This is an archive of past discussions with User:Krator. 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.
I would indeed like to nominate it for deletion; however, I am not sure how to do that as it would be a second nomination. Would you be so kind as to help with formatting a second nomination as I do not know how to do that? My nomination rationale is as follows: As a member of the Kindness Campaign and Welcoming Committee, I strongly believe that "kind" and "welcoming" language are necessary in discussions among editors as members of a community. I therefore whole heartedly agree with Verdatum that "cruft" is "needlessly agressive and needlessly insults the contributors" and that it "also gives the impression that the invoker is on a quest to remove all detail related to various fandoms. This forces the dissenting arguer into an aggressively defensive position which hinders communication and impedes WP:Civil discussion." Use of this term has even spawned single purpose accounts and projects that work at such ends (see for example Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Fancruft). Thus, I believe that Wikipedia:Fancruft, Wikipedia:Cruft, Wikipedia:Listcruft, and Wikipedia:GAMECRUFT should all also be deleted in the interest of fostering more pleasant and constructive discussions. There are more on point and more tactful ways of making the same argument without using this particularly unfortunate word. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!02:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Hopefully, the discussion will encourage editors to seriously think of a more polite way to engage with others in the relevant AfDs and clean up discussions. I don't want to see us lose potentially good editors by having them insulted due to use of an unnecessary word. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!16:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I was advised by User:Jappalang to get a dedicated and capable copyeditor to go over the Crash of the Titans article (currently a GA) and help get it to A-Class or Featured Article, and you seem to fit the criteria. Sorry if you're busy, but could you go over it, sometime? Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Your further comments would be greatly appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Break for attention. I fear another no consensus result, which would not be helpful as we already have a list class in use that has not been approved. Either it needs to be not used or approved, but this current situation seems totally undesirable. I have made a proposal for a basic list class which I hope will meet your approval. Please note that {{List-Class}} is accessible in our project's template be default (as is any -Class template), and Category:List-Class video game articles exists, so to not use it we'd need a CfD and special coding in our template, which would require a consensus. Thanks! JohnnyMrNinja10:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The traditional rfa thank you message
Thank you for the support!
Krator/Archive/2008, it is my honor to report that thanks in part to your support my third request for adminship passed (80/18/2). I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me, and I will endeovour to put my newly acquired mop and bucket to work for the community as a whole. Yours sincerly and respectfuly, TomStar81 (Talk) 03:30, 9 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.
