Zxcvbnm

Request for Reassessment of Gamezop Draft

Thank you, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, for your earlier feedback. I’ve updated the Gamezop draft, addressing the notability concerns and refining the content to ensure compliance with WP.

The article now focuses on three strong, independent sources that establish Gamezop’s significance. I kindly request you to review the updated draft and share your thoughts. Morekiranwiki (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Re: Michelle Chang

For the sake of transparency I feel a disambig on a subject with only two topics is unnecessary, especially for one linked to as much as that one is, and the fact the page views for the articles are drastically different between the two subjects. A "redirect"/"for" template on the top of the pages works better, no? I wouldn't be opposed if a third subject came up later, but for right now it feels unneeded. Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

First of all, it's quite obvious that there is an objection to it being a redirect, so you are willfully starting an edit war at this point by reverting my changes. That is not following WP:BRD. This discussion should have come before any reversion took place.

Second of all, pageviews are not the only criterion to determine a primary topic. Michelle Chang is not a minor figure, and has won numerous awards for her work. She has outsized real-world significance, while the Tekken character has slim to none. This outweighs a pure pageview comparison. The Tekken character gets typical views from 30-50, which is not so massive that, like Mario, it would completely outweigh any average person with the name of Mario. I think a DAB page is a good compromise, but it might be argued the chemist is actually primary due to her greater relevance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't intending for an edit war; I can't recall if there is a policy, but I do recall there being past discussion that two-page disambigs were considered better to avoid, with 3 being the considered "acceptable" starting point.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Here we go, just a matter of figuring out which of the two is the primary topic.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOPRIMARY says "If there are multiple topics (even just two) to which a given title might refer [...] the base name should lead the reader to the disambiguation page". Given that it is a guideline, hopefully it will put to rest whether two topic DAB pages should be made. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd argue there's room for either to be primary, but looking online there's another Michelle Chang related to Microsoft that could potentially have an article, so I'll concede this instance is fine over the hatnotes. I've just always seen it as something to avoid given past interactions on here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:ONEOTHER, yes disambiguation pages should be avoided if a hatnote could accomplish the same thing.

But that requires a primary topic. When there is no primary one, it simply would not make sense to have one be the main article. I don't believe this is a situation that can be addressed with a hatnote. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Feelie (Brave New World)

On 4 December 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Feelie (Brave New World), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Aldous Huxley developed his "feelies" in response to the emergence of "talkies"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Feelie (Brave New World). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Feelie (Brave New World)), 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.

RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Splitting content of Super Valis IV from Valis IV into its own article

Hey there! How are you doing? Look, i noticed that you were responsible for splitting content of SNES Dracula X into its own article. I want to suggest you splitting content of Super Valis IV that is in Valis IV into its own article, since both the PC Engine and SNES versions are entirely different games, kinda like what happened with Rondo of Blood and SNES Dracula X. I could do it if i knew how to split said content into its own stand-alone article so i figured why not ask for help. Anyways, take care and have a good day! Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@KGRAMR: There isn't enough content for a split here, it basically needs a new article from scratch. I'd suggest simply making a new article if you want it to exist. The reception can technically be split off, but only when there's enough content in the rest of the article to justify doing so. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Body horror video games

Hi, you were the driving force behind keeping Category:Body horror video games a few months ago (see deletion discussion). I recently took on implementing the decided purge and quickly looked at every page in that category (and its subcats), and not a single one mentions the term "body horror" (NB: one says ... the choices made by the player affect the narrative and visual design..., generally along the lines of eldritch or body horror, but the term is not used in the cited sources). This, paired with the fact that afaics, every page in this cat was added to it by the same user (Latiromazzaire, who also created the cat) on the same day (1 June 2024), made me think that the deletion rationale (entirely original research) was mostly accurate, but that's not why I'm writing this message. I'm bringing it up, because while I'm happy to add it to articles if I find a source for it (to avoid removing the category), I'm not sure how I would add the "body horror" aspect to a video game article, even if I found sources supporting body horror as a defining characteristic, and I thought since you're a member of WP:VG (and participated in the deletion discussion), I'd ask you (I hope that's alright).

I'm not that familiar with video game article guidelines, but as far as I understand, body horror is not one of the standard video game genres that WP:VG/GENRE states one should use (and for example, Template:Infobox video game also says that the infobox should not include thematic genres (like science fiction, horror, etc.)). WP:VG/GENRE also states: Simply borrowing parts of a genre does not necessarily make the game of that genre, and instead can be said to be using elements of that genre in the lead and gameplay prose. Let's say that is the case, how would you mention/integrate "body horror" in an article (as I don't know what common phrasings for this sort of thing are in video game articles; e.g., would you just say something to the effect of "The game uses body horror elements." somewhere in those sections)? To provide a more specific hypothetical, how what would you add it to the article Zoochosis (video game) (this is one of the two games for which you gave a source in the deletion discussion; the article is currently in the cat but doesn't cite this specific source or use the term), assuming that you'd consider it a defining characteristic? I'd appreciate your input on this, thanks! Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)