User talk:Niwi3/Archive 6
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Your GA nomination of The Beauty Process: Triple Platinum
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Beauty Process: Triple Platinum you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of The Beauty Process: Triple Platinum
The article The Beauty Process: Triple Platinum you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Beauty Process: Triple Platinum for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of The Beauty Process: Triple Platinum
The article The Beauty Process: Triple Platinum you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:The Beauty Process: Triple Platinum for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Wave Race 64
The article Wave Race 64 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Wave Race 64 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheSandDoctor -- TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Deep Blue Sea (1999 film)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Deep Blue Sea (1999 film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Slightlymad -- Slightlymad (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Deep Blue Sea (1999 film)
The article Deep Blue Sea (1999 film) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Deep Blue Sea (1999 film) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Slightlymad -- Slightlymad (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Deep Blue Sea (1999 film)
The article Deep Blue Sea (1999 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Deep Blue Sea (1999 film) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Slightlymad -- Slightlymad (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Jill Valentine
Hi Niwi3. I note your successful nomination of Resident Evil 3: Nemesis for GA in 2015. I am currently preparing Jill Valentine for a second FA nomination. It received 7 votes of support at the first nomination though two people opposed on issues of sources and comprehensiveness. I am now in the final stages of addressing those concerns. I note Resident Evil 3: Nemesis uses a source entitled "Keeping The Nightmare Alive" by Edge (magazine). I am wondering, do you have access to this offline source? And if so, can you email me scans or photos of it? I think it would really help with the Jill Valentine article. If you have scans of other offline sources you used to help build the Nemesis article those would also be appreciated as well but "Keeping The Nightmare Alive" looks like the one that would be most helpful. Let me know, and also let me know if you would like a hand with something in the future. I quite enjoy reviewing video game related GANs for example. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Freikorp: Yeah, no problem. I have most of Edge's issues that were published from 1996 to 2001 as PDFs locally on my computer, including the one you want. I can send it to you via WeTransfer if you give me your email address (you can use Wikipedia's email feature if you want to keep your email address off-wiki). I also have Official UK PlayStation Magazine Issue 55 and Official US PlayStation Magazine Volume 2 Issue 9 if you need them. --Niwi3 (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks again for the sources. The article has been nominated for FAC if you're interested in commenting on it, though don't feel pressured by any means. :) Freikorp (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hey there. As you've probably noticed, the FAC was closed rather abruptly. I've since addressed the final concerns you raised at the nomination; thanks again for continuing to follow up all your comments. Out of curiosity, would addressing these concerns have turned your oppose into at least a neutral vote? If not, what concerns do you still have? As per the recommendations of the FAC, I have opened a peer review for the article. See here. You are most welcome to comment on the peer review or just reply directly here. At this stage, I believe I've addressed the concerns of all opposers that are addressable. For example, SlimVirgin seemed to think the character's development could be expanded in great detail by sourcing the games themselves; I believe this is not possible, and I'm sure you would agree with me. My plans at this stage are to wait for comments at the peer review, wait for the article to be copyedited (it is in line at GOCE), and wait for a couple more offline sources I've ordered to turn up (I'd be surprised if I can harvest more than a sentence or two from either, but it's worth a shot). In other words, I have no intentions to make major changes to it before renominating it, unless a consensus forms at the peer review that this needs to occur. I've got a few other projects I'd like to work on first though, so I don't intend to renominate it for at least a month, possible two or three. I'll ping you (and everyone else that commented on it) when I do renominate it. Thanks for your comments so far; despite opposing I do believe the article is much better thanks to your comments. Freikorp (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Freikorp: Hi Freikorp, to be honest I'm not surprised that the candidate was archived; the article received several major improvements and its structure changed significantly during the FAC process, implying that its prose needs to be accomodated. I think it's a good thing that it was archived because it gives you no deadline to improve it. Although the article is in much better shape now than it was before, there are certain parts that still need to be rewritten to accomodate the improvements, and you need to be careful when adding fictional details. Although it's not mandatory, it would help if you could add inline citations to primary sources pointing to specific cutscenes in the game after each sentence. The article's structure is much better now and I wouldn't change it. I would mainly focus on improving its prose; make sure that it's easy to understand for general readers who are not familiar with the series, and make sure you introduce every fictional detail properly. I agree with you that the character's development cannot be expanded significantly because the games don't offer much more information. Also, the fact that there are no secondary sources which discuss the character's development or design in great detail makes me think that the article passes the notability guideline by a close margin. Overall, don't rush it, take your time to improve the prose, and I'll happily review it in the next FAC. Thanks for your kind appreciation and understanding. --Niwi3 (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Niwi3. Just wondering, you don't happen to have any strategy guides/books for the original resident evil (or director's cut) or Resident Evil 3 by any chance do you? Figured I may as well ask before I spend more money on sources. I've just received Resident Evil Revelations: Official Complete Works in the mail and have been able to use it for a couple sentences about costume design at the Valentine article. I notice you haven't cited it at Resident Evil: Revelations. Would you like it? I'm done with it (and took photos of the relevant pages for safe-keeping) and would be happy to post it to you. While the book is very visually impressive in terms of sources it only really has information on character's physical design, though there's a reasonable amount of that. I assume it would be helpful if you ever try to take the article to FAC. I note you have cited Resident Evil: Revelations Official Strategy Guide by BradyGames at the article. Would you be able to tell me if there's any decent information on Jill in that? If it saves you time by all means rather than typing up text just take photos and email them to me. Let me know. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Freikorp: I don't have any official strategy guides for the PlayStation version of the original Resident Evil, but I do have Resident Evil 3: Nemesis Prima's Official Strategy Guide and Resident Evil: Revelations BradyGames Official Strategy Guide. They don't include many details about the characters, but you may find them useful to cite plot details about the games. I also have Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles Prima's Official Strategy Guide, which covers Chris and Jill's complete history with Umbrella in great detail. I think you will find it helpful. Do you want me to send you the three guides as PDFs via WeTransfer? As for the Resident Evil Revelations: Official Complete Works book, I would love to have a look at it and see if I can expand the Revelations article further, but it's probably going to be expensive for you to post it because I live in both Madrid and London (I understand you live in Australia). Wouldn't it be easier for you to scan it and then send me the book as a PDF? Thanks for your interest, really appreciated. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- That would be a huge help if you could WeTransfer me those PDF's. I assume you still have my email address and don't need any further information? The scanner I own can only be fed loose leaf pages; it's one of those very compact ones that looks like a laminator. Having had to use the local library to scan non-copyrighted books in the past I know they are very pedantic about not scanning copyrighted material. To be honest, I find the concept of forking out $20 to post it to you less complicated than scanning it. And your'e probably saving me over $100 by not having to pay for those 3 books so I'm more than happy to pay for postage. Also I'm probably not going to look at the book again anyway; it was actually a lot more impressive than I expected it to be but I only bought it to use as a reference. Incidentally if you want the 'Biohazard Official Navigation Book' (In Japanese) as well you can have it. I ordered it from Japan; now that i'm done with it I've listed it on eBay but I'm not holding my breath for somebody else who wants to buy a strategy guide in a foreign language for a 15 year old game haha. Would be happy to send it to someone who would actually appreciate it. Freikorp (talk)
Hey mate, I'm absolutely sick of the JV peer review so I know you must be as well. Accordingly I hate to have to ask this to ask, but Sarah has done some significant restructuring to the article, and restored several things you and Czar asked me to remove at the last FAC. Nobody else was consulted prior to the changes being made. She's also proposed restoring the gameplay section you asked me to remove. If you could make even some brief replies to her query at the 'Gamplay' section, to my statement regarding all the restored content at the 'Reorganisaiton' section, and give your opinions on the RE5 outfit at the bottom of the 'Hidden text' section I would really, really appreciate it. (Sarah removed an image of Jill in her RE5 outfit without explanation, upon querying as to why, she only said she removed it because of "the type of image it is". It's my opinion that something that improves our understanding of the topic (and addresses her own concern regarding not understanding what the "control device" on Jill's chest is) has been removed just because she does not like it.) Seriously I'll review your next GAN/FAC/whatever in exchange even if you take her side on each and every topic. I need a third opinion. And I promise I won't contact you again about this article until it is at FAC again, and even then I'll only ping you to say it's renominated. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Freikorp: I just left some comments. Also, you don't owe me anything, so please relax; Wikipedia is simply a voluntary collaboration. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Mass Effect Accolades
Is there any reason you used an individual table for accolades rather than using {{Video game reviews}} like LittleBigPlanet? Nihlus 16:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Nihlus, for games that received many nominations/awards like Mass Effect, it is preferable to have a dedicated section just for the accolades, otherwise you will end up having too much information in the video game reviews table. Also, it's important to have both the nominations and the awards, not simply the awards. Just so you know, the article passed a GAN process last year, so its structure is pretty much done. If you are really aiming for a FA status, you should try to find new sources and expand the development section with new info. Currently, it only has five paragraphs. FAs are normally comprehensive. --Niwi3 (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- You answered more than I asked as you are still trying to remind me of things I am already well aware of. As for your argument for its inclusion, I am not buying it: Halo 3, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Super Smash Bros. Brawl and BioShock are all FA status, award-winning titles that do not have an exhaustive table like that. Perhaps it is more appropriate in an individual article such as List of accolades received by The Last of Us or List of accolades received by Grand Theft Auto V, but it doesn't seem to fit in its current state. Nihlus 20:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Nihlus: Again, WP:OTHER is not a good argument (even if you are pointing to Featured Articles). By that logic, I could say that we should keep the accolades table because Batman: Arkham City, a Featured Article, also has one. I'm not sure why you insist so much in changing it. Why do you think there is a problem with the accolades table? Does it violate any WP rule? Also, WP:Retaining existing styles states that "editors should not change an article from one styling to another without 'substantial reason'". --Niwi3 (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- That's an essay and pretty weak argument in this case. I'll likely be changing it or moving the accolades to their own article. Thanks. Nihlus 13:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- Care to elaborate why WP:OTHER is a weak argument in this case? Also, you did not reply to my questions: Why do you think there is a problem with the accolades table? Does it violate any WP rule? --Niwi3 (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- Because WP:OTHER only holds weight when the things mentioned are doing it wrong. When multiple featured articles are doing something a certain way, it stands to reason that that's a preferred way of doing something. Additionally, the table is missing pre-release awards (as mentioned in the prose of the article) in addition to not containing the list of awards in prose. Also, something doesn't need to explicitly violate a rule in order for it to be changed. Nihlus 14:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- The accolades table is there for a reason (to avoid boring and repetitive prose) and doesn't mention the pre-release awards because it is inside a post-release section (the article covers the game's history in a chronological order). Also, have you considered the possibility that those articles you mentioned could actually be improved and expanded with more awards and nominations? I just found 2 more Featured articles that include an accolades table in the reception section: Dishonored and Batman: Arkham Asylum, all of which were promoted to FA status in 2013 and 2014. Most of the articles you mentioned as examples to follow were promoted to FA status in 2008 (standards back then were not as high). --Niwi3 (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- I have considered it, and the only other alternative would be to hide the table like it is done on Batman: Arkham City. Even then, the prose would need to be expanded on the awards. Nihlus 15:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- I won't oppose you hidding the table, but be careful when expanding the prose of the accolades section; in my opinion, it should simply offer a summary of the table, and only mention the most important awards. You don't want to duplicate what the table already says. --Niwi3 (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- Well yes, the prose shouldn't mention the nominations as they aren't as important (and there's a lot more of them). Nihlus 15:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- I won't oppose you hidding the table, but be careful when expanding the prose of the accolades section; in my opinion, it should simply offer a summary of the table, and only mention the most important awards. You don't want to duplicate what the table already says. --Niwi3 (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- I have considered it, and the only other alternative would be to hide the table like it is done on Batman: Arkham City. Even then, the prose would need to be expanded on the awards. Nihlus 15:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- The accolades table is there for a reason (to avoid boring and repetitive prose) and doesn't mention the pre-release awards because it is inside a post-release section (the article covers the game's history in a chronological order). Also, have you considered the possibility that those articles you mentioned could actually be improved and expanded with more awards and nominations? I just found 2 more Featured articles that include an accolades table in the reception section: Dishonored and Batman: Arkham Asylum, all of which were promoted to FA status in 2013 and 2014. Most of the articles you mentioned as examples to follow were promoted to FA status in 2008 (standards back then were not as high). --Niwi3 (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- Because WP:OTHER only holds weight when the things mentioned are doing it wrong. When multiple featured articles are doing something a certain way, it stands to reason that that's a preferred way of doing something. Additionally, the table is missing pre-release awards (as mentioned in the prose of the article) in addition to not containing the list of awards in prose. Also, something doesn't need to explicitly violate a rule in order for it to be changed. Nihlus 14:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- Care to elaborate why WP:OTHER is a weak argument in this case? Also, you did not reply to my questions: Why do you think there is a problem with the accolades table? Does it violate any WP rule? --Niwi3 (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- That's an essay and pretty weak argument in this case. I'll likely be changing it or moving the accolades to their own article. Thanks. Nihlus 13:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Nihlus: Again, WP:OTHER is not a good argument (even if you are pointing to Featured Articles). By that logic, I could say that we should keep the accolades table because Batman: Arkham City, a Featured Article, also has one. I'm not sure why you insist so much in changing it. Why do you think there is a problem with the accolades table? Does it violate any WP rule? Also, WP:Retaining existing styles states that "editors should not change an article from one styling to another without 'substantial reason'". --Niwi3 (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- You answered more than I asked as you are still trying to remind me of things I am already well aware of. As for your argument for its inclusion, I am not buying it: Halo 3, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Super Smash Bros. Brawl and BioShock are all FA status, award-winning titles that do not have an exhaustive table like that. Perhaps it is more appropriate in an individual article such as List of accolades received by The Last of Us or List of accolades received by Grand Theft Auto V, but it doesn't seem to fit in its current state. Nihlus 20:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review of Fawad Khan
Hi! I've requested a peer review for Fawad Khan, it was listed as GA but failed FAC. It'd be kind of you to review it.(Wikipedia:Peer review/Fawad Khan/archive1). Thanks Amirk94391 (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I can't promise anything as my free time is very limited. Thanks. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Niwi3. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Resident Evil: Apocalypse
After abandoning the old one, I've found myself a new hobby horse to work on. It's currently nominated for peer review (see here). It's also waiting in line for a copyedit; I'll nominate it for FAC when it receives that, probably in a month or so. As a fan of the series I thought you might be interested in commenting on the peer review; I'm sure this one will be completely stress free haha. No pressure though. Hope you've been well. Freikorp (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Freikorp: Hi Freikorp, I'm sorry if the article about Jill Valentine caused you some trouble. Although SV raised valid points in her review, I understand it can sometimes be a bit difficult to deal with her. In any case, I'm glad you decided to move on and work on another article. As for Apocalypse, I don't think I'll have the time to review it this month due to my Christmas and New Year's holidays; I'm going back to Madrid next week to visit my family and some friends. Also, I haven't watched any of the Resident Evil films, so I don't think I'll be of much help. Good luck and please stay stress free. --Niwi3 (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Season's greetings
Hi Niwi3, wishing you all the best for Christmas and the New Year, with thanks for your help this year. Best, SarahSV (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- @SlimVirgin: No problem, I just did what I thought was right. Thank you for your kind words, merry Christmas, and happy editing. --Niwi3 (talk) 09:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Precious two years!
 | |
| Two years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about improperly formatting my references in this article yet again. The sad thing is, right before I made that edit I noticed you'd had to clean up after me the last time and made a mental note to do it right this time, but something must have distracted me because I still forgot. I'll try not to repeat that carelessness.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Martin IIIa: No worries, I didn't mind cleaning the article up; your edit was still constructive. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Mission: Impossible (1998 video game)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mission: Impossible (1998 video game) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cognissonance -- Cognissonance (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Mission: Impossible (1998 video game)
The article Mission: Impossible (1998 video game) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mission: Impossible (1998 video game) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cognissonance -- Cognissonance (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
GAR
I saw your GA nomination for The Trigger Effect and was wondering if you would be willing to trade GARs with me? I've decided also to pursue a GA nomination with Stir of Echoes, which I just started overhauling literally a few hours ago after getting good sources, and it's written and directed also by The Trigger Effect writer-director! :) I could start the review if you so choose, though I should ping you by the time I'm done overhauling Stir of Echoes. So, do we have a deal? Slightlymad 12:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Slightlymad: Thank you for your interest in the article, really appreciated. While it's totally fine to trade reviews, I'm not a fan of it as I value free and voluntary contributions to the project. With that being said, feel free to review the article if you are interested in it, but please don't expect something in return. I'll only review it if I am interested and have time. Cheers --Niwi3 (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of The Trigger Effect
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Trigger Effect you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Slightlymad -- Slightlymad (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of The Trigger Effect
The article The Trigger Effect you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Trigger Effect for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Slightlymad -- Slightlymad (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Joanna Dark Core.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Joanna Dark Core.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Conker the squirrel.png
Thanks for uploading File:Conker the squirrel.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Black Eye
Re your edit here on Black Eye (album), nice double standards there. Where was your source when you removed the correct writers credits and replaced them with the wrong ones here? What was your source for removing the tracks from the Japanese release of the album? Given that you sourced content to the liner notes here why did you choose to introduce incorrect information to this page instead of using those liner notes? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Duffbeerforme, I'm not sure if I understand what you actually mean. How do you know if this version of the article had correct writing credits? Do you have a source to prove it? Also, I did not replace the credits, but simply removed them because there were no sources to verify them. In Wikipedia, you don't need sources to remove unsourced content that is likely to be challenged. The Personnel section is sourced to the album's liner notes. What's the problem with it? --Niwi3 (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- The liner notes have the writing credits on them. You say you did not replace the credits but the diff clearly shows that you did. After your edit the page said "All music composed by Fluffy." so no you didn't just remove, you replaced with the wrong credits. What was your source for "All music composed by Fluffy."? No problem sourcing the personnel to the liner notes but those same liner notes also give writers credits, why when looking at those notes for the personnel also see the writing credits and correct your misinformation? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Duffbeerforme: I have an European version of the CD and I cannot find the writing credits for each individual song on the CD booklet. I guess they are only listed in the Japanese and American releases? If that's the case, then there shouldn't be any problem. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- On the Austrlaian and Japanese they are listed after all the lyrics, just above the personnel credits. All songs by Rootes except .... duffbeerforme (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Duffbeerforme: Ok, in that case I won't revert your edit. The European version does not even include the lyrics. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- On the Austrlaian and Japanese they are listed after all the lyrics, just above the personnel credits. All songs by Rootes except .... duffbeerforme (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Duffbeerforme: I have an European version of the CD and I cannot find the writing credits for each individual song on the CD booklet. I guess they are only listed in the Japanese and American releases? If that's the case, then there shouldn't be any problem. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- The liner notes have the writing credits on them. You say you did not replace the credits but the diff clearly shows that you did. After your edit the page said "All music composed by Fluffy." so no you didn't just remove, you replaced with the wrong credits. What was your source for "All music composed by Fluffy."? No problem sourcing the personnel to the liner notes but those same liner notes also give writers credits, why when looking at those notes for the personnel also see the writing credits and correct your misinformation? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Aliens: Colonial Marines
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Aliens: Colonial Marines you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheJoebro64 -- TheJoebro64 (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Aliens: Colonial Marines
The article Aliens: Colonial Marines you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Aliens: Colonial Marines for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheJoebro64 -- TheJoebro64 (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Aliens: Colonial Marines
The article Aliens: Colonial Marines you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Aliens: Colonial Marines for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheJoebro64 -- TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Jill Valentine Redux
Hi. You may have noticed that I'd taken over the Jill Valentine article since the peer review was closed. I've been advised to work with previous commentators to address any outstanding issues that may remain. I went through every peer review and FAC and tried my best (don't be fooled by the lack of blue-highlighted text: it was a complete re-write) to address every issue that anyone had ever raised, but FAC3 was closed because I hadn't contacted prior reviewers. Would you be interested in looking at the article now? I know 'Appearances' needs "signposting", and 'Reception and legacy' could do with some more trimming, but is there anything else you don't like about the article now? Your comments at the last peer review were really helpful with my later "revamp", so I'd love to get your thoughts on it. I understand if you're completely sick of the article, though. Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Homeostasis07: I'm sorry but I don't have any interest in going through the article again. A few things, though: I believe that very little progress has been made to the article since the last peer review; the prose is still very average and there are still unnecessary details that damage the article's focus on the subject (e.g. Mikami's objection to the sexual objectification of women doesn't have anything to do with the character and there is no source that proves that he actually designed Valentine; just because he directed the first game doesn't mean he designed the actual character). Also, I agree with Czar's comments in FAC3 and your collaborative attitude leaves something to be desired. He gave you a reasonable explanation of why the reception section needs more work, yet you simply ignored it and didn't do anything to improve it. If you decide to nominate the article again in the future, I will leave it to other reviewers, but it's still far from a pass from me. Good luck. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know what you thought you were conveying with a response like this, and I don't particularly feel like continuing a conversation of this tone, other than pointing out that the "peer review" lasted from 6 October until 27 November, so – with that in mind – if your current criticisms had genuine merit then a nearly 2-month peer review would've already rectified them. I think your attitude speaks more towards your own motivations. And my one mistake on the diff. you linked to from Czar's talk page was not including a diff of his edit to the article, which illustrates him removing a substantial amount of sourced content, which any reasonable editor would consider vandalism. Never the less, I'll take your one constructive criticism about the character design being currently unsourced, and will rectify that at a later date. When such a source is found, then Mikami's quote can be seen as directly related to the character's Concept and design (the section which it appears). Anyway, good luck in all your future editing, because you've made it clear that there's no point in us working collaboratively ever again. Regards. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Homeostasis07: I'm not saying that I agree with his edits on the article. I'm simply saying that I find his criticism in FAC3 to be legitimate, and that you have ignored it so far. I think it's important to accept criticism without taking it personally. If you think I have something against you then you're wrong, but I'm not going to be the one to convince you. Regards --Niwi3 (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't believe you have anything against me personally, and I never asked you to convince me of anything. The issue I had with Czar's later edit to the article – the one you posted a diff. of my response to above – is that it was in direct contradiction to the constructive criticism he made at FAC3. And I've already indicated that I have taken on-board these criticisms, and may incorporate them at a later date. The article is – admittedly – a mess, but I will not take the opinion of one user over everyone else's. I want a collaboration: ie, to see the opinions of every user and come to the best possible middle-ground for everyone concerned. I wasn't kidding at FAC3 when I said I'm prepared to spend the next 6 months of my life on this. The JV debacle is the biggest mess I've ever come across on Wikipedia. I want to see it resolved, one way or the other. Regards. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Homeostasis07: If you think the article is a mess then why don't you just improve it? I'm aware that it's a very difficult article, mainly because the character is very inconsistent. The main problem I see with it is that there are too many unnecessary details and very little basic information. We don't even know who actually designed or conceived her, yet the article mentions trivial things like alternate costumes as if they were more important. Also, several paragraphs are composed of unrelated sentences that discuss things randomly; one paragraph starts describing her costume in the original game without any context, and then says that the actress who portrayed her in that game is credited as "Inezh". Is that really necessary? Sentences should be put into context, otherwise they look like fancruft. Anyway, I'm not going to spend more time on it, but that should give you an idea on what needs to be done. --Niwi3 (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- The credits of the original game have been added as a source for the character's design: Isao Ōishi is the sole character designer listed, while Mikami separately appears as a "character modeller". And, if you think back, I'm sure you'll remember why the descriptions of the clothing remained in place: Anita – and several others – comment on her clothing in 'Reception'. Since it's specifically brought up later in the article, I made a judgement call that it's necessary to include brief, summary-style descriptions. Ideally, I'd be free to decimate the entire article and work on it as I see fit, and have new reviewers come along to take the place of people who [apparently] want nothing more to do with the article. But the closing note of FAC3 says otherwise. And I'm left alone to rectify the kind of problems caused by a 2-month "peer review" from 3 users who neglected to take the time to come to an understanding on what should be included on the article. "More about the character's development"... "but not that much"; "Remove clothing information"... "but don't remove information that 'critically examines' the clothing". Like I said, "mess". Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Homeostasis07: If you think the article is a mess then why don't you just improve it? I'm aware that it's a very difficult article, mainly because the character is very inconsistent. The main problem I see with it is that there are too many unnecessary details and very little basic information. We don't even know who actually designed or conceived her, yet the article mentions trivial things like alternate costumes as if they were more important. Also, several paragraphs are composed of unrelated sentences that discuss things randomly; one paragraph starts describing her costume in the original game without any context, and then says that the actress who portrayed her in that game is credited as "Inezh". Is that really necessary? Sentences should be put into context, otherwise they look like fancruft. Anyway, I'm not going to spend more time on it, but that should give you an idea on what needs to be done. --Niwi3 (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't believe you have anything against me personally, and I never asked you to convince me of anything. The issue I had with Czar's later edit to the article – the one you posted a diff. of my response to above – is that it was in direct contradiction to the constructive criticism he made at FAC3. And I've already indicated that I have taken on-board these criticisms, and may incorporate them at a later date. The article is – admittedly – a mess, but I will not take the opinion of one user over everyone else's. I want a collaboration: ie, to see the opinions of every user and come to the best possible middle-ground for everyone concerned. I wasn't kidding at FAC3 when I said I'm prepared to spend the next 6 months of my life on this. The JV debacle is the biggest mess I've ever come across on Wikipedia. I want to see it resolved, one way or the other. Regards. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Homeostasis07: I'm not saying that I agree with his edits on the article. I'm simply saying that I find his criticism in FAC3 to be legitimate, and that you have ignored it so far. I think it's important to accept criticism without taking it personally. If you think I have something against you then you're wrong, but I'm not going to be the one to convince you. Regards --Niwi3 (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know what you thought you were conveying with a response like this, and I don't particularly feel like continuing a conversation of this tone, other than pointing out that the "peer review" lasted from 6 October until 27 November, so – with that in mind – if your current criticisms had genuine merit then a nearly 2-month peer review would've already rectified them. I think your attitude speaks more towards your own motivations. And my one mistake on the diff. you linked to from Czar's talk page was not including a diff of his edit to the article, which illustrates him removing a substantial amount of sourced content, which any reasonable editor would consider vandalism. Never the less, I'll take your one constructive criticism about the character design being currently unsourced, and will rectify that at a later date. When such a source is found, then Mikami's quote can be seen as directly related to the character's Concept and design (the section which it appears). Anyway, good luck in all your future editing, because you've made it clear that there's no point in us working collaboratively ever again. Regards. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
@Homeostasis07: Nobody is preventing you from working on the article as you see fit. In fact, I highly recommend you to do so. Also, not all peer reviews are necessarily conclusive. The fact that this one was inconclusive means that it's not going to be easy to improve the article to FA status. So don't follow the peer review as if it was a guideline that was developed after a consensus was reached. Because you said you are willing to spend a lot of time and effort on the article, I recommend you do the following: a major rewrite from top to bottom (it's not as difficult as it seems because you already have the sources). Start the article with a Concept and development section that doesn't mix fictional with real-world details. For example, I would start the very first paragraph like this:
Jill Valentine is a fictional character that was created by Capcom and introduced in the 1996 video game Resident Evil, the first game in the Resident Evil series. Director Shinji Mikami, who co-designed the character along with character designer Isao Ōishi, expressed in 2014 his opposition to the sexual objectification of women in video games...
Then put all the fictional details in the Appearances section. I think 4 paragraphs should be more than enough, covering her role in major Resident Evil games. If readers want more details, they can always go to the individual game articles. The real-world details from the Other appearances subsection should be integrated in the concept and development section. And finally, rewrite the Reception and legacy section using Czar's feedback from FAC3. That should improve the prose, focus, and context. I would use this article as an example/template. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for all this, and sorry for the delayed response (I can never find time to edit on weekends). This will all take a couple of days worth of editing to implement, though. One thing, straight off the bat: there are several "fictional details" in the RE5 portion of paragraph 5 of 'Concept and design', but they do end up relating – in a roundabout sort of way – to the character's design (hair colour/paler skin/placement of the mind-controlling device). This was another one of my judgement calls after I dissected the peer review: they all sounded like design features, to me anyway. Even after reading the Tasha Yar article, I'm apprehensive of how to move forward with information such as this, because I followed MOS:Video Game Characters in my re-write, which says differently. I'm not being a smart-ass or argumentative with this response; this is genuinely a crux I've been considering for some time. Any suggestions on how to move forward? Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Homeostasis07: They are indeed design features, and they should be kept in the development section. Still, I'd keep the fictional details to a bare minimum because you can always flesh them out in the appearances section. Example:
In Resident Evil 5, Valentine was redesigned to reflect the fact that she was used as a test subject. Her hair color was changed to blonde, her skin was made paler, and her close-fitting outfit was designed to give players the impression that she had been experimented on. The mind-controlling device that she wears in the game was originally going to be placed on her head. However, it was moved to her chest because the game's project leader felt it would be sexy.
- Saying that her Resident Evil 5 outfit resembles a catsuit is original research and needs to be removed. You might want to add some design information on her BSAA outfit, though (see here). --Niwi3 (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've re-written the first two sections of the article. I implemented the vast majority of your comments here, with a couple of exceptions: Valentine's relationship with Redfield is discussed in 'Reception', so I felt it necessary to leave the "alongside Chris Redfield" in 'Concept and design': mainly for the fact that I didn't feel like there was a way of naturally introducing Chris in 'Appearances'. I kept "biological research experiments" in 'C+D' as well, because I thought saying "test subject" without any signposting would have casual readers thinking "Test subject for what?". Also I kept "sexier" instead of "sexy", which I could see causing problems later on. I don't particularly like either word, though, and am open to alternative phrasing. Sorry this took longer than I said it would, by the way. I took this as an opportunity to incorporate some of Victoriaearle's comments from PR2 to the article: which also goes some way in dealing with Czar's signposting concerns. I'll start on 'Reception and legacy' over the next few days, but what do you think of the first 2 sections now? Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Homeostasis07: First off, take your time with the article. Nobody is putting pressure on you to quickly improve it, so there is no need to say "sorry" for the delay. As I said before, I'm not interested in going through a detailed look at the article again, partially because I'm quite busy in real life; I can only give you a guidance, which I already did. The article is a bit better, but probably needs a few more tweaks to improve the flow of the prose, and some details might be simplified further. Also, the words "sexy" or "sexier" are perfectly fine in that context (they explain why the device was moved to her chest), so they won't cause any problem. Anyway, take your time with it. You might also want to contact other reviewers and see if they have something to add. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks your help with this. After a rocky start, this actually became quite productive. ;) The article is definitely better now as a result of all this. I'll spend some time working on it some more, and will contact other reviewers when I feel like I've made some progress. One last question: would you be interested in commenting at FAC4, because I can ping you before I open it. Or would you rather not be involved? I realise you had an 8 month stretch with the article [between FAC2 + PR2], so completely understand if you'd just like to move on. Anyway, thanks again. You've been really helpful. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Homeostasis07: Right now I'd rather not be involved as I have more important things to do, at least during this summer. Not sure about the future. Can't promise anything. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks your help with this. After a rocky start, this actually became quite productive. ;) The article is definitely better now as a result of all this. I'll spend some time working on it some more, and will contact other reviewers when I feel like I've made some progress. One last question: would you be interested in commenting at FAC4, because I can ping you before I open it. Or would you rather not be involved? I realise you had an 8 month stretch with the article [between FAC2 + PR2], so completely understand if you'd just like to move on. Anyway, thanks again. You've been really helpful. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Homeostasis07: First off, take your time with the article. Nobody is putting pressure on you to quickly improve it, so there is no need to say "sorry" for the delay. As I said before, I'm not interested in going through a detailed look at the article again, partially because I'm quite busy in real life; I can only give you a guidance, which I already did. The article is a bit better, but probably needs a few more tweaks to improve the flow of the prose, and some details might be simplified further. Also, the words "sexy" or "sexier" are perfectly fine in that context (they explain why the device was moved to her chest), so they won't cause any problem. Anyway, take your time with it. You might also want to contact other reviewers and see if they have something to add. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've re-written the first two sections of the article. I implemented the vast majority of your comments here, with a couple of exceptions: Valentine's relationship with Redfield is discussed in 'Reception', so I felt it necessary to leave the "alongside Chris Redfield" in 'Concept and design': mainly for the fact that I didn't feel like there was a way of naturally introducing Chris in 'Appearances'. I kept "biological research experiments" in 'C+D' as well, because I thought saying "test subject" without any signposting would have casual readers thinking "Test subject for what?". Also I kept "sexier" instead of "sexy", which I could see causing problems later on. I don't particularly like either word, though, and am open to alternative phrasing. Sorry this took longer than I said it would, by the way. I took this as an opportunity to incorporate some of Victoriaearle's comments from PR2 to the article: which also goes some way in dealing with Czar's signposting concerns. I'll start on 'Reception and legacy' over the next few days, but what do you think of the first 2 sections now? Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Saying that her Resident Evil 5 outfit resembles a catsuit is original research and needs to be removed. You might want to add some design information on her BSAA outfit, though (see here). --Niwi3 (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Mass Effect 3
Good Afternoon Sir,
I hope that all is going well. As the Mass Effect 3 article was lying dormant for a few years, I decided to take a stab at improving it. While I still need to expand upon the Reviews section, I think that the article is almost ready for a GA nomination. As you are the godfather of Mass Effect articles, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind eyeballing it and letting me know any obvious feedback or areas for improvement. Nothing formal, just anything you can see that would help. I totally understand that you have better ways to spend your time, but I thought I'd ask just in case. Either way, thanks for reading, and have a good one.--Ktmartell (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Ktmartell: Hi, nice work with the Development and Marketing and release sections. A few things off the top of my head:
- Ideally, post-release sources (reviews or official strategy guides) should be used to cite the gameplay section. If you use pre-release sources, then you are describing the gameplay of press demos, not the gameplay of the final game.
- I don't think an Extended Cut subsection in the Synopsis section is really needed, mainly because it does not change the plot of the base game. I'd merge it into the Downloadable content section because it's a DLC after all.
- I'd try to simplify the plot section further; 4 paragraphs should be more than enough.
- I'd move the Downloadable content section after the Marketing and release section so the article follows a better chronological order (first the game was released, then DLC packs were released).
- Get rid of the GameRankings sources, per Template:Video game reviews.
- As you already said, the critical response section needs to be expanded; 4 paragraphs should be enough.
- The Music of Mass Effect 3 article is not really notable. If it contains any relevant information, then that information should be merged into the last paragraph of the Development section. The track lists are irrelevant, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games. I'm actually considering doing the same thing with the Music of Mass Effect 2 article because most of it is already covered in the parent article.
- Keep up the good work. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
SY ∞♀Ω😈
Great job on those Sonic Youth album articles (great job on all your GAs, really—I'm not much of a gamer anymore, but I've always loved Banjo-Kazooie). A Thousand Leaves is super overlooked and I finally got around to listening to Experimental Jet Set after reading through your article (I've been slow getting through their 90s work because Dirty was the second album of theirs I bought as a precocious teen and it was a bit of a letdown next to Daydream Nation). Are there other SY albums you're interested in working on? It looks like your GA noms for SY articles were mostly from a few years ago, but I thought I'd ask all the same. Are you into their 80s stuff much? I've idly thought about expanding Daydream Nation since forever. I just stumbled on a cheap used copy of Confusion Is Next, which covers their career up til Experimental Jet Set; not sure how much of value it adds compared to Goodbye 20th Century, which besides coming out later seems generally better based on reviews, but it's on-hand all the same. I've also got the digital subscription to The Wire, a magazine that if nothing else is absolutely in love with Sonic Youth. I dumped that full rambling Thurston quote from The Wire figuring it'd be better to provide as much of the source text for you to work with and paraphrase as you please, but going forward I could also just email you scans of their SY articles/reviews if you want. Cheers, —BLZ · talk 19:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Brandt Luke Zorn: Thank you for your comments, really appreciated. Although I contributed to numerous video game articles, I actually don't consider myself a gamer and I spend far more time listening to music than playing games; I find it much more difficult to write about music than video games. Washing Machine is my favorite SY album ("The Diamond Sea" is my favourite song ever), but I also like Daydream Nation a lot and if I had to improve another SY article it would probably be that one. However, I find their early no wave releases quite difficult to digest. EVOL and Sister are ok, though. Still, they are a wonderful band and definitely one of my favourites. In any case, I'm currently quite busy in real life and don't have much time to edit, at least during this Summer. If I'm interested in working on another SY article in the future, I'll let you know. Thanks. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)