User talk:HumanxAnthro

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

User talk:HumanxAnthro/Archive 2

Your GA nomination of Didacts and Narpets

[edit]

The article Didacts and Narpets you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Didacts and Narpets for comments about the article, and Talk:Didacts and Narpets/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Before and After (Rush song)

[edit]

The article Before and After (Rush song) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article needs changes or clarifications to meet the good article criteria. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Before and After (Rush song) and Talk:Before and After (Rush song)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Before and After (Rush song)

[edit]

The article Before and After (Rush song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Before and After (Rush song) for comments about the article, and Talk:Before and After (Rush song)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:ORDER

[edit]

Hi. Please make sure edits like these conform to MOS:ORDER; the short description should go first. Cheers. Tkbrett (✉) 19:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About Didacts and Narpets

[edit]

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Didacts and Narpets a different title by cutting its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into II. "Didacts and Narpets". This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Video game review scores

[edit]

Hi HxA! Per your edit here. What you said is untrue. The current video game review box rules state that "Publications such as Electronic Gaming Monthly and Famitsu review games among a group, with each reviewer offering their individual score. Using the average or cumulative score from these publications will result in the loss of that breakdown, so include the individual scores, either in the table itself or in a footnote." And per the discussion related to it, it was because it violates WP:STICKTOSOURCE. I'd be happy to discuss it with you further if you want to clarify anything. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What if, for example with Nintendo Power, all the four individual scores were in a note, but there was no added-up score? Would that be OK? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 17:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I noticed that the guidelines on the infobox there suggest that, but I'm not sure why that was added. If the point of the box is to provide "reviews at a glance", making readers do more actions to examine what's in the review seems counter-intuitive to the box. In the case of the article we both just edited, I don't think it makes the box "look weird" or anything, I think we're just not used to seeing it like this. Feel free to test with stuff and maybe we'll find some cool solution though. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A footnote would just be one sentence talking about four individual ratings. It's not that much extra reading. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely a new change to video game articles, though, very new. I'll give you that. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, think of it this way. Imagine that instead of having to double click something, you had to triple-click it. For the record, it has been discussed in the past a few times:in 2015, here in 2016, and here in 2023. I think its just coming up more as access to old magazines (as I'm sure you are well aware of :) ) has become far more easy over pandemic lockdown time. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting to know this has been talked about for a decade. And it's also interesting to think the rise of our access to as much video game magazines as we have correlated with the 2020s. Wonder if the COVID-19 pandemic affected that at all, in some way, but it's fascinating to think about.
What I am about to say is subjective, granted, and I can't speak for everybody, but I really don't think this is as jarring of an adaptation to something new as triple clicking would be going from double clicking. Readers should be use to just hovering their cursor over a footnote with the contents in it easily popping up or highlighted in blue, kind of like how citations to sources work. They should also be used to situations where a row of a table only consists of a note clarifying an odd, unusual situation. This is unlike triple-clicking which, to my knowledge at least, is never required in most users' experience with a computer. Maybe for some, this could be, I don't know. But to be honest, I had a harder time adapting to not having more than three people listed in a field of a video game infobox, which was conceived only a few years ago. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its up to you. I feel like a big gap will look worse, but I think once more people see it discussion can be had. And yeah, I'm not complaining about the access to all these old magazines as its a literal goldmine of information. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do hear you about the "big gap" that it makes. It does look odd, but it's the best we can think of as of now. :/ User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 21:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhh I see you did it for the Game Informer ones and such. I don't think i've seen it that way. But might want to ask on the talk page of vg or the infobox itself about it. I'm not sure if you are familiar, but there's very clean scans of magazines at https://archive.gamehistory.org/folder/9a193e8c-67e0-45ff-98d2-a33e85721cc4 (and I'm pretty sure we can even link to it without worry) as they got permission to host them. I've found so many articles, even featured articles or good articles that were slightly off with their magazine sources (wrong page, month, etc.) by double checking them with the content here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What a find! I do think the Archive.org scans were of a pretty good-resolution though, but I appreciate that this exists. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah i definitely search both and other sites. But this one is probably a better site to link to as they have the rights to the magazine content. It also fills in some gaps between late 90s and early to late 2000s stuff. Anyways, dig in!Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2025 September newsletter

[edit]

The fourth round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 29 August. The penultimate round saw three contestants score more than 800 points:

Everyone who competed in Round 4 will advance to Round 5 unless they have withdrawn. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for Round 4 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 9 featured articles, 12 featured lists, 98 good articles, 9 good topic articles, more than 150 reviews, nearly 100 did you know articles, and 18 in the news articles.

In advance of the fifth and final round, the judges would like to thank every contestant for their hard work. As a reminder, any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed in Round 5. In addition, note that Round 5 will end on 31 October at 23:59 UTC. Awards at the end of Round 5 will be distributed based on who has the most tournament points over all five rounds, and special awards will be distributed based on high performance in particular areas of content creation (e.g., most featured articles in a single round).

Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges – Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), Frostly (talk · contribs), Guerillero (talk · contribs) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) – are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck!

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:FOC

[edit]

You can disagree with my editorial stances if you wish but please do not pretend to know my motives or to assign wants and desires to me unless I come out and describe them. Please remember to focus on content rather than personalities. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When has this happened? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 12:42, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[1] This post crossed that line when you said just because he didn't like reading about the topic. If you were to strike that specific statement I would be fully satisfied. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that was absolutely about the content. None of you explicitly said WP:IDONTLIKEIT, sure. However, you and another supporter for merging the split articles kept calling the contents in the split articles "cruft", with no other reason given. In particular, you considered the memorial service, irrespective of the sources, as just "a political rally disguised as a memorial service" of which "Trump has political rallies like other people have dandruff". If those are your rationales, what am I supposed to imply from that? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 13:01, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel these articles go into an undue level of detail about events that are currently subject to a media circus being hyped up as a specific political-rally tactic by a politician who has built his whole career around holding rallies and that these events will likely not have a significant lasting impact. This is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying the following as someone who is as annoyed with the media's overcovering of everything Kirk-related over more important topics as much as you are, and who despised that man's existence while he was alive. I'm sorry, but calling the memorial non-encyclopedic because you think it's just another political rally by Trump is IDONTLIKEIT, or at the very least just not caring. Also, none of that is how WP:UNDUE works. A topic, objectively, does not need to have a lasting impact to be notable per policy. And it doesn't matter if you think the coverage is part of some "media circus". I don't doubt that it is, but saying that leans way too much on the speculative rather than actual evidence on the quality or reliability of the sources to comment on the topic's notability. And also, come on, everything Donald Trump is a media circus. His main article shouldn't exist by this logic. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 13:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the elaboration, in any case. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 13:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that was not your intended message, I'm sorry and I'm happy to strike that part. I just want you to understand why I thought what I thought. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 13:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]