This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sephiroth BCR. 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.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I should have done this a while ago just to create an 'identity' for myself. I think yours stands out a lot, especially because it's Verdana and that's a big font :) I originally had no space in between, but added it after finding that people might search for my name on Talk pages using 'Gary King' in their browser's 'Find' feature, and adding a space would let them find me. If I wanted to, I could add the space then hide it using fancy CSS, but that would require too many characters that I don't think I have enough of. GaryKing(talk)19:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I've made a new user page layout. The toughest problem is that I'm making the layout for 1024x768 screens but my own screen is 1440x900, so it doesn't look as pleasing to me. 1024x768 is still the majority (I think?) so I'm making it for those guys! Regarding that, what screen size are you using? 1024x768? GaryKing(talk)22:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. Time constraints have been more prevalent lately. It's a rather time-consuming process to bring those lists up to par, but I'll get to it eventually. Sephiroth BCR(Converse)06:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The lead is one of the most important parts of any Wikipedia article; its job to summarize the article in 2 to 3 paragraphs in order to familiarize the reader with the structure of the content that you will providing them as well as to give a quick one-minute overview of the topic. Many articles that are processed through Good Article or Featured Article assessments will be heavily scrutinized for a poor lead section.
For articles dealing with video games, a common practice has developed for leads, being a 3-paragraph discussion.
First paragraph
The first paragraph should state the name of the game (using both bold (to identify the article's name) and italics as per the manual of style), along with any other alternate names the game may go by. The genre of the game should be clearly identified as well as the developer and the publisher. If a notable person has been cited by the game as having worked on the game's development (such as Tim Schafer or David Jaffe), this should also be noted. Release dates should be given, along with the release of any ports, remakes, or sequels.
Second paragraph
The second paragraph should summarize the plot briefly in one or two sentences; a high level overview is only needed to set the stage for further discussion. One or two sentences should be included to discuss the gameplay, including any notable features of the game.
Third paragraph
The third paragraph should cover the reception of the game, citing its general critical reaction and any significantly notable successful or failing elements in the game. If the game has won awards, this aspect can be noted, but specific mention of any award is discouraged.
This approach should help you to write a good lead for nearly any game, though this may need to be altered for other games. If there's not a lot of reception information for a game, it may be worthwhile to combine the listed first and third paragraphs into one paragraph. There may be need to talk more about an aspect not normally covered in video game articles (such as with E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600)) which should be noted in the lead.
Thoughts on if and when to run again for adminship?
I'm curious as to your thoughts on if and when I should run again for adminship? As I said before, the adminship was both a great place to see what I have been doing right here at Wikipedia, and also a wake-up call to see what I need to improve on. Thankfully, mainspace edits and civility were both not a concern; most of the concern lied with my understanding of policy. Fortunately, that is something that is not embedded deep within me and can be learned on and improved on, and of course, that's what I have been doing since the RFA ended. So, I'm curious as to whether or not I should run again? The mop would certainly be useful when I am content-editing — something I plan on being my main focus during my 'career' here at Wikipedia. I don't think I will see myself being a vandal-fighter; over long periods of time here, I will probably always be contributing content to Wikipedia, so admin tools will be secondary to real content. The tools would definitely be useful when they are needed, though — especially for non-controversial, maintenance work. I'd like my next RFA to focus on my content-building above everything else, and that's what I will be focusing on in my edits. Regarding the when for a future RFA, it'd preferably be this year :) But more specifically, the summer would be ideal, because that's when I would have the most free time to spare for the stress of an RFA. Any other time during the year would be extremely inconvenient — I may also be AFK for the last few months of the summer, meaning from July to September or so. Your thoughts? Cheers! GaryKing(talk)09:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to also mention that I have decided to start an Editor Review in a few weeks on myself, and ask for reviews from people who opposed my first nomination to see if I have improved or not, and what else could be improved. Hopefully the edits that I make from now until a future RFA convinces them that my edits have improved significantly :) GaryKing(talk)09:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky
Fellow member, can you move the article? It's pretty much the last Dragon Ball page, under the scope of WP:WPDB, titled under the "wrong" Japanese-translated name. See this discussion. BTW, I left a reply here in case you missed it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
With my poor "English-condensing" abilities I have been cleaning Shikamaru Nara in order to leave as good as Orochimaru (Naruto) or Gaara. However, the article would need some conception improvement and a grammar check to reception. i think that Naruto artbook may have some conception info of the character. Cheers.--Tintor2 (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I am finding now a days more reception of Itachi Uchiha and updating it in the draft. See "For me, Naruto has always been one of those shows that I'll watch on TV simply because it's on, but I don't know that I've ever felt a burning desire to pull out a DVD and rewatch an episode. However, these episodes are still amongst what I think are the “good” episodes, so if you're going to buy any Naruto boxset, this should be one of them. The villains are still exciting and frighteningly evil, and these episodes are still in the stage where plenty of character development is still happening. Sasuke's brother is really interesting, if only just for what his appearance reveals about Sasuke's past."[1]--Tintor2 (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
InuYasha
Hey. In the Goryomaru AfD you said "Judging from the number of these characters at WP:ANIME/D, the InuYasha articles could use a serious cleanup effort." Indeed it could if Template:InuYasha characters and Template:InuYasha are any indication. It seems like some of our biggest series, and some of our most potential FA/FT ones, are in the worse shape. InuYasha, Bleach, Fullmetal Alchemist, etc. Unfortunately, the parts I've tried to help clean up with seem to often be met with the main editors who dig in their heels about the need to follow MoS and Wikipedia guidelines. It would be good if the clean up task force discussed in the project gets formed and maybe revives the collaboration efforts as those big articles definitely need more than one editor for progress to get made. Collectonian (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Sephiroth, for your gracious editor review. :) Being new still, in some respects, I really didn't expect a review so positive. Also, in the past I have hesitated to install anti-vandal tools like TW and HUGGLE because I either didn't have the things necessary (like Opera or Firefox for Twinkle), or my operating system's too old to support Huggle; I have a ten year old computer running Windows Millenium Edition, unfortunately. I'm currently trying to install Lupin's tool, but I'm experiencing some difficulty, still. But, anyhow, thank you so much, and I'll be sure to keep up what I'm doing. :D Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚1501:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I actually want all of them deleted so can you look at them and decide? Any you're unsure of, I'll tag for deletion. Just let me know. Or are you unsure of all of them? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any thoughts on the situation with Abtract, part of which is documented on my talk page? He's showing a very bad tendency to edit war against consensus, usually doing 3-4 reverts then "stopping." He's seemed to avoid any blocks from the generosity of other editors in not reporting him and trying to work with him because he keeps promising to change. He's also be engaging in some incivility, particularly with User:Sesshomaru whom he has accused of stalking him. I've tried to talk to him, Redrocket has tried to talk to him, and LessHeard vanU attempted to mediate and correct as well. His responses are not showing any indication that he is going to change his behavior at all. I'm thinking the next step would be an WP:RFC/USER. Would that be correct? Collectonian (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Speaking frankly, he adopts an inclusionist stance that puts most inclusionists to shame - he believes that practically anything that's verifiable (even a lot of stuff that fails WP:NOT) belongs on Wikipedia, and his primary response to any form of criticism is that it's scaring new users away, which is, most of the time, not really relevant to the subject. He's even opposed people on RfAs because their !votes on AfDs are "delete" most of the time, ignoring the obvious fact that most of the articles that are sent to AfD do warrant deletion. That and he blames people that bring AfDs forward or !vote "delete" for not improving the article, even when he's pointed out that the burden of proof falls on the editors of the article, not the people bringing forth the AfDs. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. He's basically established himself as an "extremist" as you've put it, and your marked off post was basically spot-on. Sephiroth BCR(Converse)09:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe so, but I don't want to say something negative about my own adoptee unless I'm sure it's true. I'm not denying it, but I'm not saying it either.--chaser - t11:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I have argued to delete more articles than a good number of deletionists have argued to keep, so unless if you're willing to designate a good deal of those on the opposite side "extremist" as well, then calling me one is uneven. I believe that anything that's verifiable and passes what Wikipedia is belongs on Wikipedia, the paperless encyclopedia that combines general and specialized encyclopedias and alamanacs. We can oppose RfAs for whatever reason we want and as a major function of admins is closing deletion discussions, it is relevant to the community if the candidates have a bias one way or the other. How else can we assess how they will closes these discussions than by their participation in them? The fact is that many articles sent to AfD do not warrant deletion and those that I argue to keep do not, which is why a sizable number of articles sent to AfD are kept (they could not be kept if only I argued to keep them). The deletion policy suggests that editors make attempts to improve the article and discuss with its contributors before just bringing it to AfD, so the whole burden of proof claim is bunk. Finally, please note that even some deletionists have made my list of editors who said nice or supportive comments about me. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!13:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I missed the fun this weekend. It looks like the discussion has reached a consensus. I'll keep an eye on it though. (Guyinblack25talk15:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC))
Hello, Sephiroth BCR. You have new messages at Gary King's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The Gameplay section is a crucial component of a good video game article. Although it may be relatively easy for an experienced gamer to write such a section, care must be taken to maintain an appropriate focus and balance. The section should be written for readers with little or no knowledge of video gaming and should not be filled with detailed information about weapons, levels, or other such topics that are only of interest to the video gamer or that might be found in a game guide. Your goal for crafting a good section is to have people who have never picked up the game understand the basic mechanics. Do note, however, that it's safe to assume the reader has at least a minor knowledge of what a video game is.
This section often begins the body text after the lead, but is sometimes placed after the Plot section. Games with little or no story can cover the plot in the Gameplay section. When writing about a game, use your head and common sense about the ordering. Generally, start off with a broad stroke—is the game a RTS or an FPS, etc. Don't talk about why the gameplay is like it is; generally, that is better placed in the 'Development' section later on in the article.
Images can be added to better illustrate some aspects of gameplay. Generally, a single screenshot will suffice. Because of screenshots are non-free content, usage should be minimalised. Multiple images can be used, but all images should add something to the article beyond what the prose states. All non-free images require a fair use rationale to be used on Wikipedia.
Things to remember
Don't add in cruft about weapons, levels, and minute details of trivia; gameplay sections should serve as a primer to the game, not an exhaustive list of every facet of the game.
Don't use gaming jargon which can be confusing to readers, such as "NPC" or "MMORPG". If you use these terms, state the full name and the abbreviation the first time it appears. For example, "Halo is a first-person shooter, or FPS."
Wikilink! So you don't have to describe what a god game is, link it.
Talk about what makes the game different from others; if you only talk about why StarCraft is a real-time strategy game, then readers could just visit the article about the game genre and be better served.
First off, about Akatsuki. I know it was merge by consensus, but what bothered me was the fact that you did not even put in a merge tag before doing so. (which at least notifies other users who might come in to this and have their own say on the matter. Who the heck is gonna know that this was taking place on Akatsuki's Talk page?) So, in a way, that was merge without warning, which I believe is improper on this site, don't you think? ZeroGiga (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Admin coaching
I'm looking to become an admin, but I feel like I've still got a long way to go before I'm ready. I noticed on the coach status page that you have one student already but that you could take on one more. I was wondering if you would coach me? I came to you instead of placing my name on the list because I've worked with you on articles before. Please let me know what your response is when you have the chance. Thank you. --Eruhildo (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
