Step by Step (Braxe + Falcon song) is something I've put up at FAC, and I was wondering if you'd check the contents of the article out real quick for any stuff that prospective reviewers may be critical of. Thank you as always for your time in looking at things I've written! And, as it's been generally that time 'round the world, Happy New year. BarntToust01:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year! I'm about halfway through the first day of 2025 already, and it's not half bad so far. I'll have a look at the article shortly, and I look forward to seeing its gold star before long. – Rhain☔ (he/him)01:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Rhain, and a belated happy New Year! It's been a long time coming, but I've finally brought this article to GAN and I would love to have you as a reviewer again. This time around, I'd also be more than happy to return the favor and pick up something of yours that's pending review if you'd like. No pressure on either of those, of course. Let me know what you think, and I hope you're doing well! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand it's quite a hefty review to be taking on (7303 words as of the last edit?!), so take all the time you need. Very much looking forward to working with you again! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know I've done this before, but you're no less deserving of this bling the second time around! If anything, you seem to have outdone yourself with a review of even deeper inquiry and even finer attention to detail. Thank you, as always, for raising the bar and continuing to inspire me to do better in my editorial work. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I have outdone myself, it's only because you have done the same, and the high quality of the work demands a review seeking equal depth. Thank you for your kind words, and for continuing the raise the bar on Wikipedia. – Rhain☔ (he/him)04:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you can but can you help with expanding [1]? Also, I think the main Bethesda Softworks article can be considered a B class, not C. What do you think? I've been expanding it for quite some time. Timur9008 (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I can't provide much assistance with expansion, sorry. The article is certainly approaching B-class, though some sections (especially the 1990s to 2010s) could use some work to avoid proseline. When you're ready, you can tag the article for reassessment by adding the parameter |reassess=y to the {{WikiProject Video games}} banner as detailed here. – Rhain☔ (he/him)04:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Rhain. I have noticed you are major contributor to the L.A. Noire-related articles. I wanted to ask your opinion about the possibility of promoting Characters of L.A. Noire to good article status. What, in your opinion, do you believe would need to be done to achieve this? I thought replacing the primary sources with secondary ones would be a first step, but do such sources exist? Many thanks, Mr Sitcom (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr Sitcom: Funnily enough, I was thinking about this article recently too. I think it would be relatively easy to get it through a good article review, but I'm not too sure it deserves it. Its mostly written in-universe, and most of the remaining information is duplicative of the main article (and the rest could easily be merged). In all honesty, it's probably due for a merge more than a promotion. – Rhain☔ (he/him)06:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's rather a shame to lose a B-class article. But I suppose it's for the best (it'll make the main article even better). Thanks for the reply! :) Mr Sitcom (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have time to look over an article?
Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film) has been one of those current articles I've sort of shepherded along, and it's a ways out from GA nom-ability given it's not had home media, and there will be accolades to add in. Figured I'd ask you for your thoughts on how it's going so far. Thanks again, Rhain! BarntToust21:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Policy says Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail the changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent, so a recent edit to Music of The Last of Us brought up an MOS:DEADNAME issue with a journalist who reviewed the Last of Us. Figured I'd let you know such that you could take a look through the topic to make corrections as pertinent. Instances of Jim Sterling should be changed to James Stephanie Sterling throughout the topic. I'm not all informed in policy about dealing with this sort of touchy subject so I figured I'd let you know about this given that this went unnoticed this long on that article. BarntToust13:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I'm well aware of the guideline (though I'm not sure I'd call it an "issue"). It didn't really go unnoticed either, to be fair; I knew it was there, but Sterling continued to use her former name in a lot of scenarios, so the articles did too. LaffyTaffer has already changed all instances of Sterling's name in prose, as far as I can see. – Rhain☔ (he/him)21:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question about lists article
Hello Rhain. I've already considered targeting GT for Resident Evil characters, but I believe I have a problem with this since, although certain RE games overlap, the reception and development information don't. Could I perhaps update the article or change List of Resident Evil characters to concentrate solely on the first original Resident Evil (1996) game? Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 07:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Development and reception information don't necessarily need to overlap for the article to work; you'd just need to ensure each individual section is fleshed out. It's a pretty big deal to change an article's scope entirely, so definitely make sure it's discussed with other regular editors on the talk page. If you think there's enough information about the first game's characters specifically to justify a split but don't want to change the existing article's scope, you could consider something like List of Resident Evil (1996 video game) characters instead, though I'm an advocate for expanding the original article first and only splitting summary style when size demands. – Rhain☔ (he/him)08:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I was actually aiming for the easier way and thought that moving this one to RE1 characters would be good idea. Oh well. Thank you for explaining. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 08:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an inherently bad idea—I'm not familiar enough with the series to make a judgement. If you're targeting a GT for the series's characters, though, I think it makes sense for the parent article to cover them overall (as it does now), rather than one specific game. – Rhain☔ (he/him)09:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In order to be a bit easier, I did remove the non-notable character or character that only appeared in a single game. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 09:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It can be useful to briefly run through their appearances if relevant to the character, but it might be beneficial to avoid too much detail (as in the Uncharted list), especially if the character has their own article; the section should be more of a summary. – Rhain☔ (he/him)23:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing the table width issue with the 2022 doctor who specials and the list of episodes. Might I ask what the visual difference(is there one?) is, bcs I can't see it, and the editor I have asked again and again prefers to be repetitive and passive-aggressive. Just wanna know, in case a similar issue ever comes up. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoctorWhoFan91: Happy to help! The primary issue was that the table width didn't actually equal 100%, which made it inconsistent with the other tables; it's pretty much impossible to spot visually, as the table still stretches to 100% on most screen widths, but I think the consistency is important.The main visual clue was the other columns: by removing one without adjusting the width, the others become inconsistent. You can see it here—the 2022 specials columns don't line up with the other tables. The "UK viewers" and "AI" columns are typically 9% and 6% width, respectively; my edit made the 2022 "UK viewers" column 15% when transcluded (to make up for the lack of "AI"), so all the others display at their regular width. Hope that makes sense! – Rhain☔ (he/him)08:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I see now, thank you! I would have done the change myself, but couldn't see what the issue was. Also, thank you for trimming the lead of the list of episodes. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question- if I ever have any questions about some edit, can I ask you? I'm gonna stop interacting with the passive-aggressive editor, so I need someone to ask questions to, in case I don't understand any of their complaints, and asking too many people feels like it might be counted as canvassing. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
