User talk:ImaginesTigers/Archives/2021/January

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited League of Legends, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Warhammer. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

ImaginesTigers,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! Le Panini ^[🥪] 23:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

---

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Your GA nomination of The Turn of the Screw

The article The Turn of the Screw you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Turn of the Screw for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Just popped past to say a quick thanks for your short and sharp analysis of the sources at this particularly contentious AfD; it really cut through to the heart of the matter. Cracking work!! Cheers, --Jack Frost (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Jack Frost. Really nice of you to do this. It was getting really, really messy, and the responses were all over the place. Lots of people citing WP this WP that and talking past one another. Really appreciate being told that it made a difference. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Million Award for The Turn of the Screw

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring The Turn of the Screw (estimated annual readership: 1,400,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Reidgreg! Means a lot. — — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Riot Games

On 19 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Riot Games, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when Riot Games approached investors to fund the development of League of Legends, publishers were baffled by the game's free-to-play business model? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Riot Games. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Riot Games), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

On comprehensiveness and FAC

I saw your comment and wanted to chime in. When I started getting into FAC land, I thought it meant I had to get my hands on every single source pretty much that covered the topic. Don't do that!! Instead, try to pattern on a similar article that is already FA / and/or work from a tertiary source that gives a brief introduction to the subject, fleshing it out with high-quality secondary sources. Once you fill out the article to 10,000 words or so, then you can be done, unless it later becomes clear that it's unbalanced. (t · c) buidhe 23:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey, buidhe. Nah—I'd never do that. My training is literary criticism so I'm good at distilling the good from the less good. What I understand less is where the threshold is on what I include. If you look at my sandbox, you can see what I'm writing from scratch right now for my current project. I could add more content to Influences ad infinitum, and right now I'm trying to determine if it’s enough. I mention Carmilla, but what about Varney? How much detail do I go into about the influences here, versus when I write about Stoker's research (and what came of it) in the section called "Composition". 10,000 words also seems like a lot. Is that including references? League is 3,700, and I don't consider it big, exactly, but it seems about right for an overview of a subject like that. I wouldn't expect or want Dracula to go too far over that (maybe 5k tops). 10,000 words seems like I would have to be really, really in-depth—more than summary style allows. Right now I'm thinking that, for a topic like this, if someone isn't at the top of their field, their criticism shouldn't be in the article. I think I'm going in the total opposite direction of what you described—I'm being incredibly restrictive as to whose views are being presented; they must have already been thoroughly vetted. I know a lot of topics obviously don't have that luxury (not the case for 120 year old novels). What do you think? — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Somewhere around 8,000—10,000 words is about what WP:SIZERULE recommends, although I agree that many topics are better served with a parsimonious approach that keeps it shorter. And if you can cover it in sufficient depth, including all significant viewpoints with fewer words that's obviously better!

I don't do much literary stuff, mostly articles on historical topics where the topic won't be understandable to the average reader without a considerable amount of background information and detail on what happened, how and why. Your article on League of Legends would obviously need to be longer to incorporate information on the general development in videogame technology that enabled the game to be created, how other countries reacted to the game, and what people did after they stopped playing it :) (t · c) buidhe 23:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Per Ref Desk: biographical material about Bram Stoker, as discussed

Hi, ImaginesTigers, the following is what I can glean relevant to your purpose. My own clarifications, etc. are in square brackets.

I suppose a possible question is: how much of a Reliable Source are Sylvia Starshine (known to me as a critic and artist from SF fandom blogs, conventions etc.) and/or Pumpkin Press – I leave that to you. The book itself is listed in Stoker’s entry in the authoritative The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, as is her book Where the Bodies are Buried (The Alchemy Press, Birmingham [England], 2000) under Kim Newman’s entry. She herself has an entry in the Internet Speculative Fiction Database, and readily appears when web-searched.

Dracula: or The Un-Dead, a Play in Prologue and Five Acts by Bram Stoker. Edited and annotated by Sylvia Starshine, Pumpkin Books, MeG Enterprises, Nottingham [England], October 1997 [not 1897!] ISBN 901914 03 8 (Limited Edition), 1 901914 04 6 (Trade Hardback Edition, £16.99)

Quotes from Introduction (pp xv–xxxvii) by Sylvia Starshine 26th May 1997.

pp xviii–xix [Following a lengthy description of Stoker’s considerable duties and activities on behalf of Irving and The Lyceum] . . . On his [Stoker’s] own behalf, he penned articles on the theatre and his experiences in America, wrote short stories for periodicals and produced a succession of books which met with varied critical comment from the reading public. The subject matter ranged from the technical Duty of Petty Clerks [earlier mentioned on p xv as The Duties of Clerks of Petty Sessions in Ireland], to romantic thrillers such as Watter’s Mou and The Shoulder of Shasta (both 1895) and the fantastic Under the Sunset (1882), a collection loosely based on the family stories told by his mother.

His seventh novel* [referring to The Un-Dead, later Dracula] began pretty much like the rest . . .

[*book, rather, since of the preceeding 6 volumes, one was a textbook, one a story collection and one what we might call a travelogue.]

p xx . . . he took it upon himself to adapt the book [Dracula] for the stage to secure a performance copyright — a measure he was also to take for his next novel, Miss Betty (1898), shortly before the disastrous fire which destroyed the Lyceum scenery stores.

Starshine's Appendix C, pp. 274-275

1897 Duties of Clerks of Perry Sessions in Ireland. Office of the Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks, Ireland. 1882 Under the Sunset (Illustrated by W Fitzgerald and W V Cockburn), Sampson Low, Marston, Searle & Rivington, London. 1886 A Glimpse of America. Sampson Low & Co., London. 1891 The Snake’s Pass. Sampson Low & Co., London. 1895 The Shoulder of Shasta. Archibald Constable & Co., Westminster. 1895 The Watter’s Mou. Acme Library, London. 1897 Dracula, A Tale. Archibald Constable & Co., Westminster. 1898 Miss Betty. Latter day Stories No. 1., Latterday & Sons, London. 1902 The Mystery of the Sea. William Heinemann, London. 1903 Jewel of the Seven Stars. William Heinemann, London. 1905 The Man. William Heinemann, London. 1906 Personal Reminiscences of Henry Irving. Two volumes. William Heinemann, London. 1908 Lady Athaline. William Heinemann, London. 1908 Snowbound, the Record of a Theatrical Touring Party. Collier & Co., London. 1909 The Lady of the Shroud. William Heinemann, London. 1910 Famous Imposters. Sidgwick & Jackson, London. 1911 The Lair of the White Worm. William Rider & Son, London. 1914 Dracula’s Guest. George Routledge & Son, London.

I hope this helps. Please note that I choose not to have an Account, and my IP is (now) dynamic, but I do monitor the Ref Desks almost daily, so if you want any further clarification just post there and I'll doubtless see it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.40.9 (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this! I'm not sure if you'll see it, but know that it is helpful. I'll have to investigate Starshine—she hasn't come up in my reading thus far—and I'm looking forward to it. Thanks again! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

You're very welcome :-) . {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.40.9 (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you help me with something?

Hey, Tigers. Or should I call you Imagine? IT? nesTi? Whatever.

So, this file [1] is an image of Kensuke Tanabe, the producer of Paper Mario: The Origami King (yes, this conversation is about my FAC), and it is a much better image than this [2] image, which was on the article previously. The image reviewer (David Fuchs) wants the first image to be cropped to only be Tanabe, and not with the two other guys. He suggested cropping out the two people and using that for the article. I don't have access to Wikimedia Commons, and can't crop and re-upload the image myself. So I was wondering if you could do it for me? If you can, I'll exchange one favor point, which you can cash in and I'll do something in return (like, DYK review, PR, etc.) Le Panini ^[🥪] 20:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Le Panini: No QPQ needed. Bear with and I'll see what I can do :) Most people call me Tigers, because it is a noun (but I have been referring to you as both your noun and your foreign-language definite article, so YMMV) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Le Panini: Here you go. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! You have earned yourself one favor point. I'll keep tally on my user page. Le Panini ^[🥪] 21:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Le Panini: I just looked at the FAC, and it looks like Fuchs actually wanted this to be cropped? I think the one that's (I assume) now on the page is better than cropping that one, but I did notice that it wasn't the one he pointed to. Still, there'll be no licensing issues with either. If you accidentally sent the wrong one, I can change it tomorrow. PS. Thank you! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

ImaginesTigers, I now need that same image, but ANOTHER cropped version of THAT to just be a profile shot. Mind landing a hand? Again... Panini^🥪 21:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Panini!: Everyone has access to Commons! You can do this. Log into Commons with your Wikimedia account (it should be global), then use this crop tool. Careful not to override the original image, and just label it as a crop :) I'd do it for you, but let's get you ready to tackle that bizarre region known as Wikimedia Commons—it'll make your life easier in the long run! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 06:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Blood of the Vampire

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Blood of the Vampire you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vaticidalprophet -- Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Blood of the Vampire

The article The Blood of the Vampire you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Blood of the Vampire for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vaticidalprophet -- Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

FAC

Hi ImaginesTigers, that's just the point, the 9 supports are not relevant now the co-ords don't have it the way they prefer it. Every item in question is already linked to an article, always has been. This article is just being treated differently to all the others, and I'm not going to be part of kowtowing to the personal objections of one or two individuals when the community consensus quite clearly content with the status quo. It's a form out supervote. Cheers for your interest though. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I wrote out a big spiel but just deleted all of it. I'm sorry, man. I agree with some of their suggestions—away goals hanging there didn't make sense to me, for example. But I get your frustration with other articles not having the same rigour applied to them completely. I find it hard to navigate comprehensiveness and conciseness versus clean, professional prose sometimes. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, it's only my article(s) which are now coming under such scrutiny. But much more importantly, it's only my articles which have nine supports and yet the co-ords have decided that a couple of phrases written in plain English and linked are insufficiently comprehensible. There's little logic in there, most Americans have never heard of association football for example, and I would wager my mortgage that the same people complaining about away goals rule could not tell me what is meant by a corner or dribbling or volley. I'm afraid this is dumbing down precisely at the cost of professional and encyclopedic writing. Some of the suggestions for alternative text are so bad that it's time to walk away. If nine supports from the community is insufficient in this case while four is sufficient for an article literally packed with unexplained Latin terms, there's no hope left. Oh, and nothing was "hanging", everything I wrote was in plain English and linked. And ironically has been just fine for the past half-dozen FACs. Just no more it would seem. Never mind, at least I know where I stand. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I'm sorry — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

On nervous tension

Of course, if you feel that you absolutely have to do something on Wikipedia, you could always review my current FAC,Battle of Inverkeithing. Obviously, if time or interest doesn't permit, don't worry about it. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I promised Lee a review a few weeks back, too, and just haven't found the time for it. I'll try my best to give them both a review before Monday, but I can't promise a sweeping source review or anything :( I spend all day reading and researching and by the time it gets to 9PM, I'm just too tired to do anything on-wiki. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

ImaginesTigers, don't worry about it. I am happy to "bank" it for some future date. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Once I feel more comfortable with the dissertation's progress, I'll be contributing more regularly but it’s just too hard to juggle the diss + my (huge) reading list for my other class. My activity always dips massively in term time, unfortunately. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)