about cherry picking and repetition on those against the inclusion of the articles in question.  And again, I don't think calling editors' good faith contributions "crap" helps.  If anything why not somehow notify the various article creators and editors of these discussions to get a better sense of what they really think? Why not get some new blood into these discussions?  Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho!18:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Le Grand, I know you're trying to help, but this is a conversation that's aimed at trying to diffuse a dispute rather than escalate it. If you want to continue your dispute with David Fuchs, please do it where the two of you began it. Do not bring it to my talk page. I'm asking you politely to take my talkpage off your watchlist. Randomran (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I left a reply for Le Grand on his talk page regarding this topic as well. I have already pointed out to him in the VGProj discussion that it's up to him to get editors he thinks will be interested in the discussion if he feels that strongly.  Most of VGProj is made up of non-admins, so the majority of the project has the same limitations he has in terms of seeing deleted contributions. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 19:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

3 phases of a genre
You might like one part of A Discussion about Matter, part two, and it might even be useful for a an article on some genre (RTS springs to mind): "... all artistic movements and genres passing through three phases. You have the initial phase when ideas are laid down, then the second phase when you get the great masters of the genre and then the third phase when it’s all about being a virtuoso, about not challenging the limits of your genre but rather producing art that relentlessly pursues beauty as defined by the genre with no interest in innovation or change." It also links to the article that presents that idea, but IMO the summary's much more readable. That sounds like a literary equivalent of some remarks in Trent Polack's Glimpse into Modern Real-Time Strategy Philcha (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * RTS seems to have had a 1-year phase 1, a 5-year phase 2 and an extended phase 3. Can't work out how it applies for TBS.
 * BTW did you get my email? Philcha (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice work
Nice work expanding Turn-based tactics. The article no longer seems like such a stub. SharkD (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Dispute re WP:NOTE, etc.
I know that, I've been part of the dispute at WP:FICT since the beginning. I'm not particularly worried about it, the cleanup gets done one way or the other. NOTE has been contested by people wanting to write all kinds of cruft, but like I put myself, it follows so logically and cleanly from our core policies, it's been longstanding despite any such challenges. But thanks for the heads-up, and while I'm aware of the origin of that debate myself, might it not be a good idea to link to the FICT debate from the NOTE one, so that the context is easily visible? Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently I'm not either, I see, upon looking through the page, that Masem has already put exactly such a notice. So, guess no one has to worry about it anyway! Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Historical note
By the way, per Book burning, it's not a reference to "Nazis" per se, although some have actually made that allegation, but I am referring to a long historical precedent across many cultures and for many reasons rather than to any one particular moment in history. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho!18:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of video games set in New York City
Hey, we agreed in one! Anyway, I'm happy to see that happen! I just came home from Waldemeer Park in area after riding theRavine Flyer II. Cool ride! Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho!01:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

4X review
I've posted responses to most of SharkD's comments, and flagged those I think are fully resolved. The exceptions are:
 * "The first 4X games were turn-based, but game developers have created real-time 4X games, as well." This sentence exists in the intro and shouldn't be repeated verbatim. Reword it or merge it somehow with the points that follow it.
 * I don't see how it's a problem. A few Web style guides advise against varying phrasing just for the sake of it (it's the well-known "scan, not read" thing again).


 * "Most 4X games represent these racial differences with a collection of economic and military bonuses and sometimes also disadvantages; but in Sword of the Stars the races mainly differ in their space travel techniques, which has a large impact on how they play." Is SotS the only game that differs from the main of the genre? Is SotS notable enough to get special emphasis? This can be fixed with a simple change in style or tone. I'll do this myself, as well as fix some issues in the preceding paragraph.
 * SharkD said he'd copyedit. I notice the text has changed.


 * "The earliest 4X games were influenced by board games and text-based computer games from the 1970s." Once again, you're repeating yourself. Not a big deal, and can easily be fixed.
 * I don't see how it's a problem. A few Web style guides advise against varying phrasing just for the sake of it.


 * His conclusion
 * I've pointed out the problems about sources, but can't see a solution.

Could you look over the responses, and:
 * Let me know if you disagree with any.
 * If not, we should decide when to ask SharkD to consider them. Philcha (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries
Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be low:


 * Edit summary usage for Randomran: 43% for major edits and 30% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 119 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --SharkD (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just an additional note for the purpose of education: Mathbot doesn't count edit summaries on Talk pages. I don't find them extremely important; the (approximately) chronological order in which messages are added to Talk pages is enough to maintain proper organization and comprehensibility. SharkD (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I know this is an old request, but I've tried to improve my edit summary usage. I think I am still too forgetful. I have changed my preferences to prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. I don't expect to ever hit 100%, but hopefully this can make it easier for others to see what I have done. Randomran (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

4X
Man I wish you guys would have mentioned this article earlier. I want to help get the article to GA, A, and then maybe FA. Just tell me where to help out and I'll do anything you need, from small edits, to whole rewrites, Im ready to help.Gears Of War  19:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being helpful. Check the 4X talk page. We're almost done. Really what we need is a second / third opinion. We've been working on this so much that it's hard to see the forest between the trees. Randomran (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Dammit man, I forgot to check back on the page. Sorry I wasnt there to help out. Hope all is well. Again sorry, that was my chance to help. 4X will be up for GAN soon and I want to make sure it passes it easy.Gears Of War  02:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's okay! You've already been helpful. Like I said, the most useful thing is to do a little copyediting or identify parts of the article that need to be phrased better. Randomran (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

New source
Kevin Rorabaugh, “How Hardcore Are You? Your proudest gaming moments: The next contestant in our monthly harder-core-than-thou competition arrives!” in Electronic Gaming Monthly 228 (May 2008): 10. Made a potato launching replica of the M41 SSR MAV/AW Rocket Launcher from Halo; features a photograph as well and set aside from other letters to the editor in special colored box in magazine Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

4X: Krator's comments
The results of Krator's review have been disastrous:
 * Combining "tech tree", "contraints" etc. into "Empire management" blurs points. "Empire management" is now a grab-bag.
 * His comments about style generally are totally wrong. The consensus of all guides on writing for the web or other media read mainly via screens is that a simple style is best, including shortish paragraphs and sections - see for example Web Style Guide and the rather simple style used in WP:MOS. The fundamental reason is thatweb users don't want to read, they want to scan (Jakob Nielsen)
 * He is no authority on written English. User:Krator claims that "I speak English at a near-native level" - note the emphases:
 * No evidence is provided.
 * Spoken English is very different from written English. I remember working with a Dane whose spoken English was excellent, at everything from business meetings to parties - he even told jokes well in English. But he blew up when we had to write the final report on that project, and I had to write all his sections as well as my own.
 * "Near-native" means "not quite as well as a native speaker / writer". For example no literate native user would have written "I recommend to completely rewrite this paragraph" - a native user would write "I recommend completely rewriting this paragraph" without thinking about it.
 * That may be why he misses the point of some of the wording, e.g. in the lead, "Mainstream reviewers now use "4X" in articles about games which follow a similar pattern". Philcha (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your effort to smooth things over, but the truth is I no longer care. What I care about is articles that are informative, accurate, and easy to read. The reviews have have made a few useful suggestions, but their general effect has not been to make 4X more informative, accurate, and easy to read. All I see is bits of WP:MOS quoted out of context and ignoring the style in which WP:MOS itself is written, and reviewers pulling rank. On the latter point, if you want to see a review working well, look at WikiProject Chess/Review - and it would be more productive for me to get back to that.
 * On a more personal note, it's been fun working with you - even, or perhaps especially, when our points of view differed. I hope we get the chance to work together sometime on a subject unrelated to video games. Philcha (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "I'm worried the article will get dragged away without a little pressure from the opposite end. (If that makes sense.)" Er, ...Philcha (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone who "knows the genre well, and who knows this article inside and out" will achieve nothing if reviewrs are free to pull rank. Is there a procedure for dealing with that? Philcha (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Copy edting Blue Dragon
Hey, I know we really havent worked together yet but can you give Blue Dragon a good copy editing?<font face="Times New Roman" size="2.0" color="silver">Gears <font face="Times New Roman" size="2.0" color="black">Of War  15:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Some quips
You've probably heard this from other people, but try to keep your edit summary use as close to 100% as possible. Even if it's "fix", "reply", "rewrite", or something short, it's informative for those who are going through article histories, looking down their watchlist, and whatnot. Also, you might want to look into archiving the older items on this talk page. Cheers,<font face="Verdana"> Sephiroth BCR ( Converse ) 09:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm trying to make a better effort. Randomran (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I know this is an old request, but I've tried to improve my edit summary usage. I think I am still too forgetful. I have changed my preferences to prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. I don't expect to ever hit 100%, but hopefully this can make it easier for others to see what I have done. Randomran (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability
The debate over general notability has been going on since I started working on the project in 2004, and has never actually made progress in any direction. The essential problem is that notability does not have general consensus of the sort that is needed for a policy, but that notability repeatedly gains local consensus on individual AfDs. It's a distinction our policy is ill-equipped to handle, and it leads to the long and eternal fight.

Which is to say, though noble, the RFC is not going to change anything. On the other hand, I think that by approaching the subject via a specific contradiction that exists in existing policy, and by clarifying that problem we can at least remove one of the most divisive specific fights, the fiction guideline, and do so in a way that is a compromise position that does not actually require anybody to give ground on the fundamental questions of notability as a criteria for inclusion. Thus I am inclined to push for a specific discussion of this issue precisely because it is a smaller and easier to address issue. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Video games
Hello! Just in case if you were curious what games, consoles, guides, etc. I have and therefore are most familiar with, please seeUser talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 19:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (July 2008)

 * Newsletter delivered by <font face="Verdana"> xenobot 03:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Pokemon Red Blue Glitch City
Hi, you voted a while ago in favour of some mention of Glitch City in the Pokemon Red/Blue article. Unfortunately, despite admin saying a Glitch section would be ok, the main editor of the page is turning it into a war, constantly deleting it despite sources and Pokemon-culture relevance. If you have an interest in keeping this kind of interesting information in wikipedia, please come over to Pokemone Red and Blue and help get the small Glitches section reinstated. Regards, MKULTRA333 (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Got your feedback on my talk page, just in case you don't read my response there, thanks for the input. I'll try to avoid "canvassing" in the future.

Thanks for the input, Randomran. I was unaware of the canvassing issue but will work within the guidelines. Regarding WP:NOTABILITY, you are making the common error of thinking this applies to all information in the article, when in fact it only applies to articles themselves. I quote:

"These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles." MKULTRA333 (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Not all that urgent
Hi Randomran.

I like what you've done with the Chex Quest article. I have worked on it a little bit and I must say it looks much more encyclopedic now.

In other news, I am currently asking WPVG editors and other concerned parties to weigh in on a suggestion I am making and I would value your input. I have recently been attempting to properly categorize and subcategorize articles that fit somewhere underCategory:Music video games and I have found WP:SUBCAT to be extremely helpful. At WP:SUBCAT, the main rule in simple cases appears to be that "an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory." In cases where duplication may occur, however, WP:SUBCAT suggests three test questions to help decide the matter. I was struck by parts of the first question (reproduced here): "1. Are there any explanations posted in the categories that explain what goes in each category? Many categories will say right on the top of the page what belongs in the category. Sometimes there is a discussion on the talk page that can help you make a decision. If there is nothing mentioned go on to the next question. Hopefully all categorization schemes that have duplications will have instructions directing editors about how things should be categorized." (emphasis added) (See also Category page rule)

My question to you is a two-part question.

First: Seeing as you're a member of WP:VG, do you know of any WikiProject guidelines discussing categorization and subcategorization? I would love to craft a set of "instructions directing editors about how things should be categorized" forCategory:Music video games, but I'd like to make sure I'm not wasting my time by doing anything contrary to WP:VGguidelines.

Secondly: If there are no guidelines, then I've already begun thinking about the issue myself and I have drafted a tentative guideline at my sandbox that I would like to discuss with editors who have an understanding of the subject. If you aren't too busy then I'd like to run my scheme by you and any other interested WP:VG editors you could suggest so that we might gain some sort of consensus on the issue.

If you are too busy with other matters right now, don't worry. I understand.

Anyway, thanks in advance for whatever help/guidance you can provide.

-Thibbs (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Update regarding hound surgery earlier this morning
The vet took off several inches of tail where the ruptured tumor was and removed 8 other elsewhere on her body. She's apparently not taking it too well. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho!19:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer review of 4X
FYI- I figured I should leave a note in case you forgot about the PR since it's been about two weeks from when I first started my review. Anyway, I finally finished up my review of 4X at Peer review/4X/archive1. Sorry if took such a long time, and I hope it helps some. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC))
 * Wow, thank you for the very kind words. It is always nice to receive a barnstar in recognition for past efforts and it is much appreciated. Thanks again. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC))

Overdue

 * Thanks a lot. Sometimes I ask why I bother with some of this cruft, considering the notorious push back. A little appreciation goes a long way. See you around WP:VG! Randomran (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this edit
Given our past disagreements, you have greatly increased my respect for you by making such a constructive and thoughtful comment. Please note that I have revised the lead further. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I know we disagree a lot. I know I might not have the best manners. But I try to be honest as much as possible. And, of courseWP:AGF, even when the disagreement is strong. Consider this an act of honesty. Randomran (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is appreciated. :)  --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho!00:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of locations in Banjo-Kazooie series
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of locations in Banjo-Kazooie series, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/List of locations in Banjo-Kazooie series. Thank you.--Anfish (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Lists, episodes, and characters
Well, I think I have actually come across two lists and lists concerning episodes and characters at that that I may actually support deleting. See User talk:Narutolovehinata5. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Can't say that's particularly interesting. That's straight up WP:NOT. You'd be pretty out of step to try and keep any part of a topic like that. Thanks for the update, I guess. Randomran (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho!04:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette issue
I started a Wikiquette alert involving you, here. Please respond there. SharkD (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

4X FAC
Hi, Randomran. I refrain from judging FACs as I still feel my experience is lacking to give an adequate standard of review. However, I am very troubled by that the way MobyGames is presented in the 4X article (an issue I have noted in itspeer review and never got a satisfactory answer). Could you take a look at my comment, and respond to it on the FAC? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is very much better. Excellent job!  I am still reserved about opposing or supporting any FACs, so I ended with a message that will hopefully encourage more reviewers to look through the article.  Jappalang (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to check out my comments on Talk:4X. By the way, I think Giants2008meant the pages of the reference for the Master of Orion - Game manual by Steve Barcia (ref 45 in the current article). Jappalang (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonlinear videogames
Would you mind if we renamed it to "nonlinear video games"?
 * Please do so. Although there's a difference between nonlinear and open-ended games (the latter is a subclass of the former), so probably there should be also a "open-ended video games" or "sandbox video games" subcategory. Diego (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice
Thanks for wordsmithing "my" proposal. Much better. Hobit (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem! Feel free to keep making tweaks until we've found the right balance of simplicity and clarity.Randomran (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

VG writing guide
Hey, I started revising "How to write a good video game article" in my sandbox today, and was wondering if you could take a look at it. I think a fresh pair of eyes would be a big help.

The only section I haven't really messed with much is the "Having a biased point of view". Krator wasn't sure such a section was necessary. Masem thought it was fine and expanded it. I'm a bit in the middle, and would like to trim it some.

Also, I'm not sure what to do with it once it's done. Should it be moved to a subpage of the VG Project, subpage of my userspace, or stay where it is? Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC))

The WPVG Newsletter (August 2008)

 * Newsletter delivery by <font face="Verdana"> xenobot 22:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Xenogears Original Soundtrack GAN
Hey, since Kariteh hasn't been on for a week and his GAN hold was about to expire, I tried to go through and address your concerns. Please check it out and see if I've gotten everything! --PresN(talk) 02:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

VG Barnstar for 4X

 * Congrats on your hard work on an important article! Very well done. —Giggy 02:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot guys. This was very satisfying work. Randomran (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dead Rising: Chop Till You Drop
I realize that the current article is short and needs improvement. I thought the Construction sticker I placed would prevent deletion until I was done. I am working on Adding many more references and information, so until then, please do not delete this page.

Thanks, GroundZ3R0 002 —Preceding unsigned comment added by GroundZ3R0 002 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Userfication
(Copied from my user talk --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC))

I was reading the WP:USERFY guideline. I was hoping you might be able to offer me some guidance. The guideline says that articles should not be kept indefinitely in the user space. But I'm also 100% sure that most users would object if you said "okay, time is up, it's time to let the article go." I know you might not be able to give an exact number, but where do we draw the line between someone who is keeping an article around because they're still sore about an AFD or merge, and someone who is genuinely working on an article and knows how to restore it? I figured since you are willing to provide copies of deleted pages, you might be able to answer this question.

And just in case... "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer. Maybe we can figure the answer out together. Please respond at my horribly messy talk page. Randomran (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The answer is, quite firmly, "it depends". Like with many other Wikipedia guidelines, there's no hard limits on what is appropriate and inappropriate - everything has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Usually, I instruct people to mark userspace copies of deleted content for speedy deletion themselves when they are done with them. But usually, if something that has been untouched for a long time - from several months to several years, even - you can usually safely assume that the user in question has copied the content away, if they ever need it. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC
I have no problem taking the b.4 one out just to simplify it.

What you need to do next is make that page a subpage of WT:N and copy that text in there. The entire text needs to be under some subheading and starting with "RFC:" so that the RFC template works right. Then add an RFCPolicy template perWP:RFC (note that the formatting is odd for that.) You can then start announcing the page at the usual places; a bot will handle putting it on the RFC page, and we'll need to talk to the watchlist-notice page again to let them know its in effect.--M ASEM  03:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've put up the request for the watchlist notice. Otherwise, I would notify WP:VPP, WT:N, WT:FICT, and maybe atWP:CENT too.  Basically anyplace people expect to look to find this out. --M ASEM  03:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar for Diligence

 * Thank you very much! I'm not sure this RFC will lead to any consensus, but at least it will be the next step in what is becoming a very difficult issue. Randomran (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter for August 2008

 * Newsletter delivery by <font face="Verdana"> xenobot 01:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted your removal of comments at Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise
This is a heads up. I've reverted your removal of comments at Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise. I think this is beyond the pale, to be honest, since the page is a Request for comment. I don't think it is right to remove comments which have been requested simply because they are not liked. All comments should be made welcome in a bid to create a consensus. Now I don't do edit wars, so if you remove them again, I think that'll probably end my involvement with reverting. I would ask you not to remove them again though. You might try moving them to talk. I don't think they should be binned though. If needs be we can seek input on this at an amenable venue. It's not something I want to fall out over, I just don't think your actions were the right thing to do. Sorry. Hiding T 22:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I see this post is redundant as you have already reverted me. It's a shame we couldn't find the time to communicate on this issue. Peace. Hiding T 22:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm on my way to moving them to the talk page, actually, and I had every intention of doing so. I appreciate your concern. I hope you can understand my main concern: trying to keep people focused on the main two issues, lest this RFC spiral out of control the way that past discussions on notability have gone. Give me a few minutes and you'll see them on the talk page.Randomran (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree; but at this stage I'd rather just walk away. It'll all turn out for the best eventually, and that's all anyone can really hope for, isn't it? Best, Hiding T 22:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your opinion, but perhaps if you read the past few archive pages at WT:N you would feel as I do. Either way, I hope you do stay involved and keep your eye on the RFC, since your comments have been reasonable and civil.Randomran (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to read more archives of WT:N and the page history of WP:N to see why I feel the way I do. You may have bought the t-shirt; I possibly had a hand in printing it. All the best, Hiding T 22:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've taken a peek at the older WP:N discussions, and it definitely confirms much of the same thing: this has been contentious from the start, but with basic support for the overall spirit of it. The problem is in the details. My hope with this RFC was to get people focused on those details, rather than retreading old debates, or getting completely off topic.Randomran (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. As I commented at the RFC, I think this has been festering since we ignored the consensus at the Pokemon poll which was to merge articles to lists.  That tends to be the middle ground, and hopefully it will all turn out for the best eventually.  T my mind the looser the guidance, the easier it may be.  IMHO WP:FICT worked for a long time in a very basic fashion and broke when someone tried to fix it. Take it easy, Hiding T 23:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's kind of sad to think that pinning it down will break everything, but letting it float in limbo with no consistency will offer a little more guidance. But you might be right. Either way, I think there's value in trying, even if we only find a few things we're largely against, rather than anything we're largely for. Thanks again for the insights. Randomran(talk) 23:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the kind explanatory note. I sincerely appreciate it and I now better understand where you are coming from. I know I can be passionate and didactic (you can take that as me admitting I can be a puffy donkey *chuckle*). Though I feel very strongly that some of the proposals are deeply flawed, and they may well be, it doesn't mean they are or that now is the time to raise them. I will take a day or two to step back and ponder (and also allow more people to generally comment and discuss things) to gain a bit of perspective before making any further comments or adding another proposal to the list.Vassyana (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I fully admit that passions sometimes get the better of me, too. Especially in the middle of a single-issue debate, it's easy to lose track of the bigger picture. I'm glad we've found a better understanding. I look forward to your participation (and your proposal, if you choose to add it). Randomran (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC proposal
I've made a revised version of the proposal based on your invitation and the feedback in the RfC. I tried to keep to a middle ground between exclusionists (no exemption from merge and other content discussions, emphasis on notability's relationship to sourcing) and inclusionists (SNGs are clearly inclusion criteria, "there is no deadline"). I also tried to make some appeal for precisionists (clearly defining notability in the context of the major content rules with an explicit coherent relationship between the GNG and SNGs), delusionists (by relating the proposal to the historical foundation of SNGs in AfD precedent) and eventualists (by reference to the lack of deadline). I don't know how many more wikifactions I can squeeze together without contradiction in the same short proposal! *chuckle* Any glaring flaws that you think need to be addressed before it goes live? How should I add the proposal to the live RfC? Should I "hidden" the current B.3 and make this B.3.2, as was done with another proposal? Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Addressing part of the concern you raised, I have some idea of what to add as a closing statement to the rationale. However, I feel it's a bit wordy: "'As a practical matter, articles satisfying SNGs supported by a broad consensus are unlikely to be deleted viaAfD. In contrast, reaching consensus for a merge and redirect is often a viable option, particularly for articles lacking independent sources and in borderline cases (e.g. the Pokemon character merge).'" For this aspect, I'd like to stay focused on practical application and precedent. Any suggestions for paring it down a bit or alternate phrasings? Vassyana (talk) 02:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance and feedback. After looking at your feedback, comments on the RfC and some previous notability discussions, I made a final set of revisions andwent live with the proposal. Judging by the initial responses, I may be on to something at least (but time will tell as more people respond).Vassyana (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, things seem to be chugging along on their own without any major snags or disruption. The proposal definitely still needs some word ironing and to have a few additional aspects addressed, but a more complete version can always be worked out if a reasonable consensus forms for it. Vassyana (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm making a list of notes about proposal B.6 because it seems like it may be a viable approach (User:Vassyana/RFC notes). I'm trying to note the major points of everyone's concerns, while limiting the alterations to points that are coherent with the gist of the proposal and able to be included without causing contradictions and muddled points. So far, it seems as though all the points raised can be coherently and rationally addressed. Your feedback on the sandbox talk page to make sure I'm staying on-track would be appreciated. Vassyana (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments! I'm taking the time to consider how to best integrate the listed notes with the proposal using a minimum of additional verbiage. If you have some advice or recommendations, they would be quite welcome. I will make a draft revision at some point over the next week after giving the matter some serious thought. Vassyana (talk) 09:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Miscellaneous characters of Command & Conquer (2nd nomination)
Good day to you. I was suprised to log on and discover that bjbot had placed a notice on my page that an image of mind was orphaned since it was in an article. When I went to put it back in the article I discover that the article was deleted. I further discovered that the person who nominated the article for deletion never once bothered to notify me that an afd had been filed. This pissed me off imensly, and I came here with both barrels loaded to give you a strong piece of my mind, but as I see you have been here less than a year I am going to assume good faith that you haven;t done all the associated reading for afds, or maybe made a simple mistake with this one.

According to Guide to deletion, user who nominate an article for deletion on wikipedi are asked (but not required) to notify the user who first created the page so that he or she can be a part of the process. Most wikipedians take offense when there articles are deleted without being notifed that they were being considered for the axe. For love of AFG next timeplease drop a line on the page of the guy who created the artcile and let him or her know about the afd, ok?TomStar81 (Talk) 08:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

— Bellhalla (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Europa Barbarorum
Hi there, thanks for all your help with getting Europa Barbarorum up to scratch. As I said on the peer review page, do you think that it's good enough for me to close the peer review now and go onto WP:GAN? It Is Me Here(talk) 19:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist Notice
No objections here - but could you do me a solid and come up with the proper phrasing? Let me know what you want posted, and I'll be happy to add it to the list. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 02:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Per our conversation, I've posted the notice here. It's condensed; the specifics are better left to the RFC itself. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 02:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Pokémon game mechanics
Seeing as how this article is split from a notable article, the contents of it are as notable as the article, so if it's not included, I think that if Pokémon (video game series) is included, it will be incomplete. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't inherited. But I think there are enough sources here to support its own notability. The article will need a clean-up, which is more than I can do with my time and level of knowledge. But the article has improved significantly, in my personal opinion. Randomran (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Well... an admin behaving in a condescending and downright insulting manner, inventing policies to suit themselves, openly admitting they edit articles without even reading them and demonstrating a general denseness seems pretty 'wrong' to me. Sadly, islander does not appear to be open to recall. Ok, to be perfectly honest the crux of the matter is that an an editor (and as it happens an admin) chose to lecture (with the aid of BOLDNESS and condescension) another without evidence: pretty concerning. Also, I'd have though that levity was fairly obvious throughout my posts (then again, this being Teh Internetz, perhaps not.) On a happier note, while I have been inactive for a few months, I remember you as a competent and motivating editor, on the same 'page' as I. I aim to resume, amongst other things, the 'shoot em up' article. The fact I am living in a new country and trying to learn a foreign language (and by all all accounts the hardest in the world for native English speakers) may slow me down, but I hope to resume my contributions to Wikipedia. Please do let me know of anything you think I can be of assistance of, thanks!bridies (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're right, or maybe this was just an innocent miscommunication. Either way, I was only trying to diffuse the accusations between editors and get people back to focusing on the content. I'm definitely glad to see you back -- I remember your contributions fondly. I've been doing a lot more "behind the scenes" stuff lately. More than I'd like to, in fact. But in a few weeks I want to get back to articles I'm interested in. I'll let you know if anything comes up. Randomran(talk) 21:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (September 2008)

 * Newsletter delivery by <font face="Verdana"> xenobot 12:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/StarCraft: Ghost
Done <font face="Verdana"> Gary King ( talk ) 19:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your comments
Thanks for your comments, Randomran. I'm actually not really that frustrated so much as I am tired. I know you've crossed paths with me when I was looking for something to do at WP:VG and you made a couple of suggestions. But that, almost exactly, is the root of my problem: I'm absolutely unsure what to do now. Despite as much as I've tried, I've never found the zest for editing articles as I did my best contributions (Crush 40, Sega Mega Drive, and List of Sega 32X games). I've fixed my problems with free time now, so I do have time for Wikipedia, and would love to come back, if only I still had that desire to edit something that has my interest.

As for my RFA, yeah, that was just a mistake I made by assuming good faith on something I should have clearly seen was in bad faith. Perhaps I'll try again in a couple of months if I can get myself back to editing. For now, I think I'm going to take down the semi-retired tag, since if I'm going to look into coming back, I should show it to myself first. The time off has really helped me to get back in focus, but I'll still be looking to collaborate with other users, since I usually end up working alone on a lot, which makes things more difficult.

Until later, catch you around WT:VG. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 23:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Move of Brian Jacks Utchi Mata
Please read the talk history. This move is incorrect. Please tidy up. --Frodet (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :-) --Frodet (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Peer review
Thanks for the ping, I woulda forgotten otherwise. I just got back from class and want to finish the new House episode, so I'll do it tomorrow when I'm on the train heading for home. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 01:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's coming, it's just that all you bastards want peer reviews and image requests all the time :P I'll try to have it up by this weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 18:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. I've also got a few print sources you might find useful, send me an email and I'll reply back with attachments. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 18:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise
I assume this is the RFC you are talking about, you didn't include a link on my talk page, but I was able to figure it out from your edit history.

I would be interested in taking this on, but with a few conditions:
 * 1) THE PROCESS:  I don't think that RFC is a particularly good way to decide difficult issues that will have a big effect on the entire community. I just so happen to be working on a proposal for guidelines for just this sort of thing.  The idea is to have a centralized location where these sort of important issues are discussed, and a process to manage the discussion so that is less frustrating, more productive, easier to follow, more engaging and will hopefully lead to higher quality results. I have not yet presented my proposal to the community at large, though I have discussed it with a few very influential Wikipedians.  I was planning on proposing it to the broader community in the near future, but perhaps this RFC could be a test case.  The (not quite finished) proposal is at User:Sam/Facilitated community discussions.  I see the work in the RFC as just part of the first step in a process that I hope we can undertake within the English Wikipedia community.
 * 2) THE GOAL: What does not seem clear to me at first glance is a clear definition of the problem that you are all trying to solve.  I don't see a common goal of what the Notability guideline is trying to do, and agreed upon criteria for judging any proposed changes.  What the community has generated, which is quite useful, is a broad range of opinions about "Notability". What is needed now is some good analysis and definition of the problem so we can find some commonality about the goals of the "Notability" guidelines.  So I'd like to re-frame the discussion more broadly.
 * 3) TIME-LINE: I am really busy right now working full time, seven days a week, but I will have a lot of time after November 4th (you can guess why).  If people who have been participating in the RFC think the facilitated community discussion process would be helpful, and want me to facilitate, then I'd be willing to take it on once I have more time after the 4th.
 * 4) COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: Even if people who have already been involved in the RFC are interested in trying the process, there needs to be enough community involvement so that everyone will go along with the outcome.  Since this will be a test case for trying a new process, and the issues are rather large, there needs to be a large amount of publicity.  If you (and others) are willing to broadly publicize and discuss the proposed process from now until after November the 4th, I'd be willing to take on the responsibility of facilitating it if there is broad support for trying the process.
 * 5) FLEXIBILITY: I want it to be clear that the process is not set in stone, and part of the objective in doing this is to test it and improve it.  I also do not see the facilitators role as the sole closer of controversies.  I see the facilitator as the person responsible for keeping the process moving in a productive path towards finding the consensus of the community.

If this all sounds good to you, talk to the other people involved, and we can start the process in November.
 * --&#x2611; Sam uelWantman 07:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've responded on my talk page. I want to keep the discussion in one place. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 09:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, My commitments have ended for the time being so I have a little more time. I'm not sure where things stand, and if you want to start the process I've outlined. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 01:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Dungeon Master
Hoping you can help. The anonymous ip that created the recently deleted Dungeon Master spells article, tried to circumvent it by taking all the info from that page and merging it in to the main dungeon master page. I removed all the game guide material from that page, including his attempt to circumvent, and he's started going back and forth about it on my talk page. As the person that nominated it for deletion, I'm hoping you can pop on my talk page and explain it to him further as I don't seem to be getting through. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Gameplay of Final Fantasy
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents ofGameplay of Final Fantasy, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Common elements of Final Fantasy. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note onthe maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto clone
Just from the length, 3-4 would probably be good. For the D&S section, an screenshot from the perspective of inside the car, possibly doing a drive-by. A screenshot of a map might be good for the OW&M section. A collage of some of the newest games' covers (Saints Row, Crackdown, GTA IV) would be good for the RH section. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
I really appreciate it. At times I wish I could have been more helpful rather than bitey, but I knew in this situation that more help was needed for that newcomer rather than rebuking him (or having someone else do the same). I have learned that this is especially true during AFDs when newcomers normally do not understand what is going on. I just hope that my effort to help him out is followed through, and that a better article can result. MuZemike ( talk ) 08:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (October 2008)

 * Newsletter delivery by <font face="Verdana"> xenobot 16:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know...
Pages in your user space, like User:Randomran/GTA Clone, can be speedily deleted by using db-u1. You shouldn't used PROD on them, since PROD is only for articles. I've tagged this page with the template for you. --UsaSatsui(talk) 20:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

another pair of eyes
If you need mine, you should see an optician :-)

I hadn't intended to spend any more time on video games, but I enjoyed working with you, so I'll have a look.--Philcha (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the review of Grand Theft Auto clone is unhelpful. However I think the article does have problems.

I suggest that the first step is to define the article's boundaries. Just on general principle, and with no personal experience of the genre, I suggest the following are core topics (not necessarily in this order):
 * Definition of the term. This may be tricky as its meaning may creep with successive GTA releases. BTW section "Genre name" reminds me of a problem we wrestled with a while ago :-)
 * Proof that "GTA clone" is a recognised term in game literature rather than e.g. a one-off put-down used by one commentator. If the first use as a sub-genre identifier rather than a put-down can be identified, so much the better. May well come as a by-product of definition.
 * Brief explanation of core features that are necessary and sufficient to identify a GTA clone. BTW I have been unable to gain any idea of what the player's objective is in GTA or clones, nor of how success is measured (i.e. scoring).
 * Brief outline of additional features introduced by notable clones. My idea of a notable clone would be one that achieved significant critical or commercial success, or some of whose innovations were copied in later GTA releases. Significant areas (if supported by sources).
 * Game play
 * UI
 * Technical, e.g. techniques for achieving both speed and quality in graphics.
 * "Personality", e.g. attempts to make players feel more emotionally involved.
 * Commercial successes - skip the failures, per Sturgeon's Law; with the possible exception of Crackdown, which may be notable as a poor game developed by the designer of GTA III.

I'm struggling with this because I have no knowledge of nor great wish to play GTA - and suspect my reflexes, co-ordination and concentration would be inadequate.

My over-all feeling is that the article is too long and tries to cram in too many examples - some of them clones that were panned by reviewers. Perhaps roll up all the failures into one sentence, e.g. "However there were also several critical and commercial failures," with one ref that bundles all the relevant citations. There also places where I'm uneasy about phrasing, but I expect clarifying the article's scope and structure will clear up a lot of these.

I'm not sure I've been much help, but give me a call if you want to discuss ideas about this article or if you want an outsider's reaction to a revised version. -- Philcha (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions
I have no problem looking over your article and providing some suggestions and help. Let me know if you have any questions. I have responded here. Thank you for your time,  Matthew  Yeager  00:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto clone
Overall, I think the article is well done, and certainly has a good variety of sources. That's impressive for a video game article, as many articles on video games seem to be thinly-disguised fansites and are lucky to include a source or two of questionable reliability. I think it certainly has the possibility of achieving success even beyond GA with some work.

Now, on to that work. (I'll certainly help out if I can find some time to read some of those sources myself.) I think for both the lead and the article, they include too many examples and not enough descriptive prose. If I've not played those example games, I'd be left wondering "But...what is this, actually?" (For that matter, having played the original Driver, I still am...the article states that "players are given the ability to drive any vehicle or fire any weapon...", but in the original Driver, at least, you were restricted to one vehicle and got no weapons whatsoever! It was the open world concept that is consistent across the series.) I think what's really needed is fewer examples and more description, even if it is brief. (Why is "The Simpsons Hit and Run" considered a member of this genre? What makes it similar enough to be considered so despite its decreased level of violence?) That's really what I find myself asking reading the article&mdash;"What are the common threads between these games that lead them to being grouped? It says 'drive any vehicle or fire any weapon', but that's ambiguous, are both those conditions necessary or only one? Most of the sentences in the 'Driving and Shooting' section start by saying 'Some games allow...', not only is that repetitive, but if these are commonalities among only some of these games, what are the commonalities among all of them that lead to this grouping together?" I think if the article can better address that issue by describing games (and this group of games as a whole) rather than listing them, it will be improved greatly.

(Please keep in mind these are my initial thoughts and largely stream-of-consciousness, and are subject to change and subject to seeming more harsh than I intend them to be. You've got a great start on it, and with a bit of polishing it'll be quite the gem.)Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise
I've quickly read through this and have not made an attempt yet to analyze what is going on in detail. My first impression of this RFC is that most of the proposals seem reasonable and I could think of some alternate proposals that were not mentioned. The thing that jumps out at me is that it seems as though people are trying to come up with some hard and fast rules for notability that would draw a line that says everything on this side stays and everything on that side goes. I find it hard to imagine that we will ever be able to create community consensus on such a guideline. The discussion does not seem to recognize that there are shades of gray to notability and that an articles notability will change over time. If we were to recognize this as the norm, then the issue would be how to create a system that recognizes that today's non-notable sub-article might become tomorrows front page news. Rather than remove everything that is defective, we might just remove the obvious junk (current speedy deletes) and find a way to accommodate everything else. This could be done using templates, categories or even new namespaces. Anyway this is just my first impression, I'll have some time soon to do a thorough analysis. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 10:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

New Fiction proposal
Just a heads up, a proposal I informally made a while ago has now been formally offered at Notability (fiction). The aim is to identify a pragmatic approach that reflects what is actually done on AfD, as opposed to an ideological approach. So while it's unlikely to appeal to partisans on either side, I think it represents a good and workable compromise. Any comments atWikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) will be greatly appreciated. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gameplay of Final Fantasy
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Gameplay of Final Fantasy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Game guide

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" andWikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of thespeedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.Nuttah (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:VG/MOS. Writing about gameplay isn't reason for deletion. Gameplay is an essential part of coverage. If there are parts of this that go into excessive detail or "how to", those should be removed while still preserving the summary of the topic. Randomran (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but is there really that much critical coverage on the development and evolution of Final Fantasy's gameplay that is not (or should not) be included in the relevant articles? Right now the article reads as way too much detail and closer to a game guide. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 19:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there's a lot of information to cover in the series article, which is already pretty large. Then you'd also have to cover some of the intricacies of the gameplay, and there is a lot that has remained consistent over the years. I don't agree with expansion for expansion's sake, but this is one instance where a split makes sense, and can be done in a way where both articles meet WP:N. I think the best way forward is to add reception about its gameplay, and tighten up the summary of the gameplay. If the end result is something short and sweet, we should merge it into the series article. Just my thinking.Randomran (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The Shield
The Shield finale certainly got an unusual amount of coverage. But yes - especially for contemporary shows, and particularly critically acclaimed shows (The Sopranos, The Wire, The Shield) or "genre" shows (Heroes, Lost, Battlestar Galactica), a lot of sources are available, particularly for big episodes. If you search a few episodes earlier in the series - say back to "Bitches Brew," you get a lot fewer reliable sources.

The availability of secondary sources falls off sharply as you move away from those - including towards highly rated but less critically acclaimed shows - I see a lot less for, say, NCIS episodes. And when you go for older shows, you're in the woods. I can't actually find anything on the Internet that will tell me what the final cliffhanger of Sandbaggers was, despite the fact that it's a well-regarded and acclaimed show. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this
As indicated by multiple editors in the discussion, please note that deletion is not a legal option as the nominator merged some of that article's content that other editors other than the nominator had originally written prior to the nomination (see and for the merge of content written by myself and others and here for the GFDL regarding such merges}. Thus, technically, because the discussion can only legally close as "keep," "merge", "redirect", or "no consensus", i.e. anything other than "delete", it should be speedily closed without prejudice for a talk page discussion on the merits of the merge done by the nominator a few weeks back.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (November 2008)

 * Newsletter delivery by <font face="Verdana"> xenobot 20:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Gavin.collins RFC/U
Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regardingGavin.collins. Since you have been discussion Wikipedia guidelines with him at WT:FICT, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you.-Drilnoth (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, for your well thought out response. I asked Masem this question, but didn't get a response. Do you think it would be appropriate to post a notice on any or all of the policy/guideline talk pages that Gavin frequents, to see if anyone else who has interacted with him wishes to comment further? Drilnoth invited a few of you, and I'm glad to see you what you have to say.BOZ (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I might support an effort to get a broader cross section of opinion. I'm already a little concerned that it's starting to become a partisan dispute over guidelines, instead of an inquiry into one editor's behavior. I don't think it would be appropriate to go through the policy/guideline pages for that reason. Randomran (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I wasn't going to post anything there without at least one response from a regular, thus why I asked. But a broader cross section of opinion would be nice, as would pulling it further away from a guideline dispute. This is the problem we faced when we did the RFM - the dispute is essentially a conduct dispute over a content dispute, so it can get really hard to separate the two. BOZ (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Me personally, I'd take a "wait and see" approach. Even if you don't get the exact outcome you wanted, we can definitely say that you've sent a pretty strong message. Sometimes that's all you need to correct a behavior problem. Randomran(talk) 03:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Want a mop?
<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="rfa" style="margin: 0 5%; padding: 0 7px 7px 7px; background: #FFFAEF; border: 1px solid#999999; text-align: left; font-size:95%;"> Sephiroth BCR would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Sephiroth BCR to accept or decline the nomination. A page for your nomination at Requests for adminship/Randomran. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Following the discussion here. Just curious. IMO, you'd be great, but it's your completely your decision. Cheers, — <font face="Segoe Script"> sephiroth bcr <font face="Verdana">( converse ) 04:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Closing an open discussion sets a bad precedent
I don't think it falls within the gift of any editor to close a discussion on guideline talk page as you have done atWT:N, so I hope you won't take offence by me reverting your edit. I have seen it done before in different ways, sometimes directed against me, so it is one of my pet hates - this is nothing personal. In my view, closing a public discussion a veiled form of gagging other editors by discouraging further contributions to a particular discussion. Also, claiming consensus for this action is not a reasonable argument for doing so, as such claims are too vague and generalised to be either proven or disproven. --Gavin Collins (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I really see the discussion as going nowhere, with no hope of gaining consensus. But I'm willing to give it more time. You're right that it's probably more appropriate for a third-party to close it than me. Randomran (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

essay
You can go ahead and move to an appropriate titled page. <font color="black" size="2px">じん <font color="red" size="2px">ない  19:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Handheld game consoles
Hi Randomran. First of all, I apologise for breaking my word about not making any other edits until the music video games article is in better shape. My plan is to start it early in 2009. The extreme busyness I have been facing off-wiki has now ended and I am heading home for the holidays. For what it's worth, it was never my intention to start this newest binge of editing, I've just been procrastinating like a fiend. You can trust me when I say I'm not pleased with myself either for failing to hold off on editing until 2009. Anyway, since I will be gone I have just left a note at User:Wgungfu's and User:Guyinblack25's talks to explain that I am headed home for the holidays and that I will be unable to contribute to the handheld game console page for the next several weeks, and I wanted you to know as well so you wouldn't try to contact me in vain over the break. I told the others that I will review any improvements that are made to the article when I come back from vacation and I hope things will be in much better shape when I return than they are now. Finally I'd like to thank you for all your help so far at the "handheld game console" page. Take it easy, and have a happy holiday. -Thibbs (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand. I promised myself I'd get a lot more work done before I continue editing some articles, but there's always plenty of talk page stuff to suck me back in. Take some time away, and good luck with your work, and have a good holiday. We can pick up from where we left off whenever you get back. Randomran (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/lustiger seth
You put a * instead of a # in front of your support !vote. I fixed it for you. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  05:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. I slip up from time to time. Randomran (talk) 05:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings
To be fair I stole this from User:Fvasconcellos.

Merry Christmas
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. --A NobodyMy talk 02:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey there
I was thinking of putting some work into this tomorrow, as I should have a bunch of free time. In the meantime, I have a question that maybe you could give some feedback on as we move forward? BOZ (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey there. I'd be happy to help out, but I wouldn't really know how to get started. It's hard to say if there was a better way to handle just that one discussion. Yeah there were miscommunications on both sides. But even when you try to take a cooperative stance, it's tough if the other person really just wants to be "snappy", and stick to a tight position. But if you had some more specific questions or issues, I could offer more input. Randomran (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyway - just one of many such arguments, really. I'll try to find some time to work on the proposal in the first part of my above posting, but it's been more chaotic around here than I anticipated. :) I definitely have some thoughts worked out though.BOZ (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Here we go. I worked out some thoughts. I could post this as an essay perhaps, or on the D&D project talk page, or somewhere; I don't think it needs to go on the RFC since I'm not really looking for any consensus, just posting on my opinion. Currently, it's mostly just a summary and rephrasing of some of the more salient points of the RFC from its inception up through your proposal, written as an admonition to people who have interacted with Gavin's edits. Let me know you think there's something I should add or change. Also, I want to represent any concerns that you or Masem in particular may have had through your dealings with him on the notability talk pages and such, if that's not already covered. Consider this a rough draft with your input welcome!


 * Editors associated with WikiProject Role-playing games and Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject have had a longstanding dispute with Gavin.collins over a variety of behaviors, which have led to aRequest for Comment/User Conduct, a Requests for Mediation, and a second Request for Comment/User Conduct which finally achieved a consensus regarding his behavior. The next step in dispute resolution would beRequest for Arbitration, if the behavior continues or escalates. This is not the desired outcome, however, as Arbitration is the last result in dispute resolution and it is hoped that we can instead learn to work cooperatively.


 * While the second Request for Comment/User Conduct placed certain expectations on Gavin regarding his behavior and the changes we would like to see in him regarding the desired outcome, it is not solely his responsibility to effect change; users who disagree with him must also respond to him using the dispute resolution system that has been established for Wikipedia. Gavin has been accused of incivility and hostility, making disparaging remarks and accusations regarding other users with little or no evidence, failing to assume good faith on the part of other users or speculating about their motives or being dismissive of their opinions and conerns, and edit warring over templates. The community has shown consensus that these charges are true, and that these are the sorts of behaviors that must change, and that Gavin must work in collaboration with other users regarding his templates to attempt to achieve consensus rather than working against consensus. However, the same holds true for users who interact with him; we must not respond to these things in kind, and must strive to resolve disputes properly. It is the responsibility of Gavin's detractors to attempt to settle a dispute properly rather than escalating the situation.


 * When it comes to disagreeing with any user on an article involving a dispute that cannot be resolved by two users, we should seek a third opinion. If the dispute on a particular article is between more than two users, then we should seek community opinion through a Request for Comment. If a dispute on an article or series of articles is solely content related rather than conduct related, we may seek formal mediation with the other users.


 * If the particular dispute is more conduct related than content related, there are outlets for these as well. If the behavior amounts to general incivility, hostility, or failing to assume good faith, we can seek outside input at Wikiquette alerts. If the other user is committing more serious conduct violations, such as accusations of conflict of interest, accusations of vandalism, and edit warring, there are the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents or Administrator's Noticeboard/Edit warring noticeboards. Only when we have tried and failed to resolve ongoing and repeated disputes using these methods, or in drastic instances, should a Request for Arbitration even be conisdered.


 * Continuing to argue with another user, rather than seeking proper dispute resolution when a situation cannot be resolved through calm discussion is irresponsible behavior on our part and we must all work to bring that to an end.

BOZ (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that's pretty accurate and fair. I think another important aspect of that is to assume good faith on Gavin's part -- as hard as that may be. I know Gavin overstepped the line in many ways, but for everything else we should assume that Gavin *is* trying to be helpful in some way. Articles *do* need to meet certain sourcing requirements based on policies and guidelines. If he's edit warring over it, or accusing other people of getting in his way because they're just jerks, or if he's tagging articles for issues that aren't actually there without even bothering to explain... that's one thing, and that's his fault. But if people start attacking an honest effort at clean-up as evil, or they want him to ignore real problems with articles, then that's their fault. The hardest part about this is that there *will* be disagreements. The key is to disagree without questioning each other's motives, and to explain your view of the article's quality with honesty and logic. (e.g.: "I don't see why that tag applies here because there *are* sources.") That's the only thing I'd add to what you just said -- although I'll bet you can phrase it in a better way. Randomran (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool. Give some thought about how we can merge a very brief summary of that into your proposal, keeping your original intent intact, but reminding everyone else that we are responsible for our own personal behavior as well. BOZ (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I worked that into the last paragraph thusly: "Continuing to argue with another user, rather than seeking proper dispute resolution when a situation cannot be resolved through calm discussion is irresponsible behavior on our part and we must all work to bring that to an end. Making the assumption that all actions taken by a user will be wrong is unfair, and opposing cleanup on articles with actual problems is the wrong way to deal with a user. Remember that assuming good faith works both ways, even if it seems difficult to assume good faith on Gavin's part due to his past behavior. Most editors believe that their edits are generally helpful to the encyclopedia, and Gavin is no exception. Remember that if we are asking somone to discuss tag placement on an artice's talk page, then that goes both ways; we should be open to discussing the issue with that person, keeping in mind that this editor is likely doing what they think is right, whether or not it really is the "right" thing. When an editor steps beyond that boundary into negative behavior (edit warring, making accusations about other parties, name-calling, casting aspersions on them or their motives, tagging articles with no explanation when an explanation is required), then we seek out the behavioral dispute resolution processes outlined above. This too can go both ways, which is why we must strive to be as well behaved as we are asking of Gavin." BOZ (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's a really fair way of putting it. Good job. Let me know if you need anything else. Randomran(talk) 03:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll have another look tonight, or tomorrow most likely. BOZ (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice
A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. AnRFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue.Professor marginalia (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Help!
Please see this discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games

There is an ongoing issue with Kung Fu Man over an edit dispute which is getting out of hand, and I'm fairly certain the user is relying on sockpuppets to make revisions to the article. Check the revision history yourself to verify this. Also, I've been receiving harassing comments and threats from this user and am not sure where to turn for help. Please get involved and try to act as the voice of reason. Thank you. 74.242.123.2 (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Other places
Lemme think about it. I'm at least willing to consider all of those except OR. OR is under its own heavy debate right now (which I'm a major participant in), and so is not a very good place to solicit feedback at the moment. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I think I got WP:N, didn't I? It's NOT and RS. If forced to decide now, I'd go with NOT but not RS, which I'm unconvinced of the immediate relevance to. Yes, WP:FICT touches on RS, but our content policies are all intertwined at some level. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (December 2008)

 * Newsletter delivery by <font face="Verdana"> xenobot 22:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks a lot! I've been working hard to pull things towards a compromise. Hopefully we can come up with something that we can all live with. Randomran (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I second that - well deserved. On the issue of Independent sourcing, is there anything more you can do to facilitate compromise? I feel we are very close to agreeing on the current draft of WP:FICT. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My sense is that there is opposition coming from both angles. I think that people are getting into an idealized discussion, which takes us away from a practical compromise. On one side, people want to swear by WP:N. On the other side, people want a guideline that allows entire articles to be written from primary sources, or to have their fates determined with no reference to evidence. The most important thing to get across, IMO, is that if we insist on idealized guideline, we won't get any guideline at all. At this point, I sincerely don't know if tagging this as a guideline will get a couple WP:3RRs, or if it will lead to a weird coalition of inclusionists and deletionists who work to outright reject it. But I think we're gonna have to face the music at some point. Randomran (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for your work merging those sections of WT:NOT. Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier, but it looks like you did a nice job. :-) Fletcher (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise
Interesting study, I personally wouldn't have put such a broad generalization as the top question, "Every spin-out is notable" it may have skewed the results slightly in support of notability pages, but other than that, very interesting, and unfortunately very depressing study.

I am interested what policy pages you contacted first about this RfC? [Researchers have found that the first people to edit a wikipedia article set the tone for the rest of the article's history, and I posit that this is the same in RfC's] I guess I can simply check your edit history...Ikip (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't say I created the RFC so much as I organized it. Proposals like "every spinout is notable" were just the consequence of what some people really wanted. I think the RFC is helpful for what it rules out, more than what it shows in terms of the way forward. But I'm curious. What's your read of it? Why are you depressed? Randomran (talk) 07:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am depressed because on its face, this survey seems to show there are widespread support for notability guidelines, the number one reason that articles are deleted.
 * Oh this statement, like many of my statements, is probably going to come back and bite me (I hope you don't do the biting), but here it goes:
 * My SPSS professor said that everyone in academics massages results. There are a million different ways to get the result you want from a study. She encouraged us to drop the factors which did not support our thesis. My own reading of scientific literature bears this out. Bivariate statistics: Means, t-test, ANOVA, Correlation (bivariate, partial, distances), Nonparametric tests, find the one which supports your theory the most and use that one.
 * I don't question the validity of the survey as it stands. I wonder if the study is reflective of wikipedia, I wonder if question 1, was moved and question 5 was put in its place, if the study would be the same. I wonder if you would have advertised the study on x page first, instead of y page, if the study would be different. Ikip (talk) 08:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a watchlisted RFC, which is pretty much the widest solicitation you can get on Wikipedia. Order probably makes a difference. But not that much of a difference. Ideas like "delete WP:N" never made it out of the gate. It's unsurprising that people basically support WP:N. But if there's any comfort, I think the RFC reveals that it's weak support, which believes there are times when we can accept something less than WP:N. Randomran (talk) 08:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh, now I am more depressed. Ikip (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Words of consolation part 2: the RFC has ended, but has not been formally "closed". That is, we haven't come to an agreement about how it concluded. The obvious thing to say is that there is no specific compromise to WP:N. But being able to rule some things out, and being able to see where people share common principles, those could all help us. We haven't even been able to agree on some of the more nuanced conclusions, which shows just how divided Wikipedia can be on this issue. People see the RFC and come to somewhat different conclusions. So a semi-independent person is analyzing it. Of course, we're at the mercy of their schedule. But I'm hoping that we can come to an agreement in principle (e.g.: subject specific guidelines are necessary in order to relaxWP:N where needed), which can help us move forward. Randomran (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Requests_for_comment/Pixelface
You know the difference between deletionists and inclusionists? The same difference as between liberals and conservatives on wikipedia.

In my experience Deletionists and conservatives are discipline, willing to fall in line and attack perceived threats in unison, in this case Pixelface, whereas liberals and inclusionists, a more tolerant bunch who are more open to new ideas, are more willing to see other people's point of views, and advertently or inadvertently betray their allies and potential allies in the name of "fairness" and stopping "disruption". What is so troubling is that it is clear you are doing it advertently. Guaranteed, your own edit differences on that Request for comment will be used if Pixelface is ever called before an arbitration.

And never mind the disruption that is caused by the policies you are indirectly supporting on that RfC. Ikip (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's true, although I understand the comparison. I've seen rabid inclusionists who are just as willing to turn a blind eye towards the sins of their friends, and just as willing to call their enemies disruptive merely for holding a different point of view. I think you only have to look at the RFC for Gavin Collins to see many deletionists crossing partisan lines, and many inclusionists who were rabidly calling for his head. Among both inclusionists and deletionists, you'll see a sane middle who say "listen, it's good that he does X, but it's wrong when he breaks policy Y." Randomran (talk) 07:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, I am ironically alienating a potential ally right now too.
 * I guess you have to step back and ask yourself sir/ma'am, what will be the end result of your comments on the RfC? You may have the purest intentions in the world, but in reality, what will those edit diffs you provided be used for?
 * I will be frank, I support turning a blind eye towards the sins of my friends, because for years I have tried to be fair and unbiased on wikipedia, and criticize potential allies as much as those who oppose me. All I did was alienate potential friends, and when administrator x booted me, no one was there to unboot me, as is very common on wikipedia among these close knit groups. Tag teaming, ANI's, edit wars, blatant personal attacks, no one was there for me.
 * I think your actions are one small reason for the larger trend on why there have been, and there will continue to be so many deletion victories.
 * I didn't expect you to say yes "that's true", no one does, but after Pixelface is gone, I am comforted in the fact that you will think twice before betraying another future ally. Ikip (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's a silly proposition. If you read through the RFC, it's only a few radicals who want Pixelface to go away, or to be completely silenced. Most people just want him to stop edit warring, and stop accusing his intellectual opponents of being part of some conspiracy to promote Wikia. I don't think my words will be abused at all. (And in the freak chance that they are, I won't stand for it.)
 * I agree with you that it's not very good strategy for me to avoid taking a concrete side, and to find myself unsympathetic to both inclusionists and deletionists. But I live by the phrase: I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it's for or against. In the end I might not have many friends on Wikipedia. But I probably won't lose much sleep over it.Randomran (talk) 07:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for not getting mad.
 * You need to read the study, Taking up the Mop: Identifying Future Wikipedia Administrators, a scientific study on successful request for administrator on wikipedia, and my take on it,User:Ikip.
 * I am a cynic, so I often wonder if wikipedians really believe their own rhetoric. I think if you tell yourself something long enough, it becomes true. So when editor Ten Pound Hammer and Uncle G condemn me for talking about inclusionism, using ridiculous flowery Utopian analogies about gardens and how we are all wikipedians, they may actually believe their own rhetoric. Other wikipedians sure do, they tend to gravitate to such editors, and elect them to be administrators.
 * Thanks for humoring me. I will see you on the AfD circuit. Ikip (talk) 08:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * also Delusionism, which is no reflection on you either way, it is just marginally applicable in our discussion about the two -isms. Ikip (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it's for or against. In the end I might not have many friends on Wikipedia." is the right policy, but an incorrect prediction :-) Philcha (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. For what it's worth, I think precisionism summarizes me. I have no bias towards or against any type of content. But I do appreciate certain standards for research if only as a quality control.Randomran (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
I replied to your comment at the Drizzt talk page. :) BOZ (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Examples
Any chance you remember where/when I gave the last set of examples? I've found some new ones, but I'd like to see the old examples as well. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, me neither. And the recent AfDs have been merges of articles that fail this guideline. So I'm having trouble even finding the examples. Ah well. I found a few that fail miserably at having independent sources but that nobody would seriously consider deleting. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool tool of the month....
(might be good for D&D and other things) From this discussion, we get thebox on the right - cool eh? Casliber (talk ·contribs) 21:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Very cool and definitely helpful. Randomran (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (January 2009)

 * Newsletter delivery by <font face="Verdana"> xenobot 00:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative to notability
Hello! I am working on an objective alternate to notability in my userspace. Please read User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelinesand offer any suggestions on its talk page, which I will consider for revision purposes. If you do not do so, no worries, but if you wish to help, it is appreciated. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding List of units in the Age of Mythology series
You didn't see the final version before deletion in which I addressed the various cocnerns by adding out of universe sections based on Google News and Google Books on Innovations, History, and Reception. I even cited a book that called the game a "notable" specifically for its innovative use of units. Surely, at worst, that is mergeable and I know it was last minute, but these changes were in process right at time of deletion and were intended to address whatever concerns were expressed, i.e. these changes may have actually satisfied whatever calls there were to delete and may have been enough to convince people to either change stance or at least support a merge. The version on the strategy wiki does NOT reflect these new changes. The only reason I didn't rush to do them was because not in my wildest imagination could I have possibly seen that discussion close as anything that would result in redlinking, because it was about as clear cut a case of a no consensus as I have ever seen here. I really, really hope you will reconsider on this one. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability wasn't the issue, though. There's not much you can ask me to reconsider: not only was a redirect or merge my first choice, but the AFD is now closed. Randomran (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I whole-heartedly believe that if you saw the last version you would think that the close was not correct, because a number of what the deletes claimed and still try to falsely claim was and is no longer true due to my revisions. Plus, we both know some accounts show up after I post in these things and "vote" opposite of me just to do so as some have actually admitted on and off wiki.  I bet if I never commented in the AfD or DRV, the AfD would have closed as keep and the DRV as overturn.  Why do I bother commenting then?  Well, I guess I am tired of being bullied.  Anyway, the "reasons" for deletion did NOT apply to the final state of the article prior to deletion.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can only speak for myself, but I broke merge/redirect based on the list's fundamental lack of potential, not its current state. No amount of sources can change what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Randomran (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously, though, if you thought a merge and redirect was okay and have my assurances that I actually improved the out of universe content in the lead so that it divided into sections on Innovations, History, and Reception, how could this sourced out of universe content be deleted? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Mostly because I'm not the only person at the AFD. But even then, I explicitly supported deletion in the alternative, mostly because I didn't think we would be losing that much from the main Age of Mythology article, and a redirect would make an unlikely search term. But again, deletion wasn't my first choice, for a lot of reasons you pointed out. But the AFD ended in transwiki/deletion. <BR/> Just as a point of strategy, you might have had more success reaching for the middle. Your speedy keep !vote was pretty unpersuasive and you're right that it may have actually backfired. You can't let your emotions get the better of you. Would you rather go on the counter-attack in the WP:BATTLEGROUND, or would you rather preserve some of the content?Randomran (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

On Template:Video game genre
My edit was not original research, as the subgroup on simulation games is based on this other template. I'm reverting the revert. Thanks. --Toussaint (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

A NobodyMy talk has smiled at you! Smiles promoteWikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

The WPVG Newsletter (February 2009)

 * Newsletter delivery by <font face="Verdana"> xenobot 00:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Useful discussions
You're right, the discussion | here about Introductory articles is very useful for defining for defining their future scope and content. The fact that I addressed some rebuttal-type comments to you doesn't mean I disagree with all your ideas. While I consider myself a stalwart champion of the general concept of such articles, I definitely agree with you and Dab that we need to set a high bar and maintain WP quality standards. You made some good points and it's been a very pleasant discussion compared to some I've been involved in. Happy editing! Doc  Tropics  23:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's generally easier to have these kinds of discussions when everyone's motives are up front. Your motives are to improve accessibility to complex topics. My motives are to prevent people using "I'm going to create a simpler version" as a disguise for "I'm going to cover what I consider to be the most mainstream, palatable theory, and exclude everything I disagree with as too complex". With those on the table, I think there's a way to write this guideline that satisfies both of us.Randomran (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree completely; the goals are mutually complementary, not mutually exclusive. Doc  Tropics  01:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone say "Shogun"?
Sounds like you may know of a source that would be useful for me, as I'm currently in the process of redoing the article for Shogun: Total War. Can I request what it is? -- Sabre (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

RE:Shoot 'em up
Yeah, I'd be happy to help. Two of the sources I have are already used in the article: Ashcroft's book and the print version ofthis Edge article. I have another general article that can help, a follow up interview to the Edge article, and the 2008 and 2009 Guinness World Records gamer books. But I think it might be better to let bridies take the lead since he's more familiar with the article and sources. After I finish reviewing fighting game, I'll do a review for shoot 'em up, and we can see where to go from there. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC))
 * It's up to you. Opening a peer review should attract some more comments, but I've posted reviews on talk pages before. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

action genres
I was thinking of doing beat 'em up next, as it's in that developed-but-unreferenced condition which has been the starting point for some of the other articles.


 * My instinct would be to delete the "as an adjective" content from hack and slash (or split it it its own jargon article if warranted) and merge the genre content with beat 'em up. This is a bit of a hunch based on how I see the design conventions (i.e. very similar) so I'll investigate the research and see if this notion is justifiable.
 * Regarding tactical shooter, I'm still leaning towards merging. The design stuff I think is pretty much duplicative of the FPS article and Rainbow Six is covered there too. The bit about police games is perhaps out with the scope of FPS but could easily be covered by shooter game. As I said though I'm in no immediate hurry so we can wait and see if more can be dug up.
 * I agree it's pretty galling we can't find a substantial source about third person shooters. The most I could scrape together is that they were inspired by FPS and the kind of perspective and environment Tomb Raider came up with. There's a few mentions of things like Syphon Filter and Gears of War but at the moment I think anything we can come up with will be full of big gaps. I guess we may have to go with verifiability-not-truth and just merge it regardless of how big the genre is in "truth"; it's not our fault if sources don't cover it. We can always split the articles again in future, it's not like we'd be losing any content of merit at the moment...
 * Another thing I was pondering is exactly what articles we'd be covering under "action game genres". In addition to the ones above there's action adventure game, survival horror, stealth game, Action RPG, Maze game (only a list) and rhythm game (which seems to be a small section in music game). All these are mentioned as "action" in either the action game orvideo game genres articles, or the action game sidebar and there's discrepancies between those three things. I guess it's not that important but I'm kind of thinking of a hypothetical "action game genres" topic at the back of my mind.bridies (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In terms of content, I actually think fighting game is closest to FA. It has the "comprehensive" coverage, a good number of print sources... It just needs prose clean up and perhaps a balancing of all the Gamespot/IGN reviews. Of those already at GA, I agree first person shooter is the easiest bet, as it's currently such a big genre in the West, so there's plenty of coverage. I guess it just needs more detail to meet the "comprehensive" criterion and perhaps some more print sources. Platform game is another genre with a long history and a big scope, but it's been a while since that met GA and it seems there's quite a bit of unsourced info has crept in, as well the fact I'm not too familiar with it. bridies (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. The fighting game article has a peer review in progress, and although it isn't at GA yet, it should make it easier to get to FA eventually. I'll start a peer review for FPS, just so we have something else in the works. We might want to take a stab at another one of the action or action-adventure subgenres: survival horror, stealth game, 3PS, or tactical shooter.Randomran (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been drafting a rhythm game/rhythm action article, as a fork from Music game. It really merits its own article, rather than the tiny section it currently has in music game. It's also hard to get one's head around "music game" as big monolithic genre, as I can see from the talk page. I've currently got most of the history section done, which is sitting in User:Bridies/Sandbox... needs a gameplay section and lead. Besides that, I agree we should move on to survival horror and stealth game, which I see you've been working on. Survival horror needs some more expansion (if possible) whereas stealth game just needs more sources. I also started to try an clean up third person shooter and add what I can. bridies (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned out all the unsourced information from Third-person shooter and I think there's a bare minimum of sourced info in now, on which to build. Although searching for info is driving me nuts at the moment, especially the fact I can't even find a source that says explicitly "third-person shooters all about shooting"... Also an anon took exception to the removal of some info, most of which I removed again, so there might be some discussion about that. bridies (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've moved the Rhythm game article into the mainspace now. I've expanded it further, although the design section is still pretty minimal (it is a pretty simple genre, to be fair). I've gone ahead and nominated it for GA; it will doubtless be a while before someone gets to it, so there'll be plenty of time to improve it further in warranted. I think it meets the criteria in any case. bridies (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Both, I think. The Rollings/Adams source puts it as an action sub-genre; there's also the whole term "rhythm-action". I see it as kind of analogous to Action-RPG for example, as straddling two big genres (action and music). I was wondering about using the action game sidebar... it would need to be modified if we do use it. bridies (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!
On behalf of the Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Beat em up
Further to the conversation above the shamrock... regarding Beat em up :

Update: I just cut the whole later history, none of it was really salvageable. I also can't find a general article so I guess it's down to trawling reviews to see if they provide snippets of historical context. I have Fighting Force and Dynasty Warriors so far... bridies (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've used the Eurogamer source to rewrite the earlier history. It's only a couple of paragraphs but we can flesh it out with more detail from reviews in need be. However, that source stops at the 16-bit era and the "modern" (i.e 3D) section is pretty appalling (disjointed, obvious OR and what have you). In my mind this section should cover games like Fighting Force and Dynasty Warriors 2, the move from scrolling 2D to roaming around wider 3D environments. We might be able to scrape it together from reviews but a general source would be really nice.
 * The gameplay section needs rewritten and verified but this should be possible from reviews. The definition section I guess would be broadly simlar to that of fighting game. I'm thinking we should try for an article of similar length/depth of Light gun shooter, which would reflect its importance IMO, but it's really resting on whether we can fix up a decent latter history section.
 * Hack and Slash. I think the pertinent video game information should be in the beat 'em up article. I'd be inclined to redirect it to this effect, but perhaps we should ask the D&D Project if they want the relevant content kept somewhere. At any rate, the video game genre information should be separated from the more general RPG info and covered by the beat 'em up article. The Eurogamer article covers Golden Axe as a beat 'em up; this source(used in the hack and slash article) also calls it a beat 'em up; Dynasty Warriors is also a beat em up according to Gamespot. The Ashcraft book has a small section on beat 'em ups, stating "... side-scroller beat 'em ups such as Final Fight, where the object is to win points by beating the tar out of hordes of random bad dudes with either fists or swords" and also mentions a few fantasy games by name. The above sources all use "hack and slash" as an adjective; while it may also be a legitimate genre definition it should be covered as an alternative term in beat 'em ups genre section. bridies (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (March 2009)

 * Newsletter delivery by <font face="Verdana"> xenobot 16:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge of content to Level (video games)
Where was this section merged from? There's nothing on the talk page about any such merge. Haipa Doragon(talk • contributions) 18:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Third-Person Shooter
The problem is, I believe the information to be original research and unverifiable. I also maintain that the sources provided don't support the claims. The other party is piggybacking their own POV and research into each "supported" statement. I also don't appreciate that he removed the claims that "Tomb Raider has been credited with popularising the genre" and that GoW is "acclaimed", when that material is explicitly supported by sources. bridies (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed that information was removed. I'm gonna go ahead and add it back in. For the other statements that aren't supported by the research at all, let's give it some time. As we reach a more final version of the article, we can crack down on parts where POV or personal interpretation have slipped in. Let's focus on adding more referenced information right now, and in a few days we'll remove the totally unreferenced stuff. For the borderline statements, let's try to tweak the wording as we go, but we'll ultimately deal with these before we nominate for peer review / GA status. We'll make this work, don't worry.Randomran (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Re favor
Sure, point me to the article and I'll take a look at some point. bridies (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is mostly fine, and meets the GA criteria. I made a few prose tweaks, including toning down a couple of instances of "often" (which I also use, and which reviewers don't seem to like...). I only have a few suggestions:


 * I would be inclined to remove this sentence: "Some reviewers even extended this label to the Driver series, even though this series began years before the release of Grand Theft Auto III." As far as I can see, the review only mentions Driver 3 and Parallel Lines, both of which were out after GTA III (I think?) and differ from the older games, which only featured driving. The source says that "GTAIII was, in many ways, picking up where the first two Driver games left off", which kind of suggests they're different. As it stands, it's also a bit POV/OR-ish to suggest this is surprising ("even"; "even though"). It could be modified as an example of other developers trying to ride on the coat tails of GTA, as the source mentions this prominently.


 * This sentence should be clarified, I think: "Crackdown was notable for being created by the developer of the original Grand Theft Auto." There's no link to the source (print source, I'm assuming) so I can't see the exact wording, but I assume it refers toDavid Jones (video game developer). As it stands however, the sentence implies it was developed by DMA/Rockstar North, while in fact it was developed by Realtime Worlds (a different company, which Jones also founded/works for).


 * I would be inclined to rearrange the prose of the first history section paragraph to reflect the chronology. So Body Harvest would be mentioned first, then the original GTA games, then GTA III (mentioning that it was also influenced by Zelda/metroid). I think the original GTA info should be expanded a little. Specifically, say that it introduced the criminal theme and that it allowed you to go-anywhere-do-anything, but it was a top-down 2D game and not as popular or acclaimed as the third instalment. Then note that GTA III took those concepts into a 3D world which was much bigger, better and more detailed in the things you can do (e.g. you can't pick up prostitutes in the older games...). bridies (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I had another look over Recent History and it looks okay to me. bridies (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there
I noticed your essay at Third-party sources; I wouldn't mind giving you a hand with it as a set of fresh eyes. Also, have you considered setting up a talkpage archive and/or creating a detailed userpage? You can steal my (meaning Sango's) striaghtforward design if you'd like. &mdash; Deckiller 23:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've always been a keen advocate of finding middle ground; I am always willing to retreat a little bit to reach a consensus. That's why I became so disappointed with the debate at WP:FICT, as people began misunderstanding one another and were unwilling to compromise. That was a very messy debate, so messy that people have forgotten the one who started it all in an...innocent manner. If I appear to assume bad faith, it's usually a generalization &mdash; I rarely, if ever, single people out. &mdash;Deckiller 23:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. If you take a look at my earlier talkpage archives, you'll see that Wikipedia used to be a very different place. It was all about love and peace. &mdash; Deckiller 00:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Deckiller/archive3. I think it's basically because almost everyone was new back then; they hadn't lost their "innocence" yet. &mdash; Deckiller 00:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on the area. Verifiability for video games articles has become a bit extreme in some cases, for instance. &mdash; Deckiller 02:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah &mdash; that's why we have to take it on a case by case basis. That's also why I'm not a huge fan of blanket AFDs. I think AfD should be used only as a last resort: "if this article doesn't shape up eventually, I may be compelled to take it to AfD" instead of "I just nominated your 2-hour-old article for deletion." &mdash; Deckiller 03:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The main debates have always seemed to be source reliability and plot summaries. I've always used the plot summary of Final Fantasy VIII as a benchmark, though there are certainly other great ones out there. &mdash;Deckiller 04:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Want a mop? (2)
<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="rfa" style="margin: 0 5%; padding: 0 7px 7px 7px; background: #FFFAEF; border: 1px solid#999999; text-align: left; font-size:95%;"> Sephiroth BCR would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Sephiroth BCR to accept or decline the nomination. A page for your nomination at Requests for adminship/Randomran . If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. I asked you a few months ago, but you said you wanted to wait until the WP:FICT drama was resolved. Well, it has (albeit not in the manner that we would have liked), so would you be interested in running? As I, Protonk, and several other people have said in the past, I think you'd be a great candidate. Cheers, — <font face="Segoe Script"> sephiroth bcr <font face="Verdana">( converse ) 05:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the offer again. But I'd really like to get some closure on the notability issue. It's going to be too much of a distraction for me until we can get more people to sign onto some clear standard. I know that's a tall order, maybe even a fool's errand. But I feel like we're getting closer, as frustrated as I am sometimes. The RFC on Notability from August/September should have given us at least some kind of principle to work from, and I still think it did... but when it finally came time to close the discussion, the same old faces couldn't so much as agree how to read everyone else's comments. A few independent people offered to close the discussion, but it looks like they bailed. WP:FICT got us closer to a compromise, but not quite there. I think people are closer to compromise than ever before, but I also think people are exhausted, and don't want to give it another try any time soon. I'm not about to unilaterally lead the charge. But when the time comes, I'll try to hang with anyone who as an idea with a chance of gaining consensus, and try to steer things on course. After that, we'll talk. Randomran (talk) 06:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In case if you were curious, unlike a few months ago, I probably wouldn't oppose as ardently as I have a couple of others lately, because unlike them, you have reached out to me and have in these fiction discussions demonstrated a willingness to compromise. I can't promise I would support, but barring something new develops, it would be highly unlikely I would make an aggresive effort to oppose (I would probably be neutral or weak support per the first sentence in this post).  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not running any time soon, but I appreciate you sharing that. Since you brought it up, I think you might want to ask if your opposition accomplishes everything you want it to. In most discussions, your opposition does not appear to gain much sympathy. And as you've been able to recognize, your arguments may only rally people who have negative history with you to support anything you oppose. This is especially true in cases where an editor has no blocks, multiple barn stars, multiple featured/good articles, and a good track record of being on-side with the consensus at AFD. In fact, the most helpful thing you could do to help someone's support may be to actively argue against individual !support votes. I only point this out to help you be more effective, just in case you were curious.Randomran (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cue the "didn't realize you weren't an admin" stock line. Although for gods sakes, archive this flipping talk page!-- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll start to think about it :) Randomran (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Re adminship, I'd support you.
 * Re archiving, Miszabot works fine for me, see top of my Talk page. Give me call if you need help settign it up.--Philcha (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Or you can just move talk pages to an archive, or copy and paste like me (which everyone hates, but I do just for the sick thrill). Plus, having lots of archives makes stuff look important! :) - Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, guys. I'm actually really in love with my long, confusing talk page. But I'll try to think up something soon. Randomran (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Think fast, lest I go all Dark Knight on you and initiate some vigilante archiving in the night... -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, but there's two things: 1)they do persuade some and 2) even if it means certain accounts show up to rally against me that just provides further evidence of these accounts trying to disrupt me rather than "voting" objectively. But in any event, I have thought a bit harder about how and who to oppose as of late and in the last two days or so I probably supported maybe c. 10 editors (even one with a "doesn't like trivia" userbox and well, you know I feel the opposite...), whereas I limited my ardent oppose for one candidate who I foresaw a variety of serious problems with and while sure I won't persuade everyone, but it has persuaded several editors and really once the opposes get in the double digits and the overall percentage dips below 70% supports, that's usually sufficient.  But yeah, I am constantly rethinking what approach to take in these things and by and large am going to support editors unless if there is some kind of serious concern.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Off topic... but in the past, you have sometimes defended the defensible and indefensible alike, and have undermined your good arguments with the occasional absurdity. Reputation takes a long time to build, but can be destroyed by only a few bad moments. I think that a more focused and balanced approach will achieve closer to the result that you're aiming for. The question isn't if you're persuading people, but if you're persuading more people to join you than to fight you. Randomran(talk) 05:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think my arguments as of late are pretty detailed (no one could accuse me of simply voting or tossing around "per so and so") and hey, I've even branched off into nominating for deletion. Anyway, if you check User:A Nobody/Deletion discussions, which lists all my AFDs since being renamed, you'll see that every article I have argued to keep was either kept, merged, or undeleted in some capacity at DRV and every one that I argued to delete has been deleted.  My RfA stances might not be as successful, but in some cases I just hope to convey that certain tacts in AFDs are unhelpful and to discourage it; you can tell when it really matters that the candidate shouldn't be in an admin as I will not let things rest.  As far as reputations go, well, I have found that by and large once one has blocks on the logs some will never give you another chance, never mind that everyone who has ever blocked me has either unblocked me or is no longer an admin and that you can use this tool to see that my alternate accounts never actually "voted" in the same AfDs, but some keep believing this distorted version of me perpetuated by the now blocked variations of,,,,,,,,, and many others.  Now, I of course am not saying I have never made any mistakes, but I have endured a tremendous amount of misunderstanding, blowing things of proportion, and thanks to the aforementioned now blocked accounts, blatant lying that well, as you may have heard if you repeat a lie enough people start to believe it.  Now, I have been fortune that many editors are indeed objective and understanding as seen at User:A_Nobody and I think much higher of you now than I did previously, because you are open-minded to compromise and reaching out to opponents.  It's those who refuse to give up on ill perceptions and to reconcile that concern me and that I have a hard time accepting a admins.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * When it comes to being persuasive, persistence and detail are not nearly as important as reputation. Someone like DGG has a great reputation, because there is a sense that he does not put ideology above consensus-building, and that he does not believe that good ends justify any means. That's a reputation that takes years to build. And reputation is as fragile as it is persistent.Reputation can color the appearance of your actions. Even after a person has reformed, their reputation will dog them. The good news is that most people probably think you're basically honest, despite your blocks, your socking, and your non-vanish. But to have the kind of reputation that makes people listen to you, you need more than honesty and good manners. Something for you to think about, if only for the sake of strategy. Randomran (talk) 06:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the most important thing now is to start working on compromises. Per User_talk:DGG, our best bet at finding a reasonable middle ground is to merge and redirect with edit histories intact.  So, long as we don't just redlink things, I am usually amenable and that really should be the fair and reasonable middle ground, i.e. having lists, having merges and redirects, etc.  I cannot imagine any reasonable editor not wanting to at least go along with something like that as the basis for a compromise.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Baring something odd coming out, you'd also have my support. You've made good solid attempts at finding consensus on issues that just aren't a lot of fun and with people who aren't the easiest to deal with. That says a lot.  Hobit (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, seriously, I'm not running. :) But I promise to do something about my talk page. Randomran (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with A nobody, I think I would support your nomination too. I disagree with you stongly on your views on FICT and merging articles, but I see you as a very even handed person, with the temperment of an admin. RfA canidates in the past make you like the reencarnation of the mesiah by comparison. Ikip (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well like I said I'm not running. Although for the record, my view on WP:FICT is anything less than WP:N and virtually anything more than "write entirely from primary sources". I guess people are entitled to strongly disagree with that view, though.Randomran (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Your reverts
Whilst I appreciate you have every right to revert my edits, I would be grateful if you would care to discuss your own views at WT:FICT when you do, so all the editors contributing to the discussions can get some constructive feedback. I would prefer not to be reverted at all if possible - simply alter the text to reflect what you yourself would like to see, so your own views are made explicit, as I am sure you have an important contribution to make. Whist I would agree with you that the consensus is yet to emerge, and my revisions are supported by existing framework of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so if you are proposing similar or alternative wording, then we would all benefit from you making them known. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, was already discussed. Nobody seemed to support it except for you. Randomran (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly detect a distinct lack of enthusiasm , but the point I am making above is that I am not reciving any feedback to suggest that there are any alternatives on offer. I will retable the proposal until I do, but a blanket revert without discussion on the talk page is serving to progress your position or mine. If you have an alternative proposal, please put it up for discussion by all means. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You might have more luck if you tried a proposal that had even one or two other strong supporters. But that said, I won't stand in your way. For what it's worth, I started a discussion immediately after this one on my user talk page... and it looks like most people agree that it's enough to leave the old essay in the history bin, and move on with something new.Randomran (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:V vs. WP:N in before.
I'll start a discussio on the talk page. Hobit (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably no reason that we can't include both. Randomran (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your recent changes to [WP:N]. The idea behind WP:NOBJ is that claims of notability must be based objective evidence, not just opinion. In the same way that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, the threshold for notability is objectivity, not verifiablity. Let me illustrate this with an example. If I claim that "all spinoff articles about fictional topics are notable " and cite sources to support my argument, that is verifiable, but it is hardly objective. Before I amend WP:NOBJ, could you come and discuss this issue at WT:N?--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)08:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!
On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

congrats
Hey, thanks! :) Like I was commenting to DDG recently, I'm not here to fight, I'm here to work on the things I like. I know a number of people have gotten to the point where they feel they have to fight just so that they (and others) can work on the things they like; I appreciate them for that, but I can't personally devote my time and energy to it - it's not healthy. :) Hey, see you around! You work with videogames, right? Want to help us get Neverwinter Nights 2 ready for a GA-nom? :)BOZ (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure; I was thinking of copyediting it and then working on the lead, but if you have more time than I do you can go for it. :) Swing around here if you don't mind! BOZ(talk) 19:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's been harder to find sources for D&D stuff than you'd think; that was one of the major points of contention that led up to a certain RfC/U that I was involved in. I think we've gotten a lot better at finding RSS's, but it is still not easy. Video games is another deal because you have way more people playing those, to be honest. :) BOZ (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We do have a list now (I wasn't kidding when I was praising Drilnoth on his contributions to the Wikiproject), so we have definitely gotten better. There are a ton of print resources that no one really seems to have and which might be hard to track down, but we're doing the best with what we have! BOZ (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep; there's a few books on that list I'm planning to get if I'm ever not totally broke. :) BOZ (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Your help is much appreciated. :) I don't suppose you've seen this? There are a ton of things to work on it you like, so feel free to take your pick! There was some talk about making NWN into a good/featured topic, and we could go on with this collaboration for eons or until everyone gets bored. ;)BOZ (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow! In theory, it would be entirely sourceable. But it might help to compare with some of the history sections seen in other high quality articles like beat 'em ups and 4X games. In those articles, they err on the side of picking a few tremendously influential titles, rather than going into a lot of detail. That said, you could just as easily follow the template of Chronology of computer role-playing games. Randomran (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

C&C
Hi Randomran. Cabe already actually created the Factions of C&C article - crediting me as creator and getting it a DYK mention! Copied straight from my user page, meaning mostly copied from some of the other articles. He hasn't actually merged the other articles into it though, he supports keeping them. Can't see any justification for that though, given only 2 of the 50 references in the Nod article aren't in game/manual quotes! I'd say the time has come to just go for it, nobody has put forth any legitimate reason that can't be countered with a glance in the direction of the C&C Wikia. Cheers, Addy. Caissa&#39;s DeathAngel (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive
You should really consider archiving your page.--<font face="Thunder" size="2.0" color="#7D0008"> Gears <font face="Thunder" size="2.3" color="#7D0008"> of War 2  (NGG) 08:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. — <span style="border:1px solid#000000;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Chicago,sans-serif;"><font color="#000000">Levi van Tine (t –c)  07:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yikes, 200k. One of us is going to do it ourselves out of frustration, so archive it sometime soon, 'mkay :p — <font face="Segoe Script"> sephiroth bcr <font face="Verdana">( converse ) 07:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Notice: I plan on archiving this page just as soon as a few more good article reviews come through. I appreciate having some of the comments here on my talk page about some of the articles I've worked on, because it's a good reminder, and I'm a little superstitious about "closing" a discussion that hasn't been addressed. Hopefully that will be in the next week or so.Randomran (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

D&D task force
Ok, we've gone ahead and created a Dungeons & Dragons task force. If you're interested, head on over and help out! — <span style="border:1px solid#000000;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Chicago,sans-serif;"><font color="#000000">Levi van Tine (t – c)  07:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Just drooping by
I would like to ask you if you would like to look and give your opinion on the new Articles for deletion proposal for FreeOrion. I wrote a new version article from scratch and I would like to ask you if you could comment on it FreeOrion andArticles for deletion/FreeOrion (3rd nomination). Thank you nice! Peer-LAN (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT
Your comment about the RfC not having credibility is odd at best. I asked you in that discussion to explain why contacting projects that were affected by this policy wasn't a good idea and you didn't respond. There was certainly plenty of time to do so. If you are going to object to something, it is generally a good idea to explain your reasons beforehand rather than whine afterward. Before I posted that the RfC was split 50/50. If letting those who are impacted by the policy know about the policy discussion is somehow a mistake, we've got that data point. Hobit (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's important to get an independent perspective too, is the problem. People who don't have an opinion on specific kinds of content, but rather care about the overall quality of the encyclopedia. Call it whining if you want. But if you hand pick the audience, you're going to have a hard time translating that into a consensus that other people will swallow.Randomran (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but don't we in general contact the relevant projects when policy/guideline discussions affect them? The thing I was upset about was complaining afterwards, but not explaining ahead of time.  Silence implies consent may not be the best plan in much of life, but around here if folks don't respond, being bold is encouraged. Hobit (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And on the point: I don't see hand-picking. I see following WP:CANVAS.  Contracting relevant project groups is exactly what we should do with discussions yes?  Or should we treat the folks working on those projects as mushrooms and keep them in the dark. There is no reason to believe that "policy" people (those that follow policy discussions) are going to come to a better consensus than those that only edit in article space.  Esp. as it is the articles they are editing that are at issue. Hobit(talk) 01:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is a lack of contact with other forums that might offer an independent perspective. Either way, I think the lack of consensus on the issue shows that we need to compromise and soften the wording of WP:PLOT, or relocating it to a guideline where it may not seem as harsh. That would actually reach a consensus, rather than revisiting the old debates of "yes" versus "no".Randomran (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed on all. But those that want to keep NOT#PLOT and the like always argue that their view is consensous (as I've argued for my view).  Without some type of a poll I think we are stuck with the status quo.  IMO the pendium swung too far on fiction, it's an important topic and (currently) a very very small part of wikipedia.  I actually like the current (well as of last night I've not looked recently) WP:FICT.  It's not all I'd want, but it seems to create a reasonable middle ground that lets Wikipedia be closer to what I think it should be. Hobit (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I started to address this by notifying all the WikiProjects, but after tapping up the "a"'s it looks like I'll be getting a flood of messgaes about "spam" so I am going to stop. I'm going to notify the culture projects though. Any others people think need notifying to counter any systemic bias? Hiding T 14:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think I'll just leave it as is. Hiding T 15:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've often felt like the lone voice in the wilderness pointing out that there's no consensus to drop NOT#PLOT, but there might be a consensus to change it. The problem is that people who might support changing it get furious about the first statement, and keep proposing to drop it. Some go so far as to tag it as disputed and have lengthy discussions about dropping it that ultimately go nowhere. You'd think people would be a little more conscious of what's possible and what isn't.Randomran (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally think it is unreasonable to have a policy that lacks consensus. I simply don't see why an article that meets WP:N should need to jump through this additional hurdle if most people think it shouldn't.  Hobit (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a bit worrying when policy, which is supposed to describe standards that have community consensus, doesn't describe a standard which has community support. Isn't it? Hiding T 08:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to randomly interject here, but the need to limit plot content does have community consensus, IMO. If you go through the various oppose rationales, few of them say "we should have as much plot as we want". Many of those opposed to NOTPLOT feel it's a style issue and thus the domain of WP:MOS, not policy, and explicitly state the need to otherwise limit plot regurgitations.bridies (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think the opinions of the two camps roughly meet at "don't kill NOT#PLOT, but either soften the language, or move it somewhere else". Moreover, you're ignoring how Wikipedia actually works. When something has been around for a while, people silently approve of it, use it, apply it, you have to actually build a consensus to remove it. A split opinion doesn't really show that outright removal would reflect the opinion and standard of Wikipedians. Randomran (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd have more faith in that view if the same voices that are speaking out against PLOT haven't also spoken out againstWP:WAF and WP:N. I'd question whether you can truly say let's move this to WAF when you've opposed WP:WAF recentlyhere.  And likewise WP:N, seeWikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation.  Compare and contrast, and draw your own conclusions.  I think there's a war of attrition being fought, but I may be wrong.  I just wonder what arguments will surface if plot becomes guidance rather than policy. It was a very clever question that was asked, after all, not whether Plot should be policy, but whether it should be inWP:NOT.  No-one has really debated if it should still be a policy.  SO I'd ask myself whether there's consensus to demote, or simply to reloicate to another policy.  But ymmv. Hiding T 08:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Demoting WP:N, demoting WP:WAF, and removing WP:PLOT have the same thing in common: they represent the positions of people who are frustrated with how fiction is treated on Wikipedia, and are so irate that they will propose something that will never gain consensus, and represents the furthest thing from a compromise. It's unsurprising, then, that even ideological symathizers will oppose them with the furthest thing from a compromise as well -- a flat out "no". (That's to say nothing of the predictable response by ideological opponents who respond with something worse than no.) You're right that there is a battleground. But I can't believe how many people have such a fundamentally poor understanding of how Wikipedia works that they expect a strong polemic to accomplish anything, and worry what might happen if they move to the middle. If you take a middle position, like I often do, and say "okay, fine, let's move it, or let's reword it", and the other side is stupid enough to see that as some kind of sign of weakness and says "haha! now that you've moved to the middle, you are now much closer to my true position which is to remove/demote this rule!" ... the only thing you have to say is "no, I'm here to build a consensus, and that's not going to happen if you expect me to simply adopt your position." If enough people had the insight and the consistency to move to the middle and stand there firmly, eventually the rest of Wikipedians would have no choice but to join them if they wanted to get anything done. But it's really a shame that people haven't figured that out. It's like people don't understand WP:CONSENSUS, so they'd rather win an argument than actually effect change. Randomran (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tried to be a middle ground editor as long as I have been here. But thanks for the advice. My personal opionion of when Wikipedia broke was when we stopped letting people edit policy and guidance. The whole ethos of Wikipedia used to be consensus through editing, not through discussion. But I recognise I am now a dinosaur. Hiding T 08:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was bound to happen naturally, unfortunately. Eventually some people got upset with the idea of being WP:BOLDon policy, and so now we're stuck with huge cumbersome discussions for a lot of changes. I think we'd actually make progress if they weren't so frequently dragged off topic into grandiose and revolutionary ideas. Incrementalism always wins.Randomran (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

RE:fighting game
Sorry, I haven't done a final run-through of the article. My home internet connection has not been reliable as of late. From what I remember, the history seemed fine to me. The details given seemed to paint a good overall picture. Once I start the GA review ofRhythm game, I'll give Fighting game a look and let you know if anything else stands out. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC))
 * It's up to you. If you think it has a shot, then go for it. I always went through GAN as kind of a mini review to catch some more errors, but that's just me. My articles would normally sit for a while and generally resulted in only a few minor errors getting fixed. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC))

Something I'm working on
I've been working on trying to create a unified guideline for what fiction articles are - something that's more fundamental than WAF (which is just a MoS for fiction), and instead deals with the basic problem of what it means to cover things that are not real in an encyclopedia, and what fundamental issues that involves. My hope is that by clarifying that, dealing with the notability issue becomes easier. I've got a draft at User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction. I'd welcome any comments. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Video games
Video games topics is fine (per the discussion you linked to - and because I agree : )

However, it shouldn't be the top level cat. The parent cats you've placed "topics" in are about the media, not topics about the media. Topics about video games, should be a subcat of Video games.

See all the cats you've placed at the topics cat for examples. - jc37 22:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I worry that putting "video game topics" as a subset of "video games" is confusing. Shouldn't it be the other way around? I think this could lead to a lot of miscategorization, with people putting non-game stuff into the root video game category, when it should be in the video game topics category.


 * But let's see how it goes. If there are problems with miscategorization, we can do some renames or restructuring to deal with it then. Randomran (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Took care of them.


 * Also, I removed several categories which were parent categories. For example, a category shouldn't be in Arts, if it's in a subcat of Arts (or even in a subcat of a subcat of Arts - and it's in both).


 * Besides that, I wonder if Category:Video games should be merged with Category:Electronic games. I realise that there is a semantic difference, but there seems to be some overlap. What do you think? - jc37 02:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The truth is there's a huge overlap. I've been working on a lot of genre articles, and it's clear that digital pets are sort of at the outer threshold. I think it would be worth starting a discussion at WT:VG. Those guys are usually pretty reasonable and have nothing but the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. Randomran (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably.
 * Reminds me of the mess we had with the subcats of Category:Comics. Took several weeks of discussions, CfD noms, and just general cleanup. This would probably take the same. - jc37 09:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Worked on it. Fixed several categorisation "loops", as well.
 * As for the merge we discussed above, since there is a distinction made between Category:Handheld electronic games, andCategory:Handheld video games, I tried to follow a similar distinction between Category:Electronic games andCategory:Video games.
 * And Category:Games software should probably be merged "somewhere" (or at least renamed for clarity). Suggestions welcome.- jc37 01:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm more or less okay with it, but you might want to get more feedback at WT:VG. Randomran (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"Unnecessary" Detail
Exactly why is it "unnecessary" detail to point out that GTA itself clones features from other games, including supposed GTA clones? Wangry (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really see why an article about the genre needs to go into too much detail about every games that GTA ripped off, including Sim Copter. That's already covered in short through the history section. And it was poorly referenced. The article isbeing reviewed for GA currently, and so it's being held to a higher standard than other articles. Randomran (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The references were articles that noted those specific features in those games. I realize they were not formatted properly due to lack of time, but they were put in as a starting point. Would you have preferred no references at all? I don't know if you remember, but we have talked before, during the creation of the open world article. There, you also quickly deleted my contributions (in that case, the entire page!) rather than work constructively to improve it. Thankfully, you later compromised, and that page has since developed into something better. Yes, it also needs work, but at least there is now an article about a real gaming subject that hadn't been on Wikipedia before.


 * In the case of the GTA clone article, the end of the article is poorly written right now, and the whole article perpetuates the myth that, to quote the article right now, "Grand Theft Auto III is credited with popularizing this genre, let alone inventing it." It only minimally acknowledged that earlier games had elements used by GTA, and the overall tone, especially of the recent history section, is that "GTA clones" have tried to mimic GTA but still can only hope to live up to the standards of GTA. A more neutral POV would be that the entire genre, let alone gaming itself, is constantly evolving, and perhaps most fittingly in this evolution, the latest GTA (IV) incorporates features from these clones to improve the player experience. That information was especially included because many reviewers and articles note GTA IV as having included "revolutionary and immersive" features such as taxis, GPS, improved police, etc. as if they had not been featured before in other games, yet other games are quickly labeled as GTA clones if they even include an open world.


 * Regardless, while I will assume good faith on your part, your habit to quickly dismiss the contributions of others rather than improve them is rather off-putting and especially discouraging to those of us who can only edit Wikipedia from time to time.Wangry (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you should find more reliable references that actually say "Grand Theft Auto IV incorporated features from other clones to improve the experience", you can always add it. But as of now, I only found a source that said it grabbed one feature from Saints Row, which I added. The references you added didn't verify the comparisons you were making: you noted a feature that was in two games, not that Grand Theft Auto was influenced by those games, let alone the whole genre. If you're making the comparisons yourself for the first time, then you're pretty much engaging in original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. I'm a pretty patient guy. But at a certain point, I drive forward for good article status, and certain policies have to be met pretty quickly in order for the article's review. It's nothing personal. Randomran (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Fighting
I would like to award you this mini barnstar: *, for your continued excellent work on Fighting game. It looks like you worked on it for something like 5 hours last night! Marasmusine (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha! Thanks for noticing. That's in addition to all the research I did on survival horror, doing a few tweaks to get rhythm game to GA status, and still finding time to try to move some guideline and policy discussions forward. (Operative word being "try".) I really enjoy Wikipedia, so this happens often enough. Randomran (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)