Talk:Nexus Mods

Untitled

Needs more cited sources, instead of relying on the single interview and main NexusMods.com page - working on gaining more now. --Slothaid (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... It is far from being a minor website. The NexusMods website is of major importance to the gaming community online, and is more populated that most other modification websites (many of which are actually featured on Wikipedia e.g. ModDB (in terms of Alexa rank). I feel that the NexusMods website is entirely suitable to be featured on Wikipedia - although, the article itself does require expansion - the topic is far from unimportant. The website is the regarded as the largest online repository for Elder Scrolls game content and also as one of the largest (if not the largest) website providing such content.

As a result of the speedy deletion tag being assigned to the article, I have altered the initial paragraph to indicate the importance of the website to the gaming community, in accordance with the 'importance' criteria linked in the speedy deletion header. As mentioned in the previous talk-page comment I have the full intent of gathering further sources to cite throughout the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slothaid (talk • contribs) 22:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... The significance of the website has been adequately indicated in the lead and in the rest of the article, answering the particular criterion quoted. In particular, a website with 5 million members and 189 million file downloads is significant. The Kotaku source also mentions the significance of the site.

I'll also note that this article was nominated for CSD just 94 minutes after article was created; the article creation was also the editor's first contribution. It would have been preferable to place an importance tag on the page, or better yet, to contact the editor and explain the problem. Please don't bite the newcomers, see the WP:DONTBITE behavioral guideline for details. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable, independent source for the 5 million members? If so, I would be happy to remove the CSD.

Articles can be nominated for CSD any time after they are created if they meet the criteria. Most page patrollers wait 10-15 minutes as a courtesy, consistent with recommended practices. Unfortunately, some new editors completely ignore the conspicuous advice at the top of the article creation edit window. - MrX 01:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The numbers quoted were from the primary source, as the reference shows. However, if you look at criteria for CSD A7,

The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

I think the numbers are a credible claim of significance. I also think the Kotaku secondary source, which states at the start of the article,

If you’re at all involved in PC modding, you probably frequent a Nexus Mods site. From Fallout: New Vegas to Skyrim, many games that allow for user-created mods have a Nexus site dedicated to organising mods and bringing modders together. These sites are… incredible.

is probably a stronger credible claim of significance from an independent source. Given the asserted importance, CSD A7 no longer applies. I agree that you were within your rights to call a CSD, but you and I have different ideas about what is considered courteous behavior. --Mark viking (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You can be bold and remove the CSD. While I don't fully accept the reasoning you offered, I won't oppose the de-nomination. - MrX 02:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Since we see things differently, it is probably best for an impartial admin to evaluate this CSD and take the appropriate action. Good day, --Mark viking (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on NexusMods. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130403101014/http://www.bethblog.com/2007/12/18/mod-interview-tes-nexus-darkone/ to http://www.bethblog.com/2007/12/18/mod-interview-tes-nexus-darkone

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Controversy

While the controversy is ongoing, I did my best to summarize it neutrally. I would be curious to know what the person who deleted it would propose instead. This event has been covered in several major gaming magazines, so I believe it qualifies as notable and it should not be deleted outright. 24.212.220.247 (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

This article from Eurogamer says "modding communities are generally responding pretty positively to the collections feature." This article from PC Gamer is more negative, but it still grudgingly admits "other modders seem more or less okay with the new policy." I agree we should keep this paragraph, but it should be in the "history" section, where the other changes to the website are documented. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)