User talk:Rhain

I've been doing some research into Doctor Who monsters recently, and have been improving them one by one. I'd like your input on the Voord. As of now, I feel every entry we have at present meets the notability guidelines in some way shape or form, and I feel strongly that Voord is really the only entry that's very debateable notability-wise right now. The bulk of its content is different authors describing the Voord's physical appearance with no additional commentary, or summarizing their spin-off appearances. Their actual Reception is very brief and very light, and beyond what's in the article, I've only found one SIGCOV source, Once Upon a Time Lord: The Myths and Stories of Doctor Who: [1], which is very solid, but compared to what are basically TRIVIALMENTIONS in the other sources, I'm not sure there's enough to hold up an article here.

Given your familiarity with the First Doctor's era and its associated topics, I figured I'd ask for your input before I took any action in regard to the Voord's article. If you would be willing, would you please let me know your thoughts on how this article should be handled going forward? I'd greatly appreciate your input in how to tackle this. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: Good to hear from you. It's been a while since I looked into The Keys of Marinus, so I imagine you're likely more knowledgeable about the topic at this point. You're right that most of the commentary seems fairly trivial and focused on the Voord's physical appearance; it's still interesting, but not particularly significant. If you think merging is the right call, that seems logical to me; anything salvageable can be merged with the list and/or the serial. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhain thank you for the input! I feel like a merge is likely for the best; I'll see what content is more relevant to one article or the other before doing any merging, but I'll try to get it done soon.

If it's not too much, could I ask for your input on Mechonoid? I discussed this with the original creator and they seem confident on its notability, and unlike the Voord, the article does actually have some actual commentary on the real-world impact of the Mechonoids. My main gripe is it seems almost to be entirely within the scope of the The Chase. I was originally going to discuss this only with the creator, but I feel it'd be wise to get an outside perspective before I proceed with anything, since I feel me and them are likely going to disagree on how to handle the article. If you feel it's fine enough standalone, I'll likely leave it as is, but I'm admittedly not too sure myself right now, so I wanted to discuss this before I made up my mind on it. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can see both perspectives, but I think I agree with you; most of the content at Mechonoid is simply about their appearance in The Chase, followed by a mostly-unsourced proseline-style list of their subsequent appearance. It could certainly use some work, if not a merge, but I'll leave that to you and trust that you'll approach the project or other appropriate venues for discussion when doing so. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I plan to use the proper channels in regards to these two articles. Thank you so much for your input, as it's helped me a lot with figuring out how to handle these two articles. Happy editing! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I've no doubt you know what you're doing, but I imagine you'll face more opposition with Mechonoid than Voord so wanted to make sure. Always happy to help! Keep up the good work. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Slender The Eight Pages logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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) 02:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rhain. Just wanted to introduce myself following my post on the Bella Ramsey talk page. I don't have any connection to Bella but I was brought up in the same area as them (I now live in SW London). I'd be happy to provide help and input as needed. Just to provide a further example of what I can help with, I've drafted the below for a TV series that isn't included in the career section. Just let me know what would work best. Thanks!

In 2023, Ramsey portrayed Kelsey Morgan, a pregnant heroin addict, in the second series of Jimmy McGovern’s acclaimed prison drama Time. Their performance was widely praised by critics and audiences alike, culminating in Ramsey winning the Royal Television Society Award for Best Supporting Actress in 2024.[1] [2]

[1] Golby, Joel (28 October 2023). Time series two: Bella Ramsey is incredible in this world-beating drama". The Guardian. Retrieved 16 July 2025.

[2] "Winners announced for the RTS Programme Awards 2024". Royal Television Society. Retrieved 16 July 2025. Crp74 (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Crp74: Thanks for reaching out—I've added some information. I mostly monitor Ramsey's article, rather than actively work on it, but happy to help wherever possible. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. Thanks @Rhain. I'm new to all this so is the best way to suggest text in the article talk page and then you'll add (or not!) as you see fit? Or is there a better approach (i.e. is there someone else more actively working on the page that I should reach out to?). Sorry for all the questions! Crp74 (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise. The best place is probably the article's talk page, as you've done; someone may see it and address it eventually. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 21:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all that you do, and for continuing to represent the best of us. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rhain. I've worked on the opening two sections of Bella's wiki page and I thought it might be best to set out the changes in my sandbox User:Crp74/sandbox - Wikipedia with an explanation of the proposed changes and corrections. I thought this might be easiest for you to simply copy what you would like across rather than pasting lots of text in the main talk page. Let me know if this works for you. Crp74 (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Crp74: Thanks for taking this approach! I've implemented some of your changes, but avoided some unnecessary references and the more promotional-sounding language. Let me know if you have any concerns. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhain: Thanks for making the changes so quickly! I'm planning to work on the career section this weekend and will let you know when I've finished that. Just one potential grammar typo in the text you added. Should it be: "At age 10, Ramsey joined the Television Workshop in Nottingham, which provided training and support for early auditions, including for Game of Thrones." (changes in bold). Crp74 (talk) 08:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhain: I hope things are well with you. I had more time this weekend than I was expecting. So I've set out some suggested changes in User:Crp74/sandbox for both sections with some questions for you to consider when you have time. Let me know what you think! Crp74 (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the message; hope you're doing well! I've incorporated some of the suggestions. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Slender The Arrival website logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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) 02:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you could check out Braxe + Falcon, an article I'm considering for GAN. Besides that, I notice you've got two episodes of this past season of TLoU up at GAN yourself—I will try my best to watch for these to start their reviews and hope to help you tackle concerns where I can. Hope you've been doing well, for all that you do in that particular subject area truly is a singular spectacle unmatched by hardly any other editor. Happy editing—BarntToust 03:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the kind words! Hope you're doing well. Looks like that article is in great shape—shouldn't take much to earn that green plus. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your copyedits to the article, glad to hear you think it's looking swell. I look forward to the next GARC cycle! BarntToust 23:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rhain. Hope things are well with you. I've updated these sections in my sandbox User:Crp74/sandbox - Wikipedia with explanations at the top of each section for you to look at and incorporate when you have a moment. Thanks! Crp74 (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Crp74—I've implemented most of those suggestions, though I've skipped over most of the awards as I prefer for individual awards to have their own Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability per MOS:FILMACCOLADES. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Rhain! On the awards, the ones that I think may still need changing for you to consider, including from my reading of MOS:FILMACCOLADES are: to remove the 2018 award for children's animation shared with Luke Pearson et al. as Ramsey did not receive this award; add in the film critics association awards for Catherine Called Birdy as the guidance mentions film critics circles specifically (or at least the 2023 London Film Critics' Circle awards as it has a Wiki page - sorry I didn't provide this before. As an aside I notice critics association awards are included for other actors whether or not they have a Wiki page (which requires someone to produce one whether or not they are notable!) e.g. List of awards and nominations received by Jennifer Lawrence - Wikipedia; add in the Royal Television Society Award for Time (as it is mentioned in the body of the introduction and career section - again sorry for not adding a link to a Wiki page); and add in the 2025 Astra TV Awards and Dorian TV Awards (these have wiki pages and also both awards are included earlier for 2023). Hope that helps, and thanks for your consideration. Crp74 (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the specific suggestions! I've implemented most; the Astra TV Awards were already included, and it appears I was beaten to the Dorian Awards. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 06:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see the confusion. Would "except Toreno" be better? I thought Toreno had his life saved. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 21:42, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it could be clearer (it was a fairly recent change) and would be fine to see it rephrased. IIRC, CJ doesn't explicitly save Toreno; he just survives. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Apologies, but I don't know why you seem to believe that Lost Legacy's first setting is Sri Lanka.

I have played Lost Legacy several times. Not only that, I am Sri Lankan, and believe me, Sri Lankans would have known if it was set in their country. The city bears no resemblance to any in Sri Lanka. Chloe Frazier, talks to a shop girl whose dad is in the Indian Army, sneaks onto an Indian army truck, and remarks that the Indian Army is really not kidding around when it bombs the city. Chloe and Nadine escape Asav by jumping into a river and a little while later find themselves in the Western Ghats. The final mission has the characters attempt to stop a train laden with a bomb from reaching the first city. There is no train link, and if there was, it would a) take a long time to reach Sri Lanka from the Western Ghats b) would have to cross a sea.

There was Indian military presence in Sri Lanka in 1987-90. The Sri Lankan Civil War, between separatist rebels and the SL Gov ended in 2009, without any Indian intervention. It makes no sense to suggest the Indians are bombing a Sri Lankan city in the time the game is set.

I've tried to find any indication whatsoever about devs mentioning Sri Lanka and I've found nothing. I will be happy to eat crow if you find a credible source that suggests otherwise. 112.134.221.101 (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I don't "believe" anything; I was mostly following what was written and what I could find. Real-life connections are interesting but not particularly relevant, as the story is fictional. A quick Google search shows that the location was considered Sri Lanka by several different members of the art team (and India by at least one). I'm mostly apathetic, but I've removed the location mention as it's not particularly relevant there anyway. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Can't seem to reply. I appreciate that you removed the location since it is disputed. It's entirely possible that on starting the arts team were told this was the location but that was subsequently changed. It is incongruent with the dialogue and plot in the scenes. BUT as there is no actual line from a story dev saying this was actually where it is, removing the location is a fair compromise.

IN response to your FWIW, apologies, perhaps I should have said "stated" instead of "believed"? One can believe or think something based on evidence, e.g. "I was told this, so I think" "based on the evidence I believe..." are perfectly valid statements. I merely wanted to ask what the reasons were behind your assertion. When people say "I don't *believe* anything I..." I don't *think* anything I..." it's such a strange and pedantic semantic statement that makes disputing/disagreeing with someone almost impossible.

112.134.221.101 (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I suspect they were trying to imitate Sri Lanka for the original trailer; perhaps, if your assertion is correct, they changed course later. My "FWIW" was just clarifying that I don't have particularly strong feelings or beliefs either way. Pedantic or not, it evidently does not make disputing or disagreeing impossible—if anything, it makes it easier. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is the first sentence in the "albums" section: "The soundtrack for The Last of Us comprises songs from the game, composed and produced by Gustavo Santaolalla." Music of The Last of Us#Albums. J04n(talk page) 21:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@J04n: That's correct, but Gustavo Santaolalla is not Ludwig Göransson. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 21:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhain, big "duh" on my part. Thanks for catching, I started looking for one thing and transitioned to another without thinking.J04n(talk page) 22:01, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happens to the best of us—no worries! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:03, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting the way references are handled in articles like GTA 6. Do you know any script that organizes them this way for "normal" articles? I imagine it wouldn't be hard to write (but I personally lack the skills). Yacàwotçã (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List-defined references are actually fairly easy once you get the hang of it! There's some more guidance at WP:LDRHOW, including details on converting to the list-defined format; apparently WP:REFSEG is a useful script for conversion, though I've not used it personally. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Braxe + Falcon is undergoing GAR, and one thing of concern is the infobox images, specifically merging them together into one image to be thumbnail-friendly. The software I am using to try and image edit is not getting along with the very low quality of image 2 compared to the ~ 720p resolution of image 1. Hate to ask, but can you take a crack at merging those images together, please? Many thanks. Hope you've been doing well with GARs for TLoU season 2's episode articles. BarntToust 01:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to help! Hopefully this does the job; let me know if you'd like any adjustments. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 07:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rhain! That is awesome. Have a good one. BarntToust 14:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help to fix the wikicode of total number of killed militants in this template. Pachu Kannan (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch—I thought something looked different but should have paid closer attention after my edit. I've fixed it. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 20:48, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my edits on WP:VG/RS—I wasn't aware that we weren't supposed to add reliable sources from non-English Wikipedias without discussion. Do you think I should create a single discussion in the talk page that includes all of the Russian sources deemed reliable on Russian Wiki, all of the sources deemed reliable on Chinese Wiki, etc.? Or should a single discussion be limited to a single website? On that note, would you mind giving your thoughts on the three discussions I had already opened as well? Thanks for your help! –GM 02:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, you probably don't need a huge discussion before adding the sources to the page; just leave them open long enough to allow others to respond first. I'm sure it couldn't hurt to combine several sources into single discussions, especially if you continue to provide great analyses—here's an example from 2023 that led to many of the Chinese-language sources being added. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:23, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you! That link is very helpful! –GM 02:32, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Marvel's Wolverine cover art.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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) 17:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Doctor Who soundtracks has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rhian, I was a bit surprised that you reverted my edit to fit Wikipedia's policies and MOS. I've reverted your change back for now, citing WP:NOR, MOS:OVERLINK, and MOS:TITLE. However, I believe you're already familiar with these. If you still think your version is more proper and wish to revert it again, could you please explain which specific rule I might have overlooked (or violated)? Thank you. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 22:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've done so, as there is no overlinking or original research. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:51, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the source for "Pop"? As I couldn't find it, I removed it from infobox. Plus, the "remix" word is not a part of the song's name; neither should it be capitalized. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 22:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For overlink, you'd better see this sentence from the policy:

Unless particularly relevant to the context in the article, words and terms understood by most readers in context are usually not linked.

The terms "EP", "cover versions" are regarded as "terms understood by most readers in context". We already know what "EP" is, and what "cover version" means. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 23:00, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are now in the infobox. I appreciate the specific link to MOS:MUSICCAPS; I wouldn't have reverted that change if I'd read it earlier. I'm aware of MOS:OL's phrasing, but as I don't consider those to be "terms understood by most readers", I've elected to maintain the links. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits for Pop and MUSICCAPS. In fact, it has been discussed several times before, whether to wikilink "studio album" (in this case it would be "EP" or "extended play"). I would say, wikilink on those terms are unnecessary. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 00:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine—I feel otherwise. In any case, "EP" should definitely be linked; "extended play" is likely up to the editors' discretion. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhain. I'm going to make three types of edits to Bella Ramsey’s page, and I wanted to check that in principle you are happy for me to make similar edits in the future, whether you would like me to check with you first, or whether I should propose similar edits on the Talk page before making the changes. Once I know your preference, I can stop bothering you with questions! Of course, feel free to undo any of the edits that you aren’t happy with (I will do each one in turn).

Edit type A is to improve grammar (in this case suggesting a word to remove repetition of the word ‘praised’ in TLOU para). Edit type B is to add an additional sentence to a film/TV/music entry to provide context (in this case adding some info on Bello in the final para). Edit type C is to remove a repeated sentence (in the case removing the reference to Madame Tussauds in the Career section while retaining it in the Personal Life section but moving across the Wiki hyperlinks that were in the Career section). Crp74 (talk) 10:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Questions are never a bother and you're always welcome to ask them—but, to be clear, you never have to check with me before making edits. I don't own the article; I mostly just keep an eye on it to avoid vandalism (and puffery). If I ever see anything that misses the mark, I'll let you know. That being said, your edits look good! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s great! Thanks Rhain. Crp74 (talk) 07:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhain. You'll see that I've made some edits to the page now. My aim is to keep the current text unchanged as far as possible but to add in some more context, quotes and look to standardise formatting on things like dates. I'll take a pause to check that this looks OK to you (though do let me know if you felt any of my changes should have been talked with you / Talk page first). Thanks! Crp74 (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good! I don't see anything significant enough to require a discussion. I made some minor formatting adjustments but don't let that stop you. Feel free to make as many text changes as you like—as long as they're in good faith and beneficial to the article, there shouldn't be any issues. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 21:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rain. That’s much appreciated. I should also have a new photo of Bella on the set of Maya soon that we might be able to use down the line. Crp74 (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rhain. I'm attempting to load the Maya set pictures of Bella using the VRTS tool you kindly sent me. But I'm struggling to get past the file upload set as it says the files are not loaded onto Wiki Commons (even though I can see them on there). I've tried using the format Bella Ramsey filming Maya, October 2025 (01).jpg and also the original file name FILMING_BELLARAMSEY_01.jpg but with no success. Any suggestions/advice? Thanks. Crp74 (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Crp74: Strangely, it seems to work for me using the original file names. Perhaps try copying this directly:

FILMING BELLARAMSEY 01.jpg | FILMING BELLARAMSEY 02.jpg | FILMING BELLARAMSEY 03.jpg | FILMING BELLARAMSEY 04.jpg | FILMING BELLARAMSEY 05.jpg | FILMING BELLARAMSEY 06.jpg

Let me know how it goes. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC) [reply]

That worked! Huge thanks Rhain. Have a great weekend. Crp74 (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rhain. Thanks very much for for your edits on the page and for splitting it into sub-sections. Think those look great. I had two questions for you. The first is that Ella Schrey-Yeats' keeps appearing as red text as they do not have a Wiki page. Is there anything I need to do to fix that? The second question is do you think the page is in a position now where it would be worth going through a content quality assessment to see if it is now at a GA or A level? Crp74 (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't necessarily need to address the red link; per WP:REDDEAL, red links can remain if the subject "could plausibly sustain an article", which seems likely for Schrey-Yeats (at least in the future). You've done great work with Bella Ramsey's article, so you could definitely seek a GAN if that's your goal. The article uses quite a few primary and social media sources, so be prepared for questions about those, but otherwise it seems to be in decent shape. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Rhain. If OK I’ll remove the red text as for I think for those readers who aren’t aware of Wiki red text it looks like an error. I’ll make sure to periodically check whether a page for Schrey-Yates exists. Thanks for the heads up on primary and social media sources. I’ll see what I can do to replace these with secondary sources before starting the GAN. Crp74 (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally wouldn't remove it; it's explicitly not an error, nor do I believe it looks like one—it's simply a link to an article that doesn't exist yet, and keeping red links often encourages future article creation (see the first bullet point at WP:REDDEAL). Good luck with the sources and future quality assessment; let me know if you need anything. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Do you think 75 Seasons: The History of the NFL can be considered Start class? I found no more sources though. Timur9008 (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not overly familiar with the intricacies between stub- and start-class; it seems like there's some useful information here, especially WP:STUBLENGTH and WP:DESTUB. You've done well hunting for sources, though I'm sure there's more information to squeeze out of them—the Clarion-Ledger article seems to have some interesting production information, for instance. I'm sure you can confidently make the call to de-stub whenever you feel the article is ready. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 11:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :)

BTW why did you revert my edit on that article? I preffer to add the URL field and archive said sources just in case. Timur9008 (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy links are generally avoided on Wikipedia. If the host (in this case, Gale) has not made the article publicly accessible, then we probably shouldn't be providing direct bypass URLs for readers. Library members can still access the content as intended. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Won't be archiving any Gale links anymore then. Timur9008 (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing inherently wrong with archiving for your own records; I would just personally avoid linking in articles. But that's just my 2¢. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I put the link without archiving said source? (the get link option) Timur9008 (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors I've noticed do that. Timur9008 (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't do it personally, since that's still a proxy link allowing readers to bypass their login restrictions, but I'm not sure if there's a prescribed etiquette. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Source Citation" (under any Gale article) it says you can put the link. Timur9008 (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't explicitly permit or prohibit it; I assume that link is just taken from the current URL, proxies/identifiers and all. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have the most experience with this, I figured I'd shoot a question: I recently rewrote The Web of Fear and took it to GA, and I'm interested in doing more Classic serials in the future; are there any particular sources or things I should add/change within these kinds of articles? I wanted to make sure there wasn't anything I was missing before I moved on to another potential project in the future, and so I can make sure anything I'm missing can be included in other articles the future. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you, and congrats on getting the article to GA! There are a few things that I tend to do differently when I work on the classic serials—namely, the heading names and ordering, the episode table row headers, and the missing episode info. I've made some quick changes if you'd like to have a look directly, but of course you're welcome to revert partly or entirely if you prefer any elements from the previous version. At a quick glance, it looks to be in pretty good shape! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhain your edits honestly make the whole thing a lot more clean and organized; thank you so much! I'll look into adapting this format going forward. Thank you for the kind words and happy editing! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rhain, hope you've been doing well! I noticed you reverted the List Defined References format on Stray from <references>...</references> back to {{reflist}}. I'd swapped it as the previous {{reflist}} format is incompatible with VE (which most new users seem to prefer – I know I definitely added some duplicate refs when first starting out...), and is also being replaced essentially in the near future. I don't want to change anything back though without checking with you first, in case there's something I may have missed :) Nil🥝 04:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you; hope you've been well too! Thanks for linking that discussion; I was aware of this one, but not the most recent one. I opt for {{reflist}} out of habit, but I don't see any issue with swapping over to <references> if that's the site-wide consensus (though it's a shame they couldn't just fix the issue within the VE as well/instead). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 on that last point – I'd say the real "unofficial" consensus is that VE is a hot mess which should be fixed... but won't be. I personally think {{reflist}} feels tidier too, but alas, we're stuck with what we were dealt with, and at the end of the day, it will hopefully improve the experience for new editors to contribute constructively (🤞). Nil🥝 21:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I noticed you updated the GTA 6 article really quickly after the news came out how are Wikipedia editors so fast at catching these updates? I'm asking this as I'm curious about it Knok fade (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! That particular change was just due to coincidence and convenience—I happened to be editing a different article when I got the notification about the delay, so it was an easy update. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for answering my question I appreciate it Knok fade (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure—welcome to Wikipedia! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've removed the genre in the Wolfenstein article because I do not believe the source complies with WP:SUBJECTIVE. As genre is subjective, we should apply third-party sources to take in interpretations of the game in question. While I do not think we should ignore the sources from devs on their interpretation, they don't hold as much weight as third-party sources. That is my understanding of this at least. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware, I saw the edit—and, as I said, this really should have used a tag rather than full removal per WP:PRESERVE. I've restored the information. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ONUS, its up to an editor who would like the content added to provide sources. I did not see a loss to remove material that I felt wasn't inline with WP:SUBJECTIVE. While I do see the sources you've added, they are all out of date and are based on trailers and seem to replicating a promo for the game. I'm going to to focus on looking up material that has actually played the game over witnessing a trailer as I feel that complies better with WP:WEIGHT. I'll report if I find anything that clarifies any discrepancies of the genre on the talk page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean WP:BURDEN—which also states Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step to removing unsourced material, to allow references to be added. Tags are generally preferable for uncontroversial information (especially if it's been present for 11+ years) as it allows the problem to be addressed; removals, meanwhile, often go unnoticed. Not all the references are based on pre-release info, though I've added others that I chose not to include earlier. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of an article that is in good standing as a good article, I try to do content that is easiest to remove. It was something not in the source and was validated by another. I presumed it was by a drive-by editor and thought not much of it. Regardless, we're knee deep in the talk page about the genre at the moment so I look forward to your response there. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]