The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
why do you revert every edit to the cyberpunk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganBlade ( talk • contribs) 11:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
You are presently updating your signatures by hand, would you want me to do an AWB run for you later today? Lordtobi ( ✉) 16:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Why did you revert some of my revisions on Vampyr (video game)?
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Interqwark talk contribs 09:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
This was my first edit because this game's wiki page does not give any more details to the plot endings and was incomplete. Atleast one edning would have sufficed but I felt to mention them all since I completed the game 5 times to see alternate endings IGuy2810 ( talk) 19:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about the error IGuy2810 ( talk) 19:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
In the 'ending' IGuy2810 ( talk) 19:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
My last question regarding this topic. Did I, in any way violate any wiki laws when the edit was made? IGuy2810 ( talk) 19:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
So can I add at the end that at the point where the player meets William Marshal the game ends according to the player's choices made in the game? IGuy2810 ( talk) 02:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
It's strange, to me it appears to be exactly under the info box. By default an image is positioned on the "right", but at the right there is the info box so the image is pushed under it. I thought could be my screen, browser letters scaling or screen resolution, but even if it is so, I was asking my self how many people could happen the same thing. After all, leaving the image on the left, doesn't change that much. Lone Internaut ( talk) 13:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this revision, I don’t see why you brought up WP:CITEVAR. Your edits concern two optional parameters of the template, not the style of the article’s citations.
Anyway, |access-date=
(alias: |accessdate=
) is not useless. It doesn’t just show when an editor added the citation. The date can be updated by another editor who checks the source for the information that is being cited. If the page being cited is updated and its information is changed or it goes offline, an editor can check the access date and find an archive that corresponds to said date to find the most accurate archive of the page.
Also, Metacritic pages don’t have publication dates, and per the template documentation of
Template:Cite web, the |access-date=
parameter is required for online sources without publication dates. I’m not exactly sure if this applies to Metacritic pages, but it wouldn’t hurt including the parameter.
|publisher=
is probably not needed for Metacritic, but again, it wouldn’t hurt including it.
Interqwark
talk
contribs 17:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
|publisher=
shouldn’t be used for websites on
Template:Cite web?
Interqwark
talk
contribs 22:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
|website=
Metacritic |publisher=
CBS Interactive. At least, we should acknowledge that
Metacritic is a website in refs only, because it is owned by
CBS Interactive.--
Biografer (
talk) 02:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
THe following is a copy & paste directly from the talk page of Dunkirk (2017), because apparently you can't read, don't care, or just like making sentences worse:
Can someone explain to me why they keep editing the intro to the less specific "one of the greatest war films." in the critical reception section of the intro? In the CR section proper, it's named as "one of the greatest war films ever made" and the former is clunky, less specific, and almost non-functional as a descriptor. Greatest war films of what? of when? In what category? It's not as though it's not suppported by references/not in other places in the article. Editing now and would like a response before it's changed back either here or on my talk page.
BROBAFETT (
talk) 21:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Wait, I'm sorry, do you honestly think I"m not familiar with Wiki practices? There's not a consensus on the matter just because you chose to author it in a nonsensical way, and there doesn't need to be a consensus on the editing or correcting of grammatical errors lol. The sentence, as-is, is dangling; "greatest" needs to be quantified by a time period or category ie "in history", "of all time" "ever made", "of the last 25 years" (which you would, of course, need a source for).
"Greatest", in this sentence, is what's referred to as a "superlative adjective", meaning that it conveys that the noun its describing possesses more of a certain quality (ie greatness) than something else in a specific group. -est verbs require a comparison to be quantified (or even make sense). ( https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/comparatives-and-superlatives/comparison-adjectives-bigger-biggest-more-interesting) You can't edit a sentence to be grammatically incorrect because you like it better.
If its sourcing you need to make you feel better about this specific change, I refer you to the Critical Reception category proper in which it's referred to, by source, as "one of the greatest war films ever made". Why, exactly, would you make it less specific in the intro? For what possible benefit to the reader? I don't know if you're not familiar with English composition or what, but it literally looks like a chopped off sentence the way you have it. To not specify a time period or category, the sentence would need to be "a great war film" (which, since its not a superlative adjective used to refer to critical consensus, would make it sound like you're just referencing some specific critic who uncreatively referred to the film as "great"). I'll refer you to the AP style guide if you need further assistance on the matter. BROBAFETT ( talk) 04:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Did you not read, you know, any of this? Again, the critical reception page of this very article would disagree with you... the adjective "greatest" requires context and I think I do a pretty thorough job of showing why in the comment above. There ARE actual rules about this stuff that supersedes your personal preference you know...
Your inability to take my raising measured and thoughtful points seriously is very disappointing, and belies an immaturity that isn't suitable for an accomplished editor of Wikipedia. Referring this to Dispute resolution as we speak. BROBAFETT ( talk) 05:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
What about this conversation, prey tell, makes you think that we've now hit at a point at which its appropriate for you to make a request of me? BROBAFETT ( talk) 05:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this revision of yours on The Awesome Adventures of Captain Spirit, why is mentioning that more of the game will be revealed at E3 2018 not relevant?
Regarding this revision, the source is the YouTube video. I don’t think the channel being verified or not has anything to do with the source being reliable, as you indicated in this edit summary, but I think that a better source is required nevertheless.
Also, why did you remove “ free” from the lead section in this revision? Interqwark talk contribs 16:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this revision, the lead designers are shown in the YouTube video. I will try to find a different, reliable source, though. Interqwark talk contribs 18:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cyberpunk 2077, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Industrial ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Regarding your revert of my revision on Cyberpunk 2077, “ sex” shouldn’t be wikilinked per MOS:OVERLINK, “ first-person” and “ role-playing video game” shouldn’t be next to each other per MOS:SEAOFBLUE, “visage” is an overly literary way of saying “face,” and First-person (video games) was moved to First-person (gaming).
Regarding the release date, I didn’t add “2019” to the infobox or say that the release date was 2019. I only added a paragraph about how CD Projekt Red has suggested on multiple occasions that the game is going to release next year. I also added a source, and that source was PCGamesN, which is a reliable source per WP:VG/S.
I’m not sure why you reverted the other edits I made, such as the addition of {{ Use British English}} and a link to CD Projekt Red in the lead, but I’m sure it was because you reverted my entire revision instead of individual edits manually. Interqwark talk contribs 14:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Regarding your second revert on Cyberpunk 2077, CD Projekt Red is not the same as CD Projekt. The former links to a section of the latter and may also be its own article in the future, so I don’t see the problem with linking to it even if CD Projekt is linked to earlier in the lead.
Also, it is true that the vague information regarding the release date will be unnecessary in the future, but this is the present. Since a full release date hasn’t been confirmed yet, I don’t see the problem with including that short paragraph with the reliable source, as it is the only information regarding the release date available. Interqwark talk contribs 05:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I just want to point out a error in the second to last paragraph of the plot section; the plane that Farrier shoots down over the mole, is a dive-bomber, not a fighter; forgive me for my repeating edits, but I think that the correct type of aircraft should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.111.19 ( talk) 16:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
You don't seem to like the accessdate parameter in citation templates; while I don't either, I put them as a courtesy and for the ease of checking when the site was accessed [by other users] (which is literally what the parameter is for). Our guidelines state that the field is "suggested" (unlike publisher, which is completely optional). Is there a particular reason you dislike it? Lordtobi ( ✉) 16:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
The point that Cognissonance is trying to make here is that accessdates are not verifiable, it however does not add to or neglect the verifiability of the accompanying source and is therefore optional. Lordtobi ( ✉) 15:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
|title=
and while the later is mandatory (the later and url that is), accessdates are not, but they are used as often. For example, there was more then a couple of instances when accessdate directed me into finding a dead ref through an archive. Of course, while the accessdate was circa 2016 it found me an archive with living link from 2012. Pity, nothing fresher was available. So, that's my story with accessdates... O' and just because one editor suggested something doesn't mean that everyone should follow it.--
Biografer (
talk) 00:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
The Awesome Adventures of Captain Spirit 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
TheJoebro64 --
TheJoebro64 (
talk) 19:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
The article
The Awesome Adventures of Captain Spirit 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 Awesome Adventures of Captain Spirit for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
TheJoebro64 --
TheJoebro64 (
talk) 13:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
The article
The Awesome Adventures of Captain Spirit you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:The Awesome Adventures of Captain Spirit for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
TheJoebro64 --
TheJoebro64 (
talk) 21:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
This is just to say I value your decision in regards to Koudelka, despite my initial shock (marks the end of a 102 article streak of successfully passing GA/FA). I've taken your advice and left a request with the Guild of Copy Editors. I think I may have been overextending myself on Wikipedia recently. I think this experience has - in the most positive way - brought me back down to earth. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 19:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Detroit: Become Human 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
Adamstom.97 --
Adamstom.97 (
talk) 23:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Vampyr (video game) 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
Anarchyte --
Anarchyte (
talk) 13:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
The article
Vampyr (video game) 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:Vampyr (video game) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Anarchyte --
Anarchyte (
talk) 03:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The article
Vampyr (video game) you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Vampyr (video game) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Anarchyte --
Anarchyte (
talk) 10:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
On 21 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Awesome Adventures of Captain Spirit, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that player choices from The Awesome Adventures of Captain Spirit will have consequences in the upcoming video game Life Is Strange 2? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Awesome Adventures of Captain Spirit. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, The Awesome Adventures of Captain Spirit), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Would you be able to take a look at the peer review for Monaco: What's Yours Is Mine? I'd like to make it an FA, and any comments would be appreciated. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 12:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Is it wrong to add "... has become one of the best-selling ... games." to a video game's reception section? Sebastian James ( talk)
The article
Detroit: Become Human 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:Detroit: Become Human for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Adamstom.97 --
Adamstom.97 (
talk) 07:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I am a little concerned with the comments you left on QuanticNut's talk page, they show a clear lack of good faith and not a small amount of ownership thoughts to an article. You are pointing a new editor to guidelines to support your position that do not say what you think they say, and dismissed their edits as some random user from a subreddit which is not in keeping with Wikipedia's ideals. I'm willing to believe that you've become too focused on trying to make Detroit: Become Human a good article that it has clouded your judgement and you're not viewing things subjectively. I'm going to suggest that you walk away from the article for now, don't edit it other than the talk page, and let other editors take over for a bit. Breathe and clear your head and don't bite the newbies. Canterbury Tail talk 19:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
The article
Detroit: Become Human you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Detroit: Become Human for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Adamstom.97 --
Adamstom.97 (
talk) 07:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
On 3 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vampyr (video game), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the developers of Vampyr chose to only include one save slot, so that the player's actions would have "real, meaningful impact"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vampyr (video game). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Vampyr (video game)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Just in case you wondered why the hook for Vampyr was changed, check this thread. IMO you could have been pinged as the nominator of the original hook, but it's probably too late for that now. Lordtobi ( ✉) 06:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Cognissonance. I saw your nomination for Quantic Dream. It's a really nice article and I would give a suggestion to add something. Following examples like this, could be add a quotebox in the "Philosophy" section? I found this source (page 16-17 / internal manual page 4) in which I believe there is a quote that summarizes the intentions of QD and David Cage: "My desire to create video games dates back to the arrival of 3D real time [...] I felt like a pioneer filmmaker at the start of the 20th century: grappling with basic technology, but also being aware that there is everything left to invent - in particular a new language that is both narrative and visual".
I got the quotebox with text and source ready to put in it. Let me know if you like this idea. Bye! Lone Internaut ( talk) 21:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
On 4 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Detroit: Become Human, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the video game Detroit: Become Human has three playable characters, each with their own composer and style of cinematography? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Detroit: Become Human. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Detroit: Become Human), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Would you mind leaving comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Sonic the Hedgehog (8-bit video game)/archive1? If you'd like me to review something in return I'd be glad to. JOE BRO 64 14:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Quantic Dream 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
TheJoebro64 --
TheJoebro64 (
talk) 12:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
The article
Quantic Dream 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:Quantic Dream for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
TheJoebro64 --
TheJoebro64 (
talk) 17:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The article
Quantic Dream you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Quantic Dream for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
TheJoebro64 --
TheJoebro64 (
talk) 22:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi. You commented at Jill Valentine's FAC2, which was a long time ago, so I understand if you don't want to get involved again (or even remember commenting in the first place). But JV's FAC3 was dismissed on the basis that I hadn't contacted previous commentators, so I've gone through all previous FACs and "peer reviews" and tried my best to address any issue which had ever been raised. I'm happy with the article as it is now (in that I believe it meets the featured article criteria), but I'd appreciate any feedback from any previous commentator. Do you think there's something I could improve before renominating? And would you be interested in commenting at FAC4? I'd ideally like to address every issue you may have before renominating, so the FAC can be as uneventful as possible. ;) I'd appreciate any feedback you may have, if you have the time. Cheers. Homeostasis07 ( talk) 00:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Thank you for your continuous hard work on Life Is Strange and related articles. It's much appreciated. byteflush Talk 15:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC) |
Hey there! I've recently been trying to get the game article Tonic Trouble into a better state (preferably, good article status) but I lack the time to implement larger changes for the Gameplay and Reception sections (the former of which is currently missing). Since it appears as though you are able to write down proper English in a much faster pace that I could, I hoped that you might want to assist me with this article. The game is pretty old and not compatible with Windows above XP, but you can play an N64 ROM if you need an interactive reference. There are 11 different reviews (3 on PC, 8 on N64) for the main game, plus one for the GBC version, that can be easily used to make good content for the two aformentioned sections. I have scans of the EGM, Next Generation and Nintendo Power reviews (and previews) on file, if you need them. Lordtobi ( ✉) 19:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Cognissonance
Just to let you know that unfortunately your DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Quantic Dream has been moved back from the queue to the nomination, following a query at WP:ERRORS2. Please can you have a look over it and see if the issues can be addressed. Once you've had a chance to look at it and maybe revise the text of the hook, ping me and I'll be happy to push it back through quickly. Thanks — Amakuru ( talk) 21:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
On 6 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Quantic Dream, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the French video game developer Quantic Dream would consider moving to Canada if its tax breaks were taken away? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Quantic Dream. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Quantic Dream), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Hello, Cognissonance. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Cognissonance. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect God of War (upcoming video game). Since you had some involvement with the God of War (upcoming video game) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 16:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Just in case you would ever require something like this, I wrote
a simple script that removes access dates from citations. I know you hate access dates so you might like this script.
Regards.
Lordtobi (
✉) 20:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to ask if you'd be interested in reviewing The Death of Superman at its FAC. Don't feel obligated, and I'll review/do a favor for you in return JOE BRO 64 17:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I've reverted your changes on this article. You removed a valid {{cn}} tag and left instead a vaguely worded and unsupported claim that was not really any different. I've started a talk page discussion on it. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 20:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
It's rude and wrong to revert an edit without an explanation, unless it's clear vandalism. Here, I corrected two English errors at once and you reverted with no reason. Please check the new edit summary and if you still disagree (with me and the rest of the English-speaking world) then at least leave an explanation. Thanks! Equinox ◑ 21:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Please indicate what source you are using to arrive at the conclusion that "widow" is a general neutral word. I agree that there *should* be a gender neutral expression but it has not been my impression that Wikipedia policy is to drive beyond citable sources and current accepted usage. Hence why I looked at Dictionary.com (which also cites Collins English Dictionary, with the same result) to determine that in current accepted English (both British and American variants) defines widow as follows:
widow [wid-oh] EXAMPLES|WORD ORIGIN SEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR widow ON THESAURUS.COM noun 1a woman who has lost her spouse by death and has not remarried. 2 Cards . an additional hand or part of a hand, as one dealt to the table. 3 Printing . a a short last line of a paragraph, especially one less than half of the full measure or one consisting of only a single word. b the last line of a paragraph when it is carried over to the top of the following page away from the rest of the paragraph. : Compare orphan(def 4). 4a woman often left alone because her husband devotes his free time to a hobby or sport (used in combination). : Compare golf widow.
verb (used with object), wid·owed, wid·ow·ing.
5 to make (someone) a widow: She was widowed by the war.
6 to deprive of anything cherished or needed: A surprise attack widowed the army of its supplies.
SEE MORE Explore Dictionary.comThe Year's Top Word TrendsThe Year's Top Word Trends Can You Translate These Famous Phrases From Emoji?Can You Translate These Famous Phrases From Emoji? These Are the Longest Words in EnglishThese Are the Longest Words in English These Are the Saddest Phrases in EnglishThese Are the Saddest Phrases in English
Origin of widow
before 900; (noun) Middle English wid(e)we, Old English widuwe, wydewe; cognate with German Witwe, Gothic widuwo, Latin vidua (feminine of viduus bereaved), Sanskrit vidhavā widow; (v.) Middle English, derivative of the noun
Related forms wid·ow·ly , adjective un·wid·owed , adjective
Can be confused
widow widower
Related Words for widow dowager, relict
Examples from the Web for widow
Contemporary Examples of widow
That was accomplished by cops such as the one whose picture was clutched so tightly by his widow on Sunday. The Daily Beast logo Funeral Protest Is Too Much for NYPD Union Boss Michael Daly January 5, 2015
Marjorie Wilkes Huntley was a New Age feminist, a widow , and a librarian. The Daily Beast logo Wonder Woman’s Creation Story Is Wilder Than You Could Ever Imagine Tom Arnold-Forster November 3, 2014
The truth is likely closer to what the widow told The Daily Beast in late July. The Daily Beast logo How Bureaucrats Let Ebola Spread to Nigeria Michael Daly August 14, 2014
The results would aid in the criminal investigation surrounding the widow , who stands accused of elder abuse. The Daily Beast logo Invasion of the Celebrity Body Snatchers, From Charlie Chaplin to Casey Kasem Melissa Leon July 19, 2014
Last year, his widow and his brother pulled 150 of them for posthumous publication, with a plan to release eight to 10 per year. The Daily Beast logo The Drunken Downfall of Evangelical America's Favorite Painter Zac Bissonnette June 8, 2014
Historical Examples of widow
The rest of the estate went to the testator's widow for life, and then to charity. The Spenders Harry Leon Wilson
I am in the habit of boarding at a quiet house kept by a widow . Brave and Bold Horatio Alger
"I don't believe we shall quarrel on that point," said the widow , smiling. Brave and Bold Horatio Alger
Since 1830 the widow again supplicated the Tribune des Chambres. Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, No. 327 Various
She was a widow , and had loved her husband, and her sky was still tinged with grey. Viviette William J. Locke
British Dictionary definitions for widow
widow noun
1a woman who has survived her husband, esp one who has not remarried
2(usually with a modifier) informal a woman whose husband frequently leaves her alone while he indulges in a sport, etc : a golf widow
3 printing a short line at the end of a paragraph, esp one that occurs as the top line of a page or column : Compare orphan (def. 3)
4(in some card games) an additional hand or set of cards exposed on the table
verb (tr; usually passive)
5 to cause to become a widow or a widower
6 to deprive of something valued or desirable
Derived Forms widowhood , noun
Word Origin for widow Old English widuwe; related to German Witwe, Latin vidua (feminine of viduus deprived), Sanskrit vidhavā
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012
Word Origin and History for widow
n. Old English widewe, widuwe , from Proto-Germanic *widewo (cf. Old Saxon widowa , Old Frisian widwe , Middle Dutch, Dutch weduwe , Dutch weeuw , Old High German wituwa , German Witwe , Gothic widuwo ), from PIE adj. *widhewo (cf. Sanskrit vidhuh "lonely, solitary," vidhava "widow;" Avestan vithava , Latin vidua , Old Church Slavonic vidova , Russian vdova , Old Irish fedb , Welsh guedeu "widow;" Persian beva , Greek eitheos "unmarried man;" Latin viduus "bereft, void"), from root *weidh- "to separate" (cf. second element in Latin di-videre "to divide;" see with).
As a prefix to a name, attested from 1570s. Meaning "short line of type" (especially at the top of a column) is 1904 print shop slang. Widow's mite is from Mark xii:43. Widow's peak is from the belief that hair growing to a point on the forehead is an omen of early widowhood, suggestive of the "peak" of a widow's hood. Widow maker "anything lethally dangerous" first recorded 1945, originally among loggers, in reference to dead trees, etc. The widow bird (1747) so-called in reference to the long black tail feathers of the males, suggestive of widows' veils.
v. c.1300; see widow (n.). Related: Widowed ; widowing .
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper ( https://www.dictionary.com/browse/widow)
I particularly point out the "Can be confused" section
Contrast widow with Widower: widower [wid-oh-er]
EXAMPLES|WORD ORIGIN
noun
1a man who has lost his spouse by death and has not remarried.
Explore Dictionary.comThe Year's Top Word TrendsThe Year's Top Word Trends Can You Translate These Famous Phrases From Emoji?Can You Translate These Famous Phrases From Emoji? These Are the Longest Words in EnglishThese Are the Longest Words in English These Are the Saddest Phrases in EnglishThese Are the Saddest Phrases in English
Origin of widower
1325–75; late Middle English (see widow, -er1); replacing widow (now dial.), Old English wydewa
Related forms
wid·ow·ered , adjective wid·ow·er·hood , noun
Can be confused widow widower
Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2019
Examples from the Web for widower
Contemporary Examples of widower
He was a widower whose only son had already predeceased him. The Daily Beast logo New Orleans’ Carnivalesque Day of the Dead Jason Berry November 1, 2014
The public fingered Monjack as a possible suspect after the widower opposed an autopsy—claims that he vehemently denied. The Daily Beast logo ‘Clueless’: How the Greatest Clique of the ‘90s Transformed Into A Shakespearean Tragedy Marlow Stern May 30, 2014
In another village, a widower was picked up from a bus and forcibly sterilised; he died of an infection soon after. The Daily Beast logo Hold Onto Your Penis David Frum, Justin Green November 29, 2012
She also sports a sparkly new ring given to her by her boyfriend, Art Ortenberg, the widower of Liz Claiborne. The Daily Beast logo Fashion's Most Feared Critic Jacob Bernstein October 11, 2010
Historical Examples of widower
Mr. John Lambert was a millionnaire, a politician, and a widower . Malbone Thomas Wentworth Higginson
Jacob was tall and snuff-colored, a widower of three years' standing. Tiverton Tales Alice Brown
His relations with her father and mother were like those on which a widower son-in-law might have stood. Little Dorrit Charles Dickens
"If there were not an ordinance against the hurling of missiles," finished the widower .
The Gentleman From Indiana
Booth Tarkington
"They didn't bother Mr. Wetherford Swift," said the widower .
The Gentleman From Indiana
Booth Tarkington
British Dictionary definitions for widower
widower
noun
1a man whose wife has died and who has not remarried
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012 ( https://www.dictionary.com/browse/widower)
As I stated before when editing the article - I don't care for the construction but do not see any accepted usage that makes widow a gender-neutral word. You appear to quoting from somewhere - please indicate where you're seeing this definition and usage. DavisGL ( talk) 06:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
DavisGL ( talk) 03:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey, just wondering why my changes to the Detroit were not an improvement. -- Nosaj544 ( talk) 22:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi. You've recently added GamesIndustry.biz's article for Italian Video Game Awards on Detroit: Become Human, but Italian Video Game Awards' already existing source includes both nominees and winners. So, should we delete the GamesIndustry.biz reference? Sebastian James ( talk) 20:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
On 2 May, David Cage celebrated Quantic Dream's 22nd anniversary here. Also, he stated "A massive challenge in matter of development in 1997... We are four people out of the six who worked on the first prototype still present at Quantic Dream today". Should we change the "founded" date, "a team of friends" and "The year this occurred has both been reported as 1997 and 1998."? Sebastian James ( talk) 18:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Why remove the original Polish actor? You can find plenty of Japanese game articles, for example, that mention both the original Japanese cast and the English cast. Ausir ( talk) 13:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Is this official website enough for showing Aspyr as a distributor? It says: "© 2017 Published and distributed by Aspyr Media, Inc..." Or should we use only the original distributor? Sebastian James what's the T? 05:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
The Nomad Soul 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
Megaman en m --
Megaman en m (
talk) 12:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The article
The Nomad Soul you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:The Nomad Soul for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Megaman en m --
Megaman en m (
talk) 14:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 11, No. 1 — 2nd Quarter, 2019
Previous issue |
Index |
Next issue
Project At a Glance
As of Q2
2019, the project has:
|
Content
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
On 19 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Nomad Soul, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that David Cage started writing the video game The Nomad Soul because he had grown tired of being a composer? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Nomad Soul. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, The Nomad Soul), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
I'm sorry, what? These are not "disruptive edits". I am trying to rewrite sections of the article to give it an actual structure and to make it cohesive. For instance, the version you reverted to started discussing the crew, then location shooting, then the cast, then location shooting, and then went back to the crew. How is that a "structure"? It's just a list of things in chronological order based on the publication date of various sources. It's a mess. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 09:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have already broken 3RR. The only reason I didn't warn you sooner is that I thought we were making progress discussing it here. However, your most recent edit to the Tenet article in which you all but restored a previous version of the page says otherwise. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 12:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Mclarenfan17 (
talk) 07:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclarenfan17 ( talk • contribs) 06:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on the Tenet talk page to address proposed changes to the article. Your participation would be appreciated. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 11:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
An article you recently created,
Pitfalls, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (
verifiability is of
central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's
general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.
GirthSummit
(blether) 19:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Girth Summit: Been building it for two months now. Added independent coverage, including interviews. Someone submitted it for review today. Could you review it, since you were the one who moved it to draftspace? Cognissonance ( talk) 21:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
On 31 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tonic Trouble, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Tonic Trouble, released in 1999, was the first video game developed by Ubisoft Montreal? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tonic Trouble. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Tonic Trouble), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 11, No. 2 — 3nd Quarter, 2019
Previous issue |
Index |
Next issue
Project At a Glance
As of Q3
2019, the project has:
|
Content
Somehow I missed the fact that our article about the Cyberpunk games (of which 2020 is but one) is titled Cyberpunk 2020. So yes, that was a mistake. But that’s no reason to call someone retarded, and a case could be made that there is never a good reason. Please remember to be WP:CIVIL. — 96.8.24.95 ( talk) 19:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Your extensive work on Pitfalls and/or creation of it does not mean you own it or get final say on everything that happens on the article. The way you spoke to Lk95 with this revert indicates you think you do, and this goes against WP:OWN. Yes, WP:CITEVAR is a thing, but this really only means references should be consistent with regard to their placement (i.e. list-defined references) and the parameters used. It does not mean you "control" the page, nor that you need to revert every change made by an editor to the article that you disagree with, or that album chart templates cannot or should not be used. In case you were unaware, album chart templates support the use of a refname parameter that allows the reference they generate to be invoked elsewhere on the article. Retaining "plainrowheaders" in the wikitable header but not making use of it is pointless, and putting ref names next to the peak the album achieved should not be done as it can (and has) messed with the sortability/order in which the values display. There's also no need for the "peak position" column to be so wide, hence why a line break is used between the words. Reverting any editors trying to make improvements to an article you have worked on or created to bring it in line with how charts are displayed across most album articles is not beneficial for it nor helping you as an editor. You can have a go at me for this if you wish, but please be a bit less controlling with how you approach editing articles. Thanks. Ss 112 13:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on User:Cognissonance/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
As someone who has contributed significantly to the Watch Dogs 2 article, which I thank you for, I kindly request your valuable input on this discussion [6] around stylisation in the lead of the game. Kind regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 18:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again for all of your help these past few years. It was very much appreciated. Wishing you and all your loved ones a happy and healthy holiday season. And remember to take the time to do what you want to do in 2020. Over the course of human history, only a relatively minuscule amount of people will ever be able to say they lived through 2020, so make it a good one! ;) Homeostasis07 ( talk/ contributions) 21:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 11, No. 3 — 4th Quarter, 2019
Previous issue |
Index |
Next issue
Project At a Glance
As of Q4
2019, the project has:
|
Content
|
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Pitfalls 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
Lordtobi --
Lordtobi (
talk) 10:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
The article
Pitfalls 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:Pitfalls for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Lordtobi --
Lordtobi (
talk) 10:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
The article
Pitfalls you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Pitfalls for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Lordtobi --
Lordtobi (
talk) 19:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Debresser ( talk) 16:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
On 16 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pitfalls, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Leprous's 2019 album Pitfalls took shape from its songwriter's depression and anxiety? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pitfalls. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Pitfalls), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 12, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2020
Previous issue |
Index |
Next issue
Project At a Glance
As of Q1
2020, the project has:
|
|
Content
|
That was a spur of the moment nomination while waiting for two other articles to finish reviewing. So it was nice to see that all get done within 24 hours. GamerPro64 18:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Not sure why you immediately failed the article. Seems you don't take the process seriously, in which case, why do it at all?
The banners were not added by me, and don't make any sense. They seem to have been mere vandalism unless you can prove differently. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 08:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
You claim that there "were no grammar errors" in an edit to Cyberpunk 2077. However, this sentence is problematic:
"Cyberpunk 2077 is developed using the REDengine 4 game engine, with around 500 people, exceeding the number that worked on the studio's previous game, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt.
The problem is that it is not clear what the subject of the sentence is.
The subject in a simple English sentence [...] is the person or thing about whom the statement is made.
So what is the subject of the sentence in the Cyberpunk 2077 article? Is it Cyberpunk 2077? Is is the REDengine 4? Is it the size of the development team? Or is it the comparison between the development team of Cyberpunk 2077 and The Witcher 3? The problem is easily solved by turning the existing complex, compound sentence into two separate sentences, each with their own subject.
Unfortunately, what should be a straightforward and uncontroversial edit needs to be explained to you in detail before it can be applied to the article. And it's not the first time you have done this, either—you did it in the Tenet article, too. This looks a lot like ownership behaviour:
An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article frequently.
That describes exactly what you are doing. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 03:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Mclarenfan17 (
talk) 04:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Clearly not covered by body type. Why elaborate on almost everything that you can customize then not include genitals. Nobody will read body type and think oh hey yea genital customization is possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganBlade ( talk • contribs) 03:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
don't you think the whole point of an encyclopedia is to be through https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaADQTeZRCY — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganBlade ( talk • contribs) 05:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Fahrenheit (2005 video game) 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
ProtoDrake --
ProtoDrake (
talk) 09:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Debresser ( talk) 19:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
If you remember that you removed [ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Tenet_(film)&diff=956323301&oldid=956318885 "through time manipulation". I just saw the trailer, and it seems there is time inversion involved. Something that we should have asap (which is, as soon as it can be sourced). Debresser ( talk) 00:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
The article
Fahrenheit (2005 video game) you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Fahrenheit (2005 video game) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
ProtoDrake --
ProtoDrake (
talk) 10:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Cyberpunk 2077; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganBlade ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Why did you revert this sourced edit? Debresser ( talk) 20:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Are you able to edit the Cyberpunk 2077 page so that Mike Pondsmith’s name is more visible in the first paragraph? I just wanted more visibility for the creator just like the wikipedia page for the first witcher game which also mentions Andrzej Sapkowski, the creator of the witcher novels which the game is based on. LoreOfCyberpunk ( talk) 14:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I do appreciate it. LoreOfCyberpunk ( talk) 20:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 12, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2020
Previous issue |
Index |
Next issue
Project At a Glance
As of Q2
2020, the project has:
|
|
Content
|
03:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I came to discuss it here because it seems too small a thing to discuss in the article's talk. There's no need for consistency between all references in that regard. Accuracy is best. It is a website, but it's a company's website. The link is to the company, and since both are named the same there's no need for both to be there. For example,
BBC or the
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (that hosts the
Academy Awards) are companies, therefore they should be in |publisher=
, it doesn't matter that the outside link is to a website; every link is to a website. Meanwhile,
Collider is a website, so it should be in |website=
, and
Variety is a magazine, so it should be in |work=
. Whenever I link to the
British Board of Film Classification, which is the same as the
Korea Media Rating Board, I put it in the publisher, because it is a bigger endeavor than just a website. So, while putting it in |website=
is not technically wrong, the appropriate place for it is |publisher=
. In cases like this one, the company takes precedence over the website. It isn't just a website owned by a company, like
Screen Rant is owned by Valnet, Inc.; this is the website of the company. Anyway, that's my reasoning for why |publisher=
is more appropriate.
El Millo (
talk) 21:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't want to have to gauge every time...It's okay. I'm not asking you to do it, I'm just asking you not to revert me when I do it unless you actually think it's wrong. It's okay to use
|website=
as a default, as I said, it's not technically wrong, but something else is more accurate. The major difference is between |publisher=
and the rest, given it's the only one that isn't in italics. All the differences between the rest of them don't concern me as much, because it doesn't make a difference visually. Well, I'll wait for your response and change it back again if it's okay with you.
El Millo (
talk) 17:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't want to have to keep doing thatLike I said, I'll do it. For example, there's a Cite web that has BBC as website, and it should be in publisher. Remember, I'm watching the article as well. El Millo ( talk) 17:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
{{cite web}}
consistently uses the lower-cased variation; there is no technical difference between the two. Regards,
IceWelder [
✉] 12:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)access-date: The full date when the content pointed to by url was last verified to support the text in the article; do not wikilink; requires url; use the same format as other access and archive dates in the article's citations. It is not required for linked documents that do not change. For example, access-date is not required for links to copies of published research papers accessed via DOI or a published book, but should be used for links to news articles on commercial websites (these can change from time to time, even if they are also published in a physical medium)
at
Help:Citation Style 1. If you personally dislike it, you can hide it (as shown in
Help:Citation Style 1/accessdate).
El Millo (
talk) 19:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 20:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Why do you keep removing this commma? It clearly states in MOS:DATE that that comma should be there. -- SacredDragonX ( talk) 16:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Let me start by saying I'm a big fan of your contributions here, always straight to the point and with great care for both language and composition. I think I've tried to recruite you in past, with no success, but here goes nothing: If you find yourself bored for 5-10 minutes, feel free to take a quick look at the prose on Christopher Nolan's biography. I take no offence if you're not interested, and you don't have to reply.
All the best, Sammyjankis88 ( talk) 14:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)