This is an archive of past discussions with User:David Fuchs. 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.
My attempt at a Criticism page failed. Perhaps you can highlight the exact reason why; I would be glad to continue working toward a (better) Criticism page. --
Hydrolisk (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Characters of Myst
I do apologise for not working much on the Characters article as I said I would. I've just not been able to get myself into the mindset for full Wikipedia editting over the last few days. I'll try to get back on it over the next few days. -- Sabre (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Took care of most of the stuff. Do you know if TotalAudio has some kind of site? I'm not so sure they still exist, but we need some kind of job description about Salvatori, and I believe he co-founded TA? Any thoughts on that? Blackngold2916:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Xbox Live Arcade
Hi,
I've been looking for someone to help copyedit the Xbox Live Arcade article (which is in peer review here). User:Jappalang suggested an experienced copyeditor go over the prose and recommended me to check out the FA-Team. I saw your name listed as good with video game articles, I was wondering if maybe you can give it a quick look over/copyedit? Thanks. SeanMooney (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
There's no need to mention this on my talk page. Just update the /GA1 next time and I will find it there, since I always watchlist /GA pages :) GaryKing (talk)17:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that's about half of the point. Thanks for your help, I'm going to need it. I'll be working with you on this, but I can't be on all the time so I really need some help with this.
Anyway, let me explain some things about how I've got this planned out to be done:
Structure and style similar to List of Sega 32X games. This was just promoted to FL (by me, coincidentally).
The columns of the sortable table are already sourced, so you can get the information to fill out the table from the sources. Judging by the fact that the source was questioned and the list was later supported by the same person, I would say the source is fine, since the list comes from the same site.
An elaborate lead section. I'll probably take care of this, but I would appreciate some help with it. There's a section in the Sega Mega Drive article that uses a book by Steven L. Kent that is perfect for most of the lead background, just needs some tweaks.
Some Sega Mega-CD games were also released on the Sega Mega Drive. There's a "Mega Drive" column for that, so we can note the duplication. For referencing that, a list of Mega Drive games is referenced for that column.
Correction: Images can be kind of bad for the page, so I'm going to just mark these games with an asterisk in the title.
There will be five games released on the Sega CD 32X as well as the CD. These games used both the Sega Mega-CD and the Sega 32X. To note these, a dagger (†) will be placed after the title of the game, since there are only five.
Region codes are being used. I'll clarify the lead later to make this more clear.
After the list is finished, we can both co-nominate the list for FL status.
This article is kind of getting out of hand. We need to come up with a strategy to deal with this product and the separate but similar Uru: Ages Beyond Myst that incorporates all of the relevant information without getting into too much of the small details. I'm mostly looking at the formatting of the MOUL article and the wayyy in-universe details, and I don't much like it. If you have any ideas for this, I can try to help out with it. I'm working 12hrs/7days a week right now, but I'll be as helpful as possible. You've done most of the work on the other Myst game articles, so I'd like to help out in any way I can. — OranL (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
"I'm mostly looking at the formatting of the MOUL article and the wayyy in-universe details" - when did you last look at the formatting? A few days ago, I spent a large amount of time fixing that, and I'm fairly chuffed with my final result. In my opinion, the article now only 'fails' in two aspects: firstly, it needs tonnes more references; secondly, some sections (particularly those on Until URU and Gameplay) are very sketchy, and need more details. TalkIslander20:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, (to David), I'd kinda appreciate it if you watch your language. I spent a great deal of time re-formatting the MOUL article last Thursday (see the edit history), and some issues aside (documented on your talk page), I was very proud of the finished product. To hear it then called a 'total train wreck' is a complete slap across the face. Thanks for that. TalkIslander20:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey Islander, Please accept my apologies as I did not mean to to bash on your work personally, and I don't think David meant for it to be taken that way either. The fact is that you did a lot of work on that page, and while it does look much better than it previously did, you took a lot of the information that was already in the article and made it more presentable look better. In my opinion, a lot of the information in the article is not really presented written in an easily accessible, encyclopedic-style way. People who have never played this game before (who are researching it or whatnot) might not be able to easily find the information they're looking for, or it might not be in depth enough for them. It's going to be really difficult to strike a good balance between readability and in-depth information in this article, and I really appreciate what you've taken the time to do. I think it's a good start, but it's not quite there yet. — OranL (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Alright, fair points - I think I just got overly-defensive about my work ;P. As I stated above (roughly... or perhaps not at all...), I'm fairly happy with the overall layout of the article now (not that it can't be improved further). It shows the transition from Ubisoft -> Until URU -> Gametap -> MORE quite well, with separate sections for each - something that definitely wasn't the case before. The actual content - yes, i just shuffeled it around, and some of it (especially the Gametap episodes section) needs re-working, a lot of reworking. TalkIslander16:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm also sorry to cast aspersions on your work. I'm still concerned, however, if we should really treat Myst Online as a separate game, or whether it should be addressed in Uru: Ages Beyond Myst in the Multiplayer section. My thinking is that prolly when we go trawling for sources and clean out the content it will be small enough to exist in the Muliplayer and Development section of Uru. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)16:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Ohh, I think not, at least not in this case - you've certainly been correct about the other Myst articles, I have to say, but not here. There is an immense amount of history regarding what you term the 'Multiplayer' aspect of URU. In a nutshell: initially it was released along with URU:ABM by Ubisoft, however the plug was pulled by Ubisoft before the multiplayer section ever left beta. In response to this, Cyan released some code and enabled 'Until URU' to exist. Meanwhile, talks were ongoing with someone from Turner, and the Dmala shard was set up to experiment on something. It was deemed a success by Turner (specifically Gametap) who bought into the concept, and released MO:UL at the beginning of 2007. There's then a tonne of stuff that can be written about MO:UL under Gametap (successes, failures, the transition to episodic content, perhaps the forums even), after which we move onto how Gametap then dropped the game early 2008 (statements and press releases galore). Finally we move onto the latest development, MORE - a third attempt at resurection, and what with this one including a completely new concept - fan-created ages - it'll definitely be noteworthy. All of this is verifiable, and as such the article easily meets WP:N, and could with some work easily meet WP:V and WP:C, and so is quite happy as a standalone article. There is, in all honesety, far too much information to incorporate into the URU article. Might I suggest that if your not familiar with the history of MO:UL (your suggestion to merge with URU suggests that you're not), you tread carefully. TalkIslander21:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
No, that's fine, I wasn't going to do anything until I got around to Uru anyway, and first I got to get Myst IV and Myst V to FAC... we just need to make sure all the sources are from Gamespot, IGN, newspapers and other reliables, not some forum, and I'll be happy :) One thing though: I don't think we'll need the physics engine section, as that'll be taken care of in the parent article (when I get around to it.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)21:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Good - I'll happily work with you on this one, give me a shout if you need anything :). The physics engine section - yeah, agree with that. I only chucked it down there 'cause I didn't want to delete it, but didn't know where else to put it. Only thing is that the engine was changed for MO:UL for lisencing reasons, so that's something that'll be relevant to MO:UL, but not URU. Question: what do you make, source-wise, of something like this? Yes it's a forum, but it's an official message from the CTO of Cyan... TalkIslander21:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
←Generally I would say no to forums, even when it's supposedly a bigwig or whatever, unless there is a sure-fire way to prove it is in fact, the bigwig in question (otherwise, who's to say its not an imposter, etc.) And proving its them is often devilishly difficult. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)21:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Fair point, but in which case we might be OK here - text from Cyan employees is set to be blue, and that's set in the forum software by Cyan (Gametap staff have yellow text, mods have green text, the rest of us brown text). We can be 100% that these posts are from Cyan, and no one else. TalkIslander22:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, David. This is about your evidence in the Geogre/WMC RFAr. You're a strong content contributor, an FA writer, a logical guy, so I was a bit surprised by the way you wrote on the RFAr page. I read the FAC pages some. In fact, I used to contribute some, before I was discouraged by the IRC RFAr. But perhaps it's in the eye of the beholder, my seeing a contrast between your demeanors at WP:FAC and at WP:RFAr. I was taken aback by your scornful and dismissive tone, too, considering that the three of us (Geogre, Giano, Bishonen) have contributed quite a bit to the project. Especially Geogre. (If you're interested, you can cast a glance at his userpage.) Anyway.. I came here to tell you that I've posted a brief comment about your comment, in my own evidence section. Bishonen | talk20:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC).
As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible) system - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot22:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
In many video game articles, the Reception section is the last main section of prose. As its name suggests, within the section you should summarize the critical reaction to the game. The section should provide a high-level overview of what the critics liked and didn’t like about the game; it is a summary, not a repetition of what publications thought. Therefore, don’t put in excessive, long winded quotes or have a paragraph detailing IGN’s thoughts on the game. To prevent cluttering of the prose with scores, reviews table such as {{VG Reviews}} can be used to organize this kind of information.
A good way to lead off the section is a by-the-numbers or at a glance snapshot of the game’s reception; you can use aggregate scores to suggest an overall critical response to the game, and can provide sales figures (if you have them) for the game’s release. Commonly, the rest of the reception is broken into positive and negative paragraphs. Entirely separate ‘Praise’ and ‘Controversy’ or ‘Negative comments’ or the like are strongly discouraged as troll magnets. If the game has won any awards, then listing them at the bottom of the reception section is an option.
Other things to remember:
Don’t list every single review in the reviews table; likewise, don’t mention every award the game has ever gotten.
Generally, talk about what the reviewers say rather than speaking for them; for example, “Reviewer X of Publication Y took issue with elements of the game such as X, Y, and Z” instead of “Review X said that “I took issue with elements of the game such as X, Y, and Z.” If a reviewer has a good comment which sums up the positive/negative/overall reaction, or a particular sentiment common in many reviews, it might be more appropriate to use.
If adding sales data, make sure to provide context; did it sell those 4.2 million units within three months of release or three years? If possible, break down the sales by region; did the Japanese like the game, but Americans not buy it?
Use reviews whose scores are outliers from the average ratings to find key points that were liked or disliked about a game. If all reviews except for one average around a 9 out of 10, and the one is a 7 out of 10, there is probably some clear negative points to be found in it; the same works with very positive reviews.
Perhaps most importantly, give proper weight and keep a neutral point of view. If the game received mostly negative scores, having three paragraphs on positive aspects and glossing over the bad parts in a sentence or two conveys the wrong impression to readers.
Hey, I was just looking at the article you added as a comment in the article for the cultural impact section. I couldn't find the part in there about bringing in women to play games. Is that link just for the general cultural impact? I was just wondering what the master plan for that reference is. — OranL (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow dude, I was just gonna get started on the article, but it seems you've beat me to it. I'd be glad to help with any problems the GA reviewer finds. Upon GA status, that would qualify Music of Halo as a Featured Topic, would it not? Blackngold2905:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Just something I noticed: There's no url for citation 4, the interview by Music4Games. No big deal, just a quick oversight probably. The rest of the article looks really good! Blackngold2905:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw your comment. Sorry if I sounded like I was hyperboling it. I'm not trying to knock anyone's contributions, least of all you guys, but I'm not sure exactly where you got that impression. If you point it out, I'll try and refactor? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)20:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess that's a misunderstanding. I didn't say you were knocking our contributions, but that your tone in referring to us was scornful and dismissive. See where I say that? Tone as in your choice of words. Your phrasing. "Everyone here is well-acquainted with Giano's drama shows and exactly who shows up where to defend him". "Diatribe." The scare quotes. Stuff like that. And that I wouldn't have expected it.
I appreciate the good intentions of the changes you have now made. But actually not the effect of them so much... which is, to make my own posts look nonsensical, both in the evidence and the workshop. I wish you would strike through your original instead. I think it's altogether proper, on an evidence page, to make it clear when stuff was written, which is why I dated my own addition in the heading. Certainly if someone has responded in the meantime. Bishonen | talk22:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC).
You=The best :) Good thoughts...it is such a quirky article to take to FA, but if we can have a featured article on a game mod, anything is possible! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Deep breaths about DOTA, it'll all be ok... :)
For the CD-i zelda, I have a link that I am having great trouble draining of information since there seems to be so much!
Also, if I could add a bit more plot info to Zelda's adventure, and then copyedit, I think we would be set for nomination.
There are no aggregate scores I could find, perhaps there were reviewers from the release time that could be added?
Also, a few of the references used might be of questionable reliability, so I'll have to see about that.
Other than that, at FA I think we can kick the images around with them, see what they think. I did the collapsible reception box thing, and that freed up room. This has been a really hard article to prep for FA for me, so I just wanted to share. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for listening to me vent, and believe me I have no wish to interrupt your work on Myst or anything else, I really enjoy seeing these articles get better and better everyday. :) Thanks for that link by the way, I want to learn how you find these print sources so I can do it myself. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Well how about this; in exchange for you looking in that database thing for print sources, I will de stubify the Halo articles and report back as to how it went. Sound good? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for sending the stuff!! I'll add it in when I get a chance. Also, yeah I have no strong feeling about the CD-i Zelda article, we can really call it what we like. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi David: it was pretty heavy-going to read, so I've done what just about every magazine interview editor does, and made it more chatty and informal, with more exchanges and shorter paragraphs. I've added a number of invisible inline queries where I just didn't understand the techy-talk: I wonder whether you could add a few simple explanatory phrases in these places to enable dummies like me to engage with the interview. Perhaps Rick can be asked. Tony(talk)15:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
David Fuchs, it is with deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust that I am honored to report that in part to your support, my request for adminship passed (87/14/6). I deeply value the trust you and the Wikipedia community have in me, and I will embark on a new segment of my Wikipedia career by putting my new tools to work to benefit the entire community. My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 05:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Brawl FAC
Significant Copy-editing done by Laser Brain and I, as well as fixing comments by Sandy Georgia, has dramatically improved the Brawl article. It is now literate to people who do not understand video game jargon! In any case, I hope you give the article another look, and hopefully change your neutral to support or minor support. Thanks! --haha169 (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I doubt it, though. I think there is a web-service that archives sites automatically upon request. Let me get back to you - you can archive the Google cache using this archive site. --haha169 (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed that you're an image-licensing checker over at WP:FAC and I was wondering if you could take a quick look at Washington, D.C. to make sure all the images are up-to-snuff. I'm working on nominating the article for FA, and would like to know of any huge problems before I submit it for consideration. Thank you for any help you can provide. Best, epicAdam (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Great! Development will be very useful. I've put the article up at GAN for an easy peer review as well. :) Hopefully, it will pass, though. --haha169 (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Lol. I always like GA best, since I can't take articles through FA easily. I dunno, each with their own, I guess. If development can be expanded, and prose improved, and cutting unnecessary Gameplay stuff, I think it can go to FAC. --haha169 (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
For your interest in the Military sociology article. I see you have added a ref ([2]) to an unrefernced para one of the students wrote. Are you sure it verified all of the facts in the para? If not, perhaps you could consider creating your own para and tagging the student's para as unreferenced and/or commenting on talk; I want the students to be aware that they need to reference the info the add to the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:Policies and guidelines"A failed proposal is one for which consensus for acceptance has not developed after a reasonable time period. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral or unclear on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal has likewise failed. It is considered bad form to hide this fact, e.g. by removing the tag. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a failed proposal from scratch and start in a different direction."
Why isn't some one in admin enforcing this very clear policy at Fiction? Please evaluate the recent RfC and realize that this proposal continues by sheer will of only a handful of diehards in defiance of policy and consensus. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Which is next?
Which other featured article is next to help finish the Factions Featured topic? Is it Covenant, Elite, or the Factions of Halo article itself? Wanted to know which one I should start looking over. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
In Soviet Halo, Issues of prose have been raised at this FAC (jbmurray at the bottom). I've given the article a full copyedit; if you could do any additional copyediting it would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, —Giggy14:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Conan's FAC
Hi, David. I have taken actions on your issues raised at Conan's FAC. The first two, I am asking for copyeditor AnnaFrance's input. For the others, I have rewrote the relevant article text. Please take a look and check if the changes improved the article. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, David. Sorry to bother you again, but I noticed that you have struck off your Criteria 1 issues except for the third, which is regarding the sentence "However, if players block just when an enemy is about to hit the barbarian...". I removed the "However" and marked the issue done, but it was not struck. Was this intended, or is further action required for that sentence? In addition, what are your opinions over the article's suitability to be an FA? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, David. I have replied and taken actions to your concerns in the FAC. Regarding the lead, I would like your opinion to my response (and hopefully others can weigh in). Note that I am in agreement with your stance of "citations being redundant in the lead", but had to put them in because other editors requested for them (and the guidelines sort of supported them). Please take a look. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. I have dropped the trailing clause entirely. Hopefully, there will be no requests for citations in the lead for this version of text. How does the article look now? Jappalang (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Note
Your distinguished research ability, hard working and pleasant attitude has readers like me in awe. I've been coming across your work while reading FAC nominations and I'm really thankful that there are people like you here who continue to improve wikipedia's content in such a fine and efficient manner. Keep up the great work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.142.184 (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Questionable Content
Hi David, regarding your edits in this series of diffs, I wanted to raise two issues. First, in several instances, you replace full citations with "[[#qc archive|Jacques, Jeph]]." and a link to a QC strip. These "#qc archive" links go nowhere...were you trying to link to the lower generic citation? Second, you changed "work" to "publisher" in a couple of places, and I believe this to be inappropriate (not a big deal, of course, but not correct). The publisher is the company sponsoring or financially responsible for the publication, whereas the work is the publication itself. For example, this article is part of the work DailyCollegian.com, which is published by the University of Massachusetts (or possibly College Publisher, depending on how you look at it). Because the actual publisher isn't always known (or, as in this case, somewhat obfuscated), it is best to use the work field rather than publisher, and write in the website URL or publication title. Clear as mud? ;) — Huntster (t • @ • c)20:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
