Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines: "Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 kB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." – this talk page is 212.8 kB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I nominated Kiruko to GA. It's kinda small in comparison to the other Mega Man X you reviewed in the past so I wonder if you could review it if you have the time since the current nominator is busy. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Pokelego999. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Corporal Echo, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Copyvio is only a portion of the draft and there are non-copyvio revisions in the history. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need coverage from significant reliable sources to illustrate real-world impact, such as in the form of Reception or analysis. Most of your sourcing was Wikipedia:ROUTINE coverage and press releases, as well as a few Wikipedia:PRIMARY citations. You need more significant secondary coverage to meet notability. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy ah, I apologize, I had no idea about the prior nomination. I'm admittedly unsure if I can "uncreate" an article, so I'd just tag it for Speedy. From a glance over the sources it appeared to meet bare notability guidelines, but if the recent AfD's consensus stated it should be deleted, I will agree with their assessment. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait wait wait, what’s happening? I wrote the whole thing from scratch last night, I didn’t even have the article logs on me. I had snippets that I had edited myself, but the whole article was written from nothing. I was told by User:Liz I should follow the AfC process and submit a draft when the deletion review gets endorsed. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 15:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sirfurboy, I spent the whole last night improving the article. I didn’t have the old article on me when I wrote it up. I asked User:Liz what I should do and followed all the steps. The only part I copied was the Controversy part, which I copied from the Troy Baker article. Everything else was rewritten from scratch. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 15:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Click the contest speedy deletion. An admin will compare what you have against the orginal (which I don't have). If they are indeed substantially different, then the admin will decline speedy deletion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are substantially different -- the only thing that I "borrowed" was the names of the sections (Features, In popular culture), but even in the original article I was the one who changed "Impact" to "In popular culture". GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 15:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I guess I borrowed the formatting for the characters list, but I mean, how else am I supposed to format that list? And the quoting of reporters in the "Reception" part, but again, those are literal quotes. I even made sure to not use the same quote for certain authors because I was afraid that it was going to be mistaken as the original version of the article. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 15:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glancing over your contribs right now and that seems to check out. I'm admittedly unsure of things myself since I was not privy to the deletion discussion and am unable to access the original article, so I'll leave this in the hands of an admin who can properly compare revision histories. I had no idea about any of this, so I'm very sorry about the trouble for both parties here. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It's no problem, and I understand the confusion. The AfD was considered a "delete" because the discussion was derailed, so my new sources weren't considered in the discussion. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 15:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did advise the editor that the proper way to respond to an article that had been deleted in an AFD was to write a brand new draft and submit it to AFC. But this was if the article was deleted in an AFD and not in the middle of a Deletion review. I think this was restored too quickly as the AFD was just closed.
As an AFC reviewer though I think you need to check the AFD archives and see if a version of the article had been reviewed and deleted. It's important that a new version of an AFD-deleted article doesn't have the same problems that the previous version had. Otherwise, a new trip to AFD or a CSD G4 tagging is likely. LizRead!Talk!02:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz per the above I had no idea of either discussion. It was not my intention to accept something that was currently under heavy debate. Could you clarify about deletion logs? I've been told during the course of this whole thing that AFC apparently notifies about if articles had previously gone through deletion processes, but I did not see anything while I was reviewing 15.ai's article. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis the images in the "Music" section featuring Masuda, Fox, and Sheeran. It got posted on Twitter and circulated as a meme image for a few days due to how surreal those three people together is. The image even wound up in a friend group Discord I was in without them knowing it was my edit, which was very funny to see. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spread the Christmas spirit by adding {{subst:User:Matty.007/template/Christmas}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message. If everyone who got this put it on two talk pages, we would have... lots of Christmas spirit! Have fun finding links in this message!
Hello. I hope you had a good Christmas (if you celebrate it). I would like to receive the help you offered me here. I plan on taking Super Kirby Clash to GA, and I would like to know if there are any sources I'm missing. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews:[2] (Valnet but eh) Brief bits discussing it as a good game, use as you see fit: [3][4][5][6]
Bit on Green Tree Memories: [7] Some download data [8] Valnet confirmation of its later canonization in Magolor Epilogue [9]
Honestly this was about all I could find. There's very little coverage that isn't just "This game released yippee", even in Japanese sources. A lot of what I did find was already in the article, but could be expanded (Stuff like Kotaku and NWR for example). It meets notability as is so just add and expand where you see fit and it should be good to go. Haven't done a thorough look over the proseline, but I'd suggest making sure that's in order before nomination. Sorry I can't help much more than this. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the amount of articles promoted in the year, we have had our second most productive year of all time, falling just short of beating the record set by 2012. Work is continuing underway on articles Project-wide, and the Good Topic for the revived era nears completion.
Ongoing discussion and goals can be found at WP:WikiProject Doctor Who/Goals and nominees for promoted content here. Feel free to contribute in writing or in reviewing!
Reliable Sources
A discussion on the reliability of CultBox has determined that it should be phased out of use in the WikiProject. This source has been widely used across project articles, especially for information about filming. Concerns that the website is self-published and has poor editorial standards were raised. In some articles, project editors have already begun depreciating the source.
Similar concerns were raised about Doctor Who TV (doctorwho.tv.co.uk). Uses of this source have also been depreciated. This website should NOT be confused with Doctor Who TV (doctorwho.tv), a commercial website published by the Beeb, which is acceptable for use as a primary source.
As discussed in the previous issue, Doctor Who News has been widely phased out where possible. If you have any comments about these sources or any others, please contribute to the discussions on the project talk page.
Novels Being Overhauled
The scrutiny on many of the Doctor's past adventures through print over the years continues in regard to determining their individual notability. Discussions can be found on the WikiProject's talk page, with discussion still well under way in ironing out which articles pass the notability bar.
You can contribute by helping to improve articles of the novels, and other extended media, and bringing attention to the ones that might not.
Project Barnstar
In breaking news, it appears that Torchwood Three has been raided. The resurrection gauntlet has been stolen and used on the WikiProject Doctor Who Barnstar. If you notice exceptional contributions in project areas by any editor, feel free to show them some appreciation by awarding them their very own ✨barnstar✨.
An animated version of the completely missing First Doctor serial, The Savages, is due to be released in March 2025.
The editorial board of the newsletter is able to exclusively confirm that there will be no Dalek shenanigans for the third consecutive New Year. Polish off those resolutions, don't start a revolution, and celebrate New Year's Eve responsibly.
If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above.
If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list.
Thank you for this interesting bit, and already four GAa in this young year, and more in the making! - I am working on a Bach cantata with the same goal, already on the Main page, but I had no time for expanding (yet). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining, - I should look more closely instead of being intrigued by a cute article name. - I have a similar project, Bach's chorale cantatas, and some of those were also written by others. However, one that premiered on 7 January 1725, is in the last phase before nominating for GA, hopefully still on the day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. I just wanted to give you this barnstar as thanks for your contributions on getting many of the Pokémon articles to good article status. Keep up the good work!
Hi Pokelego999, thanks for your interest in the WikiCup. I noticed you made a few edits to your submission page in which you modified Wikipedia:WikiCup/Multiplier:
In this edit you added the code {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Multiplier|none|none|none}}.
In this edit, you put a new entry next to an existing multiplier.
At that point I was intrigued as to why the bot wasn't calculating the multiplier correctly for the articles. It seems that for GA submissions, you seem to be linking only the GA review page, instead of both the article itself and the GA review page. This may be why the bot is not calculating multipliers correctly for that article or for any of the others. In fact, there are two other articles where the bot didn't give you the correct bonus, which I will fix.
To avoid problems, I'd suggest the following:
Whenever you submit a new GA for points, please link the article as well, e.g. # [[ARTICLE]] [[Talk:ARTICLE/GA#]]
Additionally, I suggest you add new submissions on a separate line, after the multiplier template.
On 22 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thasmin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a popular romantic pairing from Doctor Who was later adapted into the show at the suggestion of lead actress Jodie Whittaker? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thasmin. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Thasmin), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
