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

In your opinion is the Doctor Who main page good enough for a GAN? I am inelegible to nominate it as I am not a major contributor and you are. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant: Unfortunately, no, I think the article needs a lot of work before it's ready for GA. There's a lot of fancruft, a possible over-reliance on in-universe material, and some of the newer information seems to suffer from proseline—plus, after my recent edit, it has over 50 {{Citation needed}} tags. It's a huge article, and would not be easy for any editor to tackle. Your edits have been great, but the article needs a lot more intense work to pass GAN, in my opinion. The choice is yours, of course, but, unless you were planning on collaborating with other editors, I would personally recommend putting your efforts into something less arduous. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Please Hold to My Hand 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of OlifanofmrTennant -- OlifanofmrTennant (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Please Hold to My Hand you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Please Hold to My Hand for comments about the article, and Talk:Please Hold to My Hand/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", 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 at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of OlifanofmrTennant -- OlifanofmrTennant (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review this edit: [1]. Салтанк (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Салтанк. Please be more specific with what you would like reviewed, and why. Thanks. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 07:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user re-added some contents which I had previously removed. Also, he/she didn't provide an "edit summary" to explain why. Салтанк (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Салтанк: The information seems legitimate and sourced, but I don't know enough about the topic to make a judgement. If you are still concerned about the additions, I would recommend talking to the editor directly, seeking advice from the article's WikiProjects (WT:FOOD and/or WT:BD), or, if necessary, perhaps discussing your concerns with an administrator. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the in use tag, I fell into a rabbit hole reading the dramaboards.

From what I have seen on the internet [2][3], Meta has not had any update on the development of San Andreas, which was announced for the Quest 2. The Quest 3 is now rapidly approaching, and given Meta's situation in the VR space I am not too sure of whether it will come out. I think this deserves a mention in the article, but whether it's a good idea to put in the lead is questionable in my eyes.

I do plan on putting this article forward for GA this month, if that is something you are interested in - you are one of the big editors in this article. I really want to see this article as a TFA on the 20th anniversary of its release, but that might be setting my sights too high. RetroCosmos ^talk 16:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RetroCosmos: Thanks for reaching out. That Kotaku piece is a good find; it may be worth referencing. Glad to hear about your enthusiasm with the article; I actually started working on improving it a few years ago but never finished. I'll look into digging up my work-in-progress file tomorrow and applying any relevant changes. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 16:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded on existing sources in the controversies section. The goal is to get it as comprehensive as GTAV, but this is just a start. Please let me know if I've made any mistakes or if you see any improvements. Thanks! RetroCosmos ^talk 16:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That looks great so far! That was the one section that I mostly left as is, so it could definitely use some expansion to avoid ambiguity. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over 3 weeks since I started the discussion proposing Michael Unsworth's inclusion in the writers field. There has been no response so far. Seems like people aren't too bothered. I still stand by my position and already explained my reasons. Unsworth is credited as writer in the opening credits and it's okay to combine the opening and ending credits since the field has enough space. So I'll go ahead with the edit. Wrath X (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]