User talk:ClarkJ FAB

CS1 error on Flesh and Blood (card game)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Flesh and Blood (card game), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "generic title" error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Flesh and Blood (card game)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Flesh and Blood (card game), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi ClarkJ FAB! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Tacyarg (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Hi, thanks for your message on my Talk page. You're right that it was I who put the templates "primary sources" and "overly detailed" on the article Flesh and Blood (card game). Regarding primary sources, looking at the list of references, the majority are to the company's own website. This is a WP:PRIMARY source. Are there any WP:SECONDARY sources that are also reliable with which you could replace them?

Examples of "overly detailed" (I haven't looked to see if it was you or another editor that added this specific content): the article lists a lot of individual announcements from the company, sometimes several in a month (eg three for October 2020). My feeling is that all these are unlikely to be notable enough to be included in the article. The current version of the article also summarises 8 reviews of the game. These could be summed up without giving the detail from each (something like "reviews were generally positive with some writers comparing it to MTG"). The detail of charity work by the company (under Outreach) looks like run-of-the-mill coverage that should not be included.

And I guess the big one for me is the level of detail included in the tables. All the booster sets, the card legality tables, the events - I don't think these help the reader to understand what is really notable about this game. It doesn't help that in my computer display some of the tables require scrolling to the right to read in full, and that the sourcing is generally not independent (that is, it is primary sourcing).

Having said that - I'm not an expert on the content and format of gaming-related articles on Wikipedia, and I see that WP:WikiProject Games is inactive. You might want to ask at the Teahouse for better-informed guidance.

Best wishes, and thanks for your contributions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just spotted that some sentences are copy-pasted from the referenced sources. Please don't do this. I have pasted on the Talk page about it. I will also put a notice on your Talk page about copyright. Tacyarg (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And have now seen that the relevant project is WP:WikiProject Board and table games, which is active and would be a great place for you to get support if you want to improve the article. Tacyarg (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your coaching, I really appreciate it. I am a details-oriented person, perhaps to a fault. I totally get the point on copyright - that was my mistake and I don't think you'll find many instances of it. My intentions were to not misrepresent that information. I ended up violating copyright. Oops.

Regarding your point about the detail in the tables not helping the reader to understand what is notable about this game. Well, part of my intention (possibly misguided intention?) was to do much much more than just reveal what is notable. The purpose (or co-purpose) of the article in my mind was to also record the history of the worldwide competitive tournament results all in one aggregated place. It needs to be primary sourcing because there's no other way to cite the information. Would zero sourcing be better than primary sourcing?

Where do you recommend I go from here? How long do I have to respond to the issues you noted ? (Does something happen if those templates remain on the page for too long?) ClarkJ FAB (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I'd say if there are no independent sources for the results, perhaps Wikipedia isn't the right place for them. As for timescales - Wikipedia has no deadline so no, the templates can just stay until the issues are resolved (by which I mean any editor can remove them at any time if they think they are resolved, and any editor can add them back if they disagree). As for where you go from here - I think I'd reach out to the WikiProject, and also have a look at any game-related articles which have been rated Good, and see if you can see how this article can be improved in line with those. There is a list in the Showcase section of the WikiProject. I'd normally say discuss on the article's Talk page too, and I know you have, but I'm not sure we will get a lot of input that way as it's a lower-visibility article. Thanks for the thought you are putting in to the article. Tacyarg (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello ClarkJ FAB! Your additions to Flesh and Blood (card game) have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tacyarg (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MTG Stuff

Just to move the discussion, part of the problem with some of the MTG stuff is that it will almost certainly be a project of its own. F&B fairly small in terms of page material. MTG has quite a bit more to work with. Even if it was just the MTG expansion sets alone, that would be quite a bit of work. I'm not opposed to hard work, but there's a lot here. Some of the pages here shouldn't even exist, to be honest. But that ends up being an entire process on its own. It doesn't help at all that we have a page of each individual core set (for the most part) and a page that combines all of the core sets.

Then you have stuff like the Power Nine. That article could easily be cut down a lot and, from a more neutral perspective, talk about the price of the cards, judging by what sources have said.

The best move here is to probably post what you think on the the relevant project page. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 21:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can probably sense my frustration. You delete all my work, with no consideration for thoughtful trimming. So when I ask you why you don't Select+All and Delete the identical MTG content on the corresponding MTG pages, your answer is more nuanced saying it would be a lot of work. The pages that "shouldn't exist"? Delete them in full, as you did with the FAB content. Again, I'm not challenging your assertion that the content is not appropriate. I'm challenging you to apply your editorial standard equally. You need to at this point, to prove you're not biased. I'm willing to wait as I understand wikipedia moderation is unlikely to be your highest priority. If too much time passes and the MTG pages remain unchanged (undeleted), I will followup with you and if still no MTG deletions are made, I will probably also restore the FAB content again. MTG is the flagship of the Trading Card Game hobby. It would undermine wikipedia's neutrality to allow certain content types to appear on wikipedia for MTG that are not allowed for other card games. ClarkJ FAB (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been through this with other editors before. Unfortunately, what you are describing here:

Again, I'm not challenging your assertion that the content is not appropriate. I'm challenging you to apply your editorial standard equally. You need to at this point, to prove you're not biased...If too much time passes and the MTG pages remain unchanged (undeleted), I will follow up with you and if still no MTG deletions are made, I will probably also restore the FAB content again.

Isn't really the best content moderation strategy. I'm not the only one who has had grievances with the content of the F&B article. I am, however, the one who pulled the trigger. The reason why most of the material has been removed was because it was from the game's website. It isn't a neutral source and isn't the best source to determine whether or not the material should be included. Wikipedia is built on whether or not material can be verified. Sources must be independent. No matter how important anyone thinks it is.

Content that is poorly sourced, unsourced, controversial or otherwise inappropriate should be removed. This isn't a controversial opinion at all.

As for deleting those articles, that's a much different process. You can read on how to nominate articles for deletion and all that. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 00:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you. You don't need to justify your actions. I just want to hold you accountable for moderating equitably, in the name of neutrality. Exact same types of content in two places. If you delete in one place, you're favoring the other place if you leave it stand. ClarkJ FAB (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is wrong. I could very easily never edit an MTG article. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 01:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be unevenly exercising editorial discretion, leaving a clear bias in your wake ClarkJ FAB (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]