User talk:Rhain

talk

2011 · 2012 · 2013 · 2014
2015 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2016 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2017 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2018 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2019 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2020 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2021 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2022 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2023 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2024 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)

newsletters

... image: John Robert McPherson

GTA VI editing conflict[edit]

It appears I got into a edit war over on the article for GTA VI. While I feel like I the changes I made to the article were pretty minor other editors may not feel that way. I hope you have a great day! Ric36 (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Planet of Giants source[edit]

So article of Planet of Giants states that "a recreation of the original third and fourth episodes using newly recorded dialogue and animation based on the original scripts" this is sourced to:

pages 126-127 of Wright, Mark, ed. (2016) "The Sensorites, The Reign of Terror and Planet of Giants". Doctor Who: The Complete History

This claim is repetead in List of actors who have played the Doctor which attributes the narration for the Doctor to John Guilor without a source. I was wondering if you knew, or if you still had access to the book, could check the relevent pages of the source too see if John Guilor is mentioned by name, if so it could be used for the list so I can get it to FL status. I ask you as you were the one to add the information and source to the page. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant: Page 127 mentions Guilor's involvement in the recreation, but it doesn't specifically state that he played the Doctor. That being said, it's definitely true (see this video). Here are two other refs that specifically mention Guilor's role as the Doctor:

Ainsworth, John, ed. (2016). "The Day of the Doctor and The Time of the Doctor". Doctor Who: The Complete History. 75 (10). London: Panini Comics, Hachette Partworks: 66. ISSN 2057-6048.
Wright, Mark (September 2012). Spilsbury, Tom (ed.). "Planet of Giants". Doctor Who Magazine. No. 450. Panini Comics. p. 91. ISSN 0957-9818.

– Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Daleks' Master Plan[edit]

The article The Daleks' Master Plan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Daleks' Master Plan for comments about the article, and Talk:The Daleks' Master Plan/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pokelego999 -- Pokelego999 (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox awards list note[edit]

Hi,

The template documentation says the nomination count excludes wins. Is it wrong to point that out? Also, isn't it normal to follow the template guidelines? Additionally, see this talk Wikipedia:Teahouse#Awards nominations count. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anoopspeaks: If it's stated in the template documentation, then the articles should follow suit (though, notably, that was only added more than a year after the template was created), but many articles don't, so it would be contradictory to add it to all of them. If you think the note is necessary, perhaps it can be added as an optional parameter, so you can activate it wherever it's needed, but I think wider consensus is required before adding it to all 1,300+. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhain A note is necessary as the documentation says it excludes wins. Otherwise, it will be confusing to readers when they see different articles treating it differently. Also, I am surprised that the clause was not removed from the template documentation, considering the majority use it as you mentioned. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anoopspeaks: I think different articles treating it differently is exactly the reason why it could be added as an optional parameter, so it can be activated on articles that follow the documentation. I'm surprised the clause hasn't been removed too; it might be worth starting a discussion about it, since it seems most editors miss that part. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

[reply]

@Rhain I had added the notes as optional, but updating the documents requires discussion, I think. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas[edit]

Greetings! It was very nice to see how you improved the article about GTA: SA to GA. I'm from the Russian wikipedia and I'm very interested in where you got the following sources from:

"Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas". GamesTM (15). Paragon Publishing: 66–77. July 2004.

Young, Richie (July 2004). "And Then There Were Three". PlayStation 2 Official Magazine – Australia (29). Future plc: 35–50.

Pierce, Stephen (July 2004). "GTA: San Andreas". Official UK PlayStation 2 Magazine (48). Future plc: 35–49.

Best, Timothy C. (June 2005). "Welcome to the Jungle". PC PowerPlay (113). Future plc: 52–59.

Slate, Chris, ed. (August 2004). "Seeing Is Believing!". PSM (87). Future plc: 54–61.

McNamara, Andy, ed. (June 2004). "Rising in the West". Game Informer. Vol. 14, no. 134. pp. 42–51.

Price, Tom (June 2005). Smith, Rob (ed.). "The Prodigal Gangster Returns". Official Xbox Magazine. No. 45. Future plc. pp. 36–45. ISSN 1534-7850.

Davison, John, ed. (October 2004). "Gangster Construction Set". Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine. No. 85. Ziff Davis. pp. 48–49.

Zuniga, Todd (November 2004). Davison, John (ed.). "GTA: San Andreas". Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine. No. 86. Ziff Davis. pp. 40–41.

Zuniga, Todd (November 2004). Hsu, Dan (ed.). "Upping the Ante". Electronic Gaming Monthly. No. 184. Ziff Davis. pp. 112–122.

Maybe not all the sources are here, but if possible I will write to you. M.lebedev (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@M.lebedev: Thanks for reaching out! I'm happy to help. I accessed a lot of these sources through the Internet Archive repository linked on the talk page. Here are the specific refs you're after:

Please don't hesitate to reach out if you need anything else! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's so nice to have these sources at your fingertips. I searched the Internet Archive myself, but to no avail.

I already wanted to take something from the Portuguese article, but in my opinion, 30-50% of the information there is superfluous. And you have everything straight from the most basic and plausible sources. M.lebedev (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]