User talk:IceWelder

Hi! Do you know/see what the old website was for Rage Games? I've checked Newspapers.com and here [1] but I'm not seeing it.

The reason I ask because Rage is listed as a developer for AYSO Soccer '97 and I want to to see their website if they have more info on the game. Timur9008 (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Should be rage.co.uk, although by this point they'd been renamed Rage Software. IceWelder [✉] 10:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Is it possible they had a website from 1995-1998? Condidering they existed since 1992. Timur9008 (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I can't find any evidence for an earlier website. I'll have to assume they didn't have any until 1998. IceWelder [✉] 12:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks! Timur9008 (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rocksteady Studios, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Develop (magazine).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cybermania '94 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Shapeyness -- Shapeyness (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The article Cybermania '94 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cybermania '94 for comments about the article, and Talk:Cybermania '94/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Shapeyness -- Shapeyness (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hey, I've always appreciated your sense of writing. Would you be able to chime in at the Kim Kitsuragi FA? It wouldn't matter if you were thoroughly aware of the character, and may even benefit from a more outside reader's opinion. Not to be too QPQ about it, but happy to return the favor next time you have something up for review. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hey @Shooterwalker, I can take a look, although only either tomorrow or during the weekend. Please ping me if I forget. If you want to QPQ, my Rockstar North FAC is currently open for business. IceWelder [✉] 17:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'll try to get a good look at the Rockstar North article early next week. Thanks for trying to find time. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi! :) Do you see any more sources for Presage Software (article I'm planning to create in the future) aside from these? [2], [3], [ Timur9008 (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I couldn't find any on a whim, unfortunately. Perhaps I can have another look tomorrow or during the weekend. IceWelder [✉] 18:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I got a few extra mentions at [4], [5], [6], and [7], but still nothing really significant. IceWelder [✉] 20:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks! :) Timur9008 (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello! Please explain why my link is considered spam. I thought it was a serious analytical resource. ~ Leonid "Leo" Belov (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You linked to a site that has the principal function of highlighting external skin trading platforms. It is not a reliable, journalistic source. IceWelder [✉] 22:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for reply. If the claim is only to the link, can I restore the text with a more authoritative source? ~ Leonid "Leo" Belov (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If it's a reliable source that supportes the text entirely, I don't see why not. IceWelder [✉] 22:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The redirect Snape Kills Dumbledore has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 31 § Snape Kills Dumbledore until a consensus is reached. Janhrach (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi! :) I've uploaded a screenshot for the gameplay section of Mario Teaches Typing. [8] I think I did everything correctly? I don't really upload gameplay screenshots and the last one I did was 5 or 6 years ago. Timur9008 (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Looks fine to me. I personally try to avoid the bare-bones {{Non-free use rationale 2 }} when pre-filled alternatives like {{Non-free use rationale video game screenshot }} exist, but it's not invalid either. IceWelder [✉] 19:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Regarding Special:Diff/1274803986, the change was initially made as a result of this discussion in 2021 (Template_talk:Infobox video game/Archive 15#Minor aesthetic changes), and was lost in the conversion to a styles.css sheet in 2022. It has no visible function on desktop, but on mobile it ensures that the size of the title is larger than other text in the box, in line with virtually all other infoboxes. Should I still start a discussion? — Goszei (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I checked again and it appears this is now the standard font size (at least in Vector 2022)? If the change doesn't make any difference, we should probably keep it out in case it ever changes again in the main styles. IceWelder [✉] 21:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

125% is indeed the standard for infobox titles in Vector (and has been for as long as I remember), but on mobile the default skin used is actually Minerva. In Minerva, the title is no larger than the infobox text (see [9], for instance). Other infoboxes, like for films and books, use "font-size: 125%;" in their respective title styles for the purpose of fixing this display. — Goszei (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hmm, yes I can see the difference, but for comparison I immediately checked Nintendo and found that at least that template doesn't use that scaling either. It's weird that this is so inconsistent. Has this ever been discussed at a more central forum? IceWelder [✉] 21:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Infobox company once had the fix, but it was actually removed by you in Special:Diff/1145022640! There has not been a more centralized discussion about this, as far as I know. — Goszei (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Ha, touché! You can see I had the same idea back then. Guess I'm reverting both edits for now, although perhaps this should be discussed properly somehwere sometime and perhaps taken into Minerva completely. IceWelder [✉] 21:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Matt Wilkinsson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) is likely the latest reincarnation of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BouwMaster, doing exactly the same thing. - Amigao (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for uploading File:Fun Bits 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) 03:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Not sure if useful [10] Timur9008 (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks, though consider posting it as a refidea to the game's article. I don't see much information for Rockstar North's article, unfortunately. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 17:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Done Timur9008 (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for uploading File:Purple Lamp Studios.svg . 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) 03:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

A recent edit I created in relation to the page for Mojang Studios was reverted for a claim of "Unreliable Source". However, Iit seems that the most up-to-date and reliable source upon the internet currently within the span of 3 years is LeadIQ, and yet you say it "Unsanctioned." Others are more outdated or do not specify date, and good user experiences, ratings, and a myriad of methods such as web-scraping and checked external corrections, even from the companies itself specify LeadIQ is the most reliable source for this case. My corrections of value, then would not be questioned. What is your reasoning? TheUnit 72 (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I can't say for sure how LeadIQ gathers its data, but it looks like mostly web scraping and some estimations. This is not reliable by nature, and in this case especially, the site claims Mojang to have 1118 employees, including 109 from multiple continents the company has no offices in. Most other countries don't line up either. I doubt any company recommends LeadIQ for information that they themselves did not publish. How would the site even acquire unpublished information like that on virtually every notable entity?

The most recent source is from 2021 and reports a number in the present tense, so it is assumed that the number is of that time. (And indeed it is from a 2021 tweet the article cited previously.) That numbers are out-of-date by a few years is not great, but it's not uncommon either if they aren't reported regularly, as is the case here. IceWelder [✉] 16:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]