This is an archive of past discussions with User:Zxcvbnm. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi. Following on from your rescue of my cover art blunder, I was wondering if you'd like to look over the article as a whole. I got interested by chance through my involvement with Panzer Dragoon, and I've done an expansion of it. I was thinking of taking it to GA, but don't want to take it forward without some new eyes looking over it (I know I can end up missing glaring faults if I've worked extensively on something). If not, that's fine. Just a bit of a shot in the dark. ProtoDrake (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake: I wonder if XboxAchievements.com is a WP:RS. The source is used several times but is not listed in WP:VG/S. It has a staff page with an Editor in Chief but if you can get other sources for that info I'd suggest it. GameReactor was also listed as inconclusive, so that should likely not be used either. Finally, per WP:REPCITE you should not use citations multiple times in subsequent sentences unless each sentence is cited to a totally different source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry!
I accidentally clicked rollback on one of your edits at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Now my page is hanging with a database error when I try to revert myself, but I wanted to let you know that this was a simple misclick and I'm sorry it was recorded as rolling back your edit. (In fact, I will search around and see if there is an easy way to disable the button for myself, since I almost never use rollback.) Best, Dekimasuよ!05:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Hey @Zxcvbnm — thanks for your comments on the RfC regarding Vector 2022. I'm trying to connect with some editors to better understand their perspective, and how they are weighing the tradeoffs here. I have a hunch that on a deeper level (beyond typography preferences, or disagreements about whitespace, etc.) we all share some common goals (we being the volunteer editors, and the product folks at the WMF). So, this is kind of an experimental conversation but, if you're willing to engage...from the data we see people searching more, and using the table of contents more to explore articles more deeply. We don't see any decline in any datapoints. Ultimately this means more readers will be exploring and reading more Wikipedia content with Vector 2022. If we zoom out and look a the big picture, is that not the overarching goal here? To share knowledge with the world and have them come engage with it? Logged-in users can customize the interface as they choose. If the data shows increased engagement from logged-out people, would that not be a win for the movement as a whole? I'm trying to understand if editors share this larger goal, and how to focus the conversation on that, versus smaller differences in aesthetic preferences.
Any response you are willing to offer is greatly appreciated. I am not trying to convince you of anything, I am rather trying to deepen my own understanding of how people are thinking about the tradeoffs here.
@AHollender (WMF): My disagreement is mostly aesthetic, but also with some of the menus. I actually support most of the technical side of things in terms of making people more engaged. I disagree with the people who think Vector 2010 is perfect and agree with the points that were laid out as to why it needs to be replaced. I just think the theme is visually lacking with the whitespace being part of that. I do not think that the site should be prioritized for usability at the complete and utter expense of visual uniqueness. At that point it looks like Google Docs, not a recognizable website. We don't want Wikipedia being indistinguishable from a generic screen reader.
Similarly from what others brought up I think if the amount of dead space is cut in half (not totally removed) it would be greatly improved. Wikiwand's layout is pretty much perfect for me in terms of how it is designed. However, I also dislike the total lack of what might be called look and feel. I am not asking for the UI to be transformed into a Geocities page, but some sort of color-based delineation of navigation and buttons would be best (as in the Vector 2010 skin, where the left side navigation is grey and has a 1px border with the page). The current menus just feel overly simple and unfinished. I also dislike the hamburger menu, as others have stated, it gives the page a mobile feel even on desktop. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I haven't participated in the RfC, but ZXCVBNM has actually highlighted most of my issues with Vector 2022, and why I'll stay on 2010. The whitespace really bothers me. I've read the rationale for it, but for me, it *hurts my eyes*. I use dark modes whenever I can, and empty spaces of bright colors (including white) are a distraction and literal eyesore. This also factors into my dislike of fixed width sites. I don't like the "mobilification", such as the hamburger menu or slide away side bars, with no visual delineation. There is, in my view, absolutely nothing worse today than clicking a mobile URL and having to get back to the desktop view. I'm also old and grumpy, so. -- ferret (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm I really appreciate your response. Firstly let me say: I love how visually unique Wikipedia is. I appreciate the weird icons in infoboxes and ambox templates. I appreciate the use of brackets around certain buttons. I appreciate the unique aesthetics of Wikitext. I myself was reluctant to remove the gradients and light blue lines. I agree that focusing on the aesthetic aspect of the interface is interesting and important. I'm admittedly more of a functional/technical designer than a visual/aesthetic designer, but even still I spent a good deal of time thinking about the uniqueness of the interface, the presence of the Wikipedia "brand" within the interface, and the overall character/personality of the skin. I'm not sure if you participated in the fifth prototype feedback round — curious if you've seen the options I proposed here and here (both of which somewhat explore this question)?
I'm not sure if this answer will be satisfactory to you, but after considering this for quite some time where I came to is: the interface started out extremely simple (reference images). I believe it makes sense, after 22 years or so, to reset the aesthetics back to this minimalism, and in doing so allow the character to develop anew over time. I tried for months to figure out how to refine the Wikipedia aesthetic and capture it within the new skin. And I came up with a lot of visually interesting explorations. But I don't think that's the right approach. I think the aesthetic we have today ultimately evolved through functional changes that were made, and the same thing will happen again (but we will end up with something different, and unique).
Also, going back to what I was saying in the beginning of this comment, I think that the most aesthetically unique, and most beautiful, parts of Wikipedia are the content elements. Ambox templates, Infoboxes, user generated icons, etc. And by simplifying the interface we accentuate that stuff. In short: I'm not worried that people will start to mistake Wikipedia for Google Docs, or any other site. Though I appreciate that concern and don't want to discount the importance of brand recognition. AHollender (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
@AHollender (WMF): No, I didn't participate in any feedback besides the RfC. I agree that it's not good to enact too much change away from the roots, but I feel like disregarding the borders introduced in the 2005 design is doing it a disservice. It was ultimately a net improvement as it directs the eye towards important parts of the site. The main example presented in the RfC was indeed one with a blank background. I can get behind example #9 much more, as I greatly prefer the border areas to have some separation from the article page proper.
I also greatly prefer retaining the original square-style logo, as the other variants feel either mobile-esque or, in the case of the faded version, I can't really see the rationale for hiding part of the classic Wikipedia logo.
As an additional suggestion for the ToC, I think Wikiwand does a nice thing with making the H1 titles serif fonts (similar to the article title) and larger than the subheaders and I would heavily support #3 or #5 design for the ToC that gives selected items a background. Right now, the ToC looks a bit too simplistic and it's just floating in the aether.
Of course this is all just my opinion, but hopefully it answered what it would take for me to potentially support it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Mope.io
I changed the references of the reception section of Draft:Mope.io after you initially declined it for "lack[ing] reviews from reliable sources" and added new sources, but you declined the draft again for the same reason. In what way are the sources unreliable for this article? 2001:8003:680C:3D01:DD10:390E:DC0A:14A8 (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
They are from sources that are either user generated (WP:USERG) or have been deemed unreliable by community consensus (WP:VG/S), or are trivial mentions that do not give the game itself significant coverage (the articles about Addicting Games, the company, arguably fall under WP:CORPDEPTH). Generally speaking, I think a bar that most modern video games should pass is getting at least 3 reliably sourced full reviews listed in Metacritic (although for obscure or artsy games, it may be in other assorted publications). Nevertheless, there is no evidence of that here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Fantastic DYK
A penguin for you!
Great DYK! It definitely was the first thing that caught my eye on the main page, not least because of the musician hilariously named "Soccer Mommy"... LOL. Never knew they held a concert on Club Penguin Rewritten of all places. That's a funny and interesting tidbit so great job. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Pacific Drive
Hello I would like to know what kind of independent sources I should be using. By that do you mean articles that are not directly related to the project like a indie newsletter? Stevie extreme (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Generally it's reviews, previews or significant mentions from the gaming press or other press sources. I should stress that it's mostly major gaming press, so small blogs usually aren't reliable enough to apply. There is a list of all known reliable sources at WP:VG/S. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I have took in all the information and I know know that is probably too soon to make the article but I don't want the article deleted after six months because I the game will come out in 2023 and might come out after 6 months what can I do to save the article? Stevie extreme (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
You can copy+paste the Wikicode into a text document if you are worried about the draft being deleted and save the document locally until such time as you are ready to paste it back again. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I think the article can sustain enough infomation to become splitted from the oringial article. I would appreciate it if you would help me. SMBMovieFan (talk) 01:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:SPLIT, I recommend continuing to add information to the main article about the series first, treating it as a section, then starting a split discussion if you continue to think there is enough to make a new article. This would demonstrate there is actual need for a separate article, but right now I don't believe there is. Unlike articles like Skyrim modding this is about a much smaller community with much less press coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether these articles are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether they should be deleted.
The articles will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of CryEngine games until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the articles during the discussion, including to improve the articles to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the articles until the discussion has finished.
On 17 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nintendo Switch emulation, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Kotaku revised an article about Nintendo Switch emulation after Nintendo complained that the previous version encouraged piracy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nintendo Switch emulation. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Nintendo Switch emulation), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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’ve come across an article that you reviewed and subsequently declined back on the 2nd July this year, The article in question is for the SONY line of portable Cd-i players (Draft:Sony CD-i Intelligent Discman IVO-V10/V11)
Perhaps you don’t remember why it failed successful submission? but the reason stated was that it didn’t completely warrant it’s “own” page.
I do of course respect this decision and from the look of the article, (though very informative) I understand why this device may have persuaded your conclusion to merge it with the rest of the Discman line, however, from a technical and historic standpoint, this is not the case and the machine is actually an almost completely unique entity, that can indeed warrant it’s own page if given the help it needs.
I understand that from a public perspective, it’s just another “Discman” model, but it really does much more than that and only shares the name with Sony’s other portable CD players. An example of a page that’s been successfully accepted into the Wiki, is Sony’s Data Discman, an early E-book reader, somewhat a closer example to the Sony Intelligent Discman. If that article can be approved, then with a bit more effort from the author and myself, we could work together to improve it for the next submission. I certainly realise that people in the know will find this article helpful and interesting, it’s just a matter of cleaning it up and taking what you’ve said onboard.
I feel that, with a bit more understanding of the subject matter, your help and some extra effort, we could get this article to the status it needs for publication into the Wiki,
I’ve also contacted the author for their assistance. I look forward to your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTechnologyGuru (talk • contribs) 01:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Rune Factory 5 cover art.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair 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).
Thanks for uploading File:Toriel Undertale.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair 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).
Thank you for receiving my drafts and approving them. Is there something I should be doing to get more eyeballs on them to expand them? Or is it normal for created articles to wait for more edits? LeonRamble On21:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
@Leonramb: Articles on developing topics like games that aren't out yet often get a lot of editors, but articles on already-released or obscure games rarely get any attention. They still get plenty of pageviews, so they are useful, they just tend to be ignored by editors because they are so busy on their own pet projects or simply trying to make more new articles.
It actually makes sense - it's often less effort for an experienced editor to write an article from scratch into a GA, following all guidelines, than to have to proofread and potentially rewrite from scratch someone else's work first.
Ergo, if you feel like an article needs to be better, it's best to learn how to make Good Articles and onwards yourself. Otherwise, be fine with it potentially being the same forever. If you look at all the GA's that I have made, I am almost certain they would not have been made GA's in at least a decade, if ever, if I did not take the initiative and do it. Furthermore, for the ones that already existed, I essentially had to throw out most or all of the previous article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
It actually does make sense. I have done some editing around more popular games and those seem very active. I finally created an account to be able to create new game articles but I admit that the only openings I see are for the indy game scene. Maybe that will be my pet project for now and one day I might try to make a Good Article. Thanks for your input. LeonRamble On21:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Can you help me with this draft?
Hey Zxcvbnm,
first of all, thank you for what you do for the gaming section of Wikipedia and thank you for the support you offer to those who are not as experienced as you in creating new entries.
I would like to better understand your comment on Draft:Batora: Lost Haven. RPG Site was excluded not because we wanted to create an advertising page for the game (which is not possible, since we followed the votes and opinions expressed on Steam and Metacritic), but because it is the only negative vote received on the whole network. There are many other authoritative sites that have spoken very well and that have been reported. Is it possible that in order to be neutral one must also give an account of the only extremely negative opinion? Also because it seems to me the only aspect that doesn't work on the page, while everything else is correct: is this entry worthy of being deleted for this alone? I would like to clarify this point so that I can resolve the issue as quickly as possible and resubmit the page for review.
@Mario Petillo: "Is it possible that in order to be neutral one must also give an account of the only extremely negative opinion?"
Actually yes, it's a policy called undue weight. The first line there says "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". RPG Site is a fairly prominent website, and there is no real reason to ignore negative reviews unless there is broad agreement there is something false about them, which is not the case here. Most any opinion is allowed as long as it's specified as an opinion.
And to clarify; the video game is clearly notable, so it's in no danger of being deleted, it just needs to be fixed before it's accepted to main space. That means adding more reliable sources for its reception. At WP:VG/S there is a list of all sources considered reliable; if it's not listed there, or listed under unreliable sources, and isn't a mainstream journalist outlet, it's most likely not reliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@Mario Petillo: I'd also like to clarify that it is possible to orient a page for promotional purposes simply by adjusting its wording, for example cherry picking "good" reviews or only "good" things reviews say about the game, which the page gave me the impression of being like. I never implied it was inventing sources from thin air. I'd just focus more on the page being fully impartial and paraphrasing both the reviewer's positive and negative feedback. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm Thank you, it's all clear now. We proceed with updating the page to proceed with a second revision. We would also like to create the page for Stormind Games, creator of Batora: Lost Haven (third video game developed). Is there a page where we can find the criteria that we can follow to minimize your intervention? Mario Petillo (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
@Mario Petillo: Looking for sources, I have my doubts Stormind Games itself is notable. Right now it doesn't appear to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Interviews are only primary sources and can't count towards notability.
Finally, if you work for or are otherwise related to the studio you are expected to follow WP:DISCLOSE and declare the affiliation in the talk page of the video game. (I assume you do given that that is your sole page created if you are also the IP who made it). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you again. I've resent Batora: Lost Haven page for a new submission, adding a more impartial reviews. Let me know, please, if everything is OK now. Speaking about the declaration of affiliation, it's not a problem: asap the page will be online I'll put the disclaimer in the talk page. Mario Petillo (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@Mario Petillo: I had to remove some things; note that anything user created (i.e. user reviews, user feedback, popularity polls directly from the poll results) should generally not be included per WP:USERG. Patch notes like "the patch tweaked the combat" should also be avoided per WP:NOTCHANGELOG unless it obviously made a tremendous change worth mentioning. Maybe the patch would, in retrospect, make the game slightly better than the reviews state, but since Wikipedia is not concerned with "correcting the record", that essentially doesn't matter for our purposes.
I would rewrite the plot section of the article to change its tone. Right now it reads like a plot summary on a game page, but it must be neutral in a way that dryly states the story. A random example would be: "When the game starts, Jane travels to an alien planet, and soon encounters monsters she must fight" rather than "Jane must travel to an alien world; what terrors may await her there? Who knows that threats she could encounter!" ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@Mario Petillo: The story part was greatly improved from how it was before. The article still had grammar issues that needed copyediting, and some bare link sources, but, after I did a pass of it, it currently looks good enough for mainspace, so I will approve it now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for checking out the I See Red article!
Hello Zxcvbnm, I'm sorry that Draft: I See Red didn't meet the requirements to be approved. I'm going to try and gather more sources; there are many news posted online but, aside from IGN, most are in spanish or from smaller outlets. The game is the first release of the company and it did not get a lot of exposure outside of Argentina (where it was created), so the development team is trying to change that, including getting the Metacritic reviews.
There was a lot of time and work put into the project, so if you have any other suggestions, I'd really appreciate it! Do you think adding a reference from the Argentinian government's official website would help? Cheers! AgusTrobajo (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
@AgusTrobajo: Unfortunately the requirement for non trivial, non primary coverage is non negotiable, and it doesn't seem like there are enough reliable sources reviewing the game. This does not in any way imply the game is low quality, just that there isn't enough "significance" to justify putting in an encyclopedia. In Wikipedia's view, if something is amazing, people will naturally find and mention it. This doesn't always happen, stuff can get recognized in a niche only and never reach a wider audience.
The IGN video probably counts as a review of sorts, but that's only one, and not really an officially published one either. A mention in the governments website would only work if it is WP:SIGCOV, preferably a development description or review of some kind and not just a shout-out. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
@AgusTrobajo: Also, a good way to determine whether the game is notable is giving the WP:THREE best sources, as one might in a deletion discussion to defend notability. If you can't come up with three reliable and significant ones, it's probably not notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Request on 17:58:53, 23 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Emeraldflowsion94
Hi! First, I want to thank you for reviewing the Scythe Dev Team page I submitted for review. I see that it did not qualify because "This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article," so I wanted to ask which sources specifically needed to be better so I can properly edit :) Thank you again so much!!!
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonfire (Dark Souls) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Just so you know, I don't think you're gonna get much of an answer about this without context for what exactly you're asking about or requesting for this? But I think that there's a pretty clear reason why the draft was declined (a lack of reliable sources) and that's something that (assuming the sources do indeed exist) you'd probably be able to fix better than anyone else, as someone clearly invested in the topic. So my suggestion is to try to find some such sources if you think any are out there. silvia(BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)(inquire within)13:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't use Google ngram much so I didn't at first register the problem with your comment at Talk:Mpox: "Mpox does not even register on Google Ngrams as a name used by anyone". I've since checked it and the Wikipedia article Google Ngram Viewer and found that their corpus of text only goes up to 2019. Something to bear in mind, particularly for WP:NAMECHANGES issues. The name "mpox" was only invented and proposed late 2022. -- Colin°Talk14:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
@TheDonquavious: While you're right, that article is technically a while after the event took place, it does not seem like it contains "further analysis or discussion", as WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE states. In other words it doesn't seem like an article actually written from a future perspective - just one published on a time delay, but written at the time of the incident. As you can probably see, 99% of the relevant sources were from a few days after the incident.
The only thing I could find from an ACTUAL future perspective was this article, about a parody mod someone made based on the event. It might qualify as continued coverage since it does in fact mention what happened after the event for a paragraph or two. I'd still have a bit of trepidation, but if you add that source to the article I feel like it could withstand AfD, weakly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I would also see about removing any redundant sources. If a source does not offer any new information that was not given by a previous source, it should be removed. Articles should use the least sources possible, but those of the highest quality. Otherwise it's WP:REFBOMBing. Notable articles stand on the strength of the sources, not the sheer amount of them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for that info, I added that article as a citation. I removed any redundant citations as well, I will definitely keep that in mind for the future. Thank you for all your help. TheDonquavious (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Planetoids
i was bold, i took this as consensus (although i assumed my change was uncontroversial), and youreverted, so now let's discuss the matter. (The last link was a joke. Doesn't matter, just trying to be friendly.)
If you look at the disambiguation page i made, you'll see thesetwo planetoids not previously acknowledged by the hatnote on the minor planet article. Given that you kept the disambiguation for Planetoid (comics), i'm not sure you excluded the others deliberately (although if you did i'd like to know why), but as you can see, disambiguating them all without a dedicated disambiguation page gets a little messy up top? How would you feel about [planetoid] as a redirect to [minor planet], with a hatnote for [planetoid (disambiguation)]?
@173.67.42.107: I don't think there is consensus that those other definitions are typical redirects for planetoid.
I think rather than debating with me, there should be a discussion opened up on Talk:Minor planet about this instead, or a Wikiproject on the subject if there is one. I am simply reversing something I think is potentially controversial, but I'm not an astronomy expert. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Fallout 4 Deathclaw.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair 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).
On 22 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kat (Gravity Rush), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that writer Naoko Sato was initially worried that the character Kat would come off as "too Japanese" for overseas audiences? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kat (Gravity Rush). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Kat (Gravity Rush)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
I think they should probably be merged for failing WP:GNG, which would de facto remove their GA status. Simply removing the GA however wouldn't make sense since they're still well written. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
The article Kat (Gravity Rush) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kat (Gravity Rush) for comments about the article, and Talk:Kat (Gravity Rush)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for that Sigma source. I have been cleaning up the article of X (Mega Man) after finding some sources that feel focused on the character like that comparison to Hayao Miyasaki or that source that calls him one of the earliest tragic hero characters in gaming. Still, I'm not sure how it should be kept around and wanted advice considering you made 2B GA. In it current status, the reception I envisiones involes the first paragraph as how he was receieved in the main series, the second one focuses on the spinoffs and the third one on other titles as well as his popularity in general when envisioning crossover games. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
BTW, similar to how I added more info from Ultron Sigma's reception, I guess the creation section could be benefitted for how the writers created such combination. Sadly, I haven't been able to find a single comment from the creators of Infinite involving Ultron Sigma's creation. The one that I did I find which helped to establish more notability is X as the developers specifically added X to Infinite because they noted he was popular in Western region contrasting the previous article from Marvel vs Capcom 3 where the developers acknowledged that Zero was more popular than X.Tintor2 (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
@Tintor2: Right now, the reception section for X suffers from a massive amount of WP:REFBOMBing. It feels like it goes all over the place listing off every trivial mention of X rather than organizing it into cohesive paragraphs and is painful to read through. A majority of the sources used in the article are much more applicable to the series as a whole.
That leads me to believe that right now, it would be best to merge X (Mega Man) into Mega Man X and work on expanding the series article with those sources instead, for which they are much more fitting. The series article can discuss the game and its main character and would be a shoo-in for GA if expanded. Its current state is fairly pathetic. A lot of it is an ungainly chart that can become a timeline.
In terms of X himself, he's a lot tougher to search for sources for since his name is simply, "X", same as the series. It is clear, though, that right now his article has almost nothing that wouldn't be better off in the series page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I think you'd need more than a single article, IMO. Maybe focus on redirecting to and improving his entry in List of Mega Man characters, which needs work. If enough coverage is demonstrated in the list, it can always be split again, but the article is extremely bloated with fancruft and can be pared down heavily. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I submitted the draft; however, I think it's a little bit poorly written and needs to be copyedited. If you can help, I very much appreciate it. I've used all the sources I can find on Google; I couldn't find more sources. The reception is also short, sadly; I couldn't make it longer since I'm not fluent enough. I'm also not sure these 2 sources are relevant. [1][2]GlatorNator (talk) 06:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
@GlatorNator: I would try not to use bare links for references. There should be a citation tool you can paste the link into, at least with the visual editor, though it may need additional work to make the fields all correct. Using the tool you can also cite the same sources multiple times, preventing duplicate references. I think it needs some work, but I will try to expand it using the sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
I am embarrassed since you fixed every issue in the article on GAN. Thank you! I was not aware that it was that difficult to fix everything since it was my first time. The GA should be credited to you since you're the one who did everything. Regards. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 07:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
No problem. I really don't think it was in a place of being a GA at the time it was nominated, so I could have just removed it and advised you to wait, but seeing it get nominated spurred me to more fully improve it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Gaming Bolt and possibly Inverse may not be reliable. Literally all of the listicles have to go, which pretty much hollows out the reception, so something more substantive and significant needs to be put in its place. (Preferably it should be contemporaneous articles about her or mentions of her, because all of these crappy listicles are from recent times). The article also needs to better establish a comparison of her reception between the original and remake. The fact that she is less of a damsel in distress only takes up a single sentence. Overall, needs significantly more remake reception and possibly comparing back and forth with different aspects.
I have a hard time believing reception of her was mostly negative in the original game. It seems to be mostly based on clickbait sources overexaggerating her negative traits. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I've always done Wikipedia in spurts (and this time is probably no exception) but I've felt like sticking around longer because you have been such a helpful presence throughout. You've given me extremely helpful constructive feedback on my article work, engaged with me in deletion debates, and kept me engaged on challenging myself in Wikipedia in a way I've never felt before. Thank you for being such a diligent member of our video game community here and for helping this returning Wikipedian hand feel welcomed. Nomader (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Like, I'm not trying to take the piss out of you or anything, I think you do a lot of fine editing and I think you're an overall good editor. I'm just telling you something I had to be told as well, and for me, bluntness is a more effective tool. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I think you can probably realize that insinuating stuff like me being on a "high horse" is rude and insulting. I think cherry picking one of my articles that got deleted is extremely unfair and oversimplifies things. I would ultimately have never made the Deathclaw article if GameRant was listed as a situational source at that point - in 2020 I didn't realize the website's reputation as a content farm, nor was it marked as such. If that article was still recognized as reliable, it would probably be notable, since it got a fair amount of coverage in Fallout: A Tale of Mutation and recognized as a Fallout icon in PCGamesN. I do not hold a double standard and would likely vouch for any character, Mortal Kombat or otherwise, who had that sort of reception.
Goro's reception is extremely basic and leans heavily on both CBR and ScreenRant, Valnet content farm sites in the vein of GameRant. Which are listed as situational sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I've also seen you say rude things for other editors. If you are insulted by this, then I ask you to consider how you come off to those around you, because the way you act is extremely off putting. I'm sad that you aren't introspecting at all here. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Moving this comment from AfD to not disrupt it.
The reply of yours in the Michelle Chang AfD discussion is incredibly concerning. Once again, you either didn't read what was linked, or you have a standard that you often fail to meet when you make articles. So either you're applying a double standard to other people's work, or your participation in AfDs fails to meet the standard of quality we should expect from another user. Impugning that another user is acting in bad faith by trying to inflating a subject's notability through deceptive practices, and discrediting the work I put into finding the sources, is exactly the kind of behavior I said you need to drop. I would really prefer to not open a request for comment on your commentary about other users. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
@Cukie Gherkin: My apologies in giving a more dismissive response than was necessary. As I said in the AfD, it was an error on my part and I accept responsibility for not 100% checking for significant coverage. I should clarify that I never meant to imply you were acting in bad faith. Unless an article is actively harmful, I don't think wanting to retain it indicates bad faith on the part of an editor, sorry if I gave you that impression. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
It's fine. Like I said, I don't dislike you, editor or person, but sometimes your commentary can be really insulting. I've talked with some users in private who have felt aggrieved at times, and I just want to communicate the importance of minding how you come off. We both want what's best for Wikipedia, and we both joined the project around the same time, and like I said above, I'm no stranger to the way I come off causing grievances (though less so in recent years). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree. There's general acknowledgement that comedy video games are a genre even if it may not necessarily be sufficiently notable for a page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
RE: Ivy and sources
Ivy's going to be a mess to clean up, I'm going to have to pretty much start on a subpage to work it out, but one thing I wanted to bring up was the Forbes article: while I recognize Forbes contributor articles may not be notable, Paul Tassi is cited by and written for enough publications that he should be fine to cite. Same with Liana Kerzner: while not a journalist she's been cited in publications such as newsweek. Figured that might be worth relaying in these instances.-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
@Kung Fu Man: Well, there's also the fact that the Forbes article just seems totally unnecessary. It mentions Ivy from Soul Calibur in passing, a trivial sentence-long example as part of a wider statement on sexualization. I think Tassi's argument is a very outdated one, as it's been shown that badass, brawny men are also oriented towards male power fantasies, but regardless of that, it should be at Sexualization in video games, not the Ivy article. So I 110% stand by removing it, it was likely just found as part of an attempt to skim for any mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
It's definitely one of the weaker mentions I'll agree with you on that. I cited him in Sophitia where he made a much more prominent statement, and I know Kerzner has said more about Ivy in a few spots so I figured I'd bring it up just to avoid confusion later.
What's interesting is it's also one of the only bits of reception I've run across for Mitsurugi that actually gives any thoughts on the character or his design. That is such a frustratingly weird mess, you'd think there'd be more but there just isn't.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I put some work into the draft that you recently declined. I just wanted to hear your opinion before it gets resubmitted again. It does have a decent amount of reliable sources now. I would have written a critical reception section, but I have not found any chinese reliable source on reviewing it. I guess we have to wait for its worldwide release for that. The plot section is also quite thin - my country is sadly not on the soft launch list so I can not play test it myself right now to gather more plot info.
Anyways, I would still like to put this out as an article, to encourage more people to work on it. As draft pages are not shown by default, it might get overlooked easily. Would you consider it as sufficient to create an article out of it? Vestigium Leonis (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
SMALLDETAILS and hyphens
Similar to the discussion at Talk:The In-Between (2019 film)#Requested move 10 May 2022 where you (and me) opposed on the grounds of it not being sufficient/distinguishing I've been producing lists of former municipalities in England at User:Crouch, Swale/Former civil parishes and some of them like Cassop cum Quarrington listed actually exist at Cassop-cum-Quarrington but this is because some sources always omit hyphens even when they are part of the name. As can be seen the Ordnance Survey (which is normally the authority on place names) includes the hyphens as does Mapit, GeoNames and the 2011 census but some sources like A Vision of Britain through Time and UKBMD never include hyphens for units. I would say if there were 2 places and one formerly included hyphens then per SMALLDETAILS the absence of hyphens wouldn't distinguish as some sources always omit them and the presence may not be seen as enough as it would likely be seen as to small a detail to distinguish and some sources may add them to show its part of the name rather than just a description. There is Walton-on-the-Hill of which it appears the Surrey village one doesn't include hyphens even though our article does. In some cases the village may use a different variant than the municipality such as with Brafield-on-the-Green the village includes the hyphens while the municipality excludes them. The likes of Sandhutton/Sand Huttondo seem sensible cases of SMALLDETAILS though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Electronic Arts until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
@GlatorNator: Frankly, I removed most of it besides a small amount, that is not the place for fan theories or tangents about other characters who may be related. It will require searching for new potential sources on his development, probably interviews or artbooks. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
It's more that I never really tried to find such sources beyond what I could see in online searches, so there may be some background info on his development in an artbook or old interview somewhere. It will be very difficult to dredge up though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Have you guys tried searching pdf files of an artbook from Resident Evil? I remember finding one online when checking Leon's RE6 design. They are all officially published by Udon Entertainment.Tintor2 (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I remember the wiki mentioning some sort of document about the making of RE4 with a big talk about how they redesigned Leon after RE2.Tintor2 (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I managed to find the RE4+ Artbook on Archive.org, though I can't link it because it's probably copyright infringement. Still, it does have a blurb on the Merchant but not really any new info on his creation besides it describing him as "obviously a Ganado". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Update:I added more details on the tweet, den of geek source at the concept and design sec, while the gamer source at reception. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi there Zxcvbnm - I saw your recent AfC comment on the Magic Awakened article and wanted to make a brief comment of my own. The article had 4 submissions to AFC over the past 2 years from different users attempting to make improvements to a potential article. While this may be annoying for the AfC reviewer, this doesn't seem particularly outlandish to me, doesn't indicate users utilizing the process in bad faith.
Most recently, Vestigium Leonis made notable overhauls to the article, increasing the number and quality of sources. While I agree with you and am not sure it's ready for the main space, you accused an editor of bludgeoning because they submitted an AfC after making substantial improvements to the draft. This seems unfair and against what the AfC process is for. Moreover, I'm concerned that this type of language and reaction may dissuade editors from attempting to improve the article further, not to mention attempting to submit to AfC again. Skipple☎13:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Apologies, I had seen the article submitted numerous times and didn't mean to imply it was being done in bad faith. That probably was not the best word choice for the situation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
